Monday Open Thread

Time for a new open thread. All topics welcome.

< Jury Finds Former DJ Mueller Assaulted Taylor Swift | New Yorkers Protests as Trump Visits Trump Tower >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    My favorite sign from Charlottesville. (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Aug 14, 2017 at 03:23:56 PM EST
    not me (none / 0) (#23)
    by linea on Mon Aug 14, 2017 at 09:16:13 PM EST
    i dont like anarchists.

    I knew you would not understand the context. (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Aug 14, 2017 at 09:36:25 PM EST
    Let me break it down for you.

    Confederate flag wavers, esp. Sons of Confederate Veterans (my father was a member, my ancestors fought for the Confederacy), like to claim their flag is "heritage, not hate." The person with the sign was doing a take on that. Additionally, she was wearing a shirt that read "Transgender Veteran" "I fought for your right to hate me." That shirt leads me to believe the person is ex-military. Our military has a history, nee heritage, of killing nazis in WWII. Thus the sign is a little bit of twisted humor. You focused on one symbol and missed the whole message


    WTF? That person is literally standing ... (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 06:15:17 AM EST
    ... on the front lines here, risking her life to oppose hate and bigotry. Given what we saw happen in Charlottesville, she showed real courage.

    What exactly are you doing in opposition to racism and fascism in our country? Because as far as I can tell from your posts, you appear far more interested in criticizing the resistance from on high, than in getting your own hands dirty.

    Our present circumstances require warriors, not courtiers.


    it's my perspective (none / 0) (#44)
    by linea on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 09:51:34 AM EST
    i participated in the seattle women's march. i'm not applauding anyone displaying an anarchist symbol (or hammer and sickle) just because they announce they hate nazis. every rational person hates nazis. and i disagree that we need anarchist warriors.

    Some of those west coast "anarchists" (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 11:03:33 AM EST
    are right wing provocateurs.

    Project Veritas punks.

    And where does this "they're coming from europe" narrative come from, Linea?

    Do you have any sort of link to back that claim up?


    Anarchists bad (none / 0) (#128)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 05:42:12 PM EST
    The enemy of my enemy (3.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 11:04:37 AM EST
    is my friend.

    That's okay (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 09:17:02 AM EST
    I hate Nazis.

    ... and false equivalencies.


    For (none / 0) (#40)
    by FlJoe on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 09:36:00 AM EST
    75 years it was fashionable, courageous and patriotic to spit on Nazis....why stop now?

    Certainly, not challenging (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 12:30:27 PM EST
    your right to your opinion, but please permit me, to explain mine.  I believe the T-shirt proclaiming the counter-protestor's "legacy" is the antithesis of anarchy. It respects the official and accepted views   of our society (save, possibly, for Trump) and is an ordered response to claims of legacy rights ascribed to the Confederate flag and support for the ideas of Nazism.  The parody of the T-shirt statement is an artistic work that imitates and bends for political effect.

    For clarification, (none / 0) (#71)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 12:36:53 PM EST
    reference is to the sign held by the person wearing the T-Shirt.  As for the T-shirt, itself, I associate myself, fully, with ChuckO's comment.

    did we all catch this? SPOILERS AHEAD (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 14, 2017 at 03:25:40 PM EST
    if you have not seen sundays episode do not read this

    `Game of Thrones' Drops Huge Jon Snow Bombshell

    "Annulment." Of all the most laughably mundane words in the world, did anyone anticipate "annulment" as the most radical revelation Game of Thrones has dropped yet? What Gilly reads aloud from the diary of High Septon Maynard, the man who apparently annulled the marriage of Elia Martell and Rhaegar Targaryen ("Raggar," as Gilly pronounces it), officially crowns Jon the rightful heir to the Iron Throne--not Daenerys.

    Daenerys' entire identity is built on the notion that she is unique, the last of her kind, guided by destiny to restore the Targaryens' rightful rule over the Seven Kingdoms. She's out here barbecuing entire lineages out of existence, righteously convinced she's the last living relative of King Aerys II. How she'll react to news that the cute brunette she's crushing on is both her nephew and her rightful king according to the laws of succession will be a crucial turning point for both characters.
    On paper, the news seemingly pits Jon and Dany (and Cersei) against each other. In reality though, there's no telling what the Targaryens will do. The revelation could shatter their already uneasy truce. Or it could mean Jon, whose lineage already seemingly allows him to get along great with dragons, could be the next character we see ride one of the "gorgeous beasts." Jon is only the second character in seven seasons to touch a dragon and live--Tyrion, another fan-favorite candidate for the Secret Targaryen Club, made contact while unchaining Viserion and Rhaegal last season--a fact that clearly impresses Dany and scores him a few points with her. (She hasn't looked at anyone that way since Khal Drogo! "I've grown used to him" is basically regal Dany-speak for "marry me," right?) So maybe the bigger question here is whether any of this will happen before or after those two inevitably make out.

    jondee (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 14, 2017 at 04:03:11 PM EST
    from the last open

    Maybe I'm overthinking it.

    my impression was showing it to Cersi, while possibly important, is not the real point.  my impression was the point was to show it to everyone.  sort of like a road show.  and there are others in Kings Landing.  Jaime mostly.  she shared her "little secret".  that will go unnamed in the interest oof spoilers.  i suspect that was a lie to better manipulate Jaime with his dream of being a "real father".  followed by a sinister threat.  


    hard to disbelieve the walling dead when you are looking at a vicious snarling zombie with glowing blue eyes and exposed ribs.


    Good points (none / 0) (#11)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 14, 2017 at 04:19:16 PM EST
    did I imagine it, or did she when talking to Jaime at one point gesture 'down south' and say something to effect of "if you want to keep getting this.."

    What a brother and sister team those two are.


    not exactly (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 14, 2017 at 04:32:22 PM EST
    i was trying to avoid spoilers but what the h3ll.

    she said/inferred she was pregnant.  "for this" we need to temporarily sue for peace.

    i said above i thought that was a manipulative lie.  based on the prophecy of her having THREE children.  three golden crowns three golden shrouds. OTOH it could be true if she never HAS it.  which in the developing time line seems possible.


    btw (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 14, 2017 at 05:00:38 PM EST
    based on spoilers im reading, next week, episode 6, while not the usual penultimate episode - its second from the last of the season - will very possibly be one of the best of the series.

    just sayin.  be there or be square.


    Strange bedfellows (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 09:13:27 AM EST
    Hardly  overs the fact I am totally rooting for Mo Brooks in the AL Senate primary today.

    53% reporting (none / 0) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 09:01:33 PM EST
    Roy S Moore (Republican)      39.4%    80,167
    Luther Strange (Republican)      32.7%    66,602

    Looks like a run off (none / 0) (#167)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 09:02:00 PM EST
    Brooks is 18% (none / 0) (#168)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 09:02:59 PM EST
    Not to change the subject, but (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 12:56:19 PM EST
    Trump has been working hard this morning on the great Twitter machine:

    President Trump spent his first morning at home in Trump Tower since his inauguration retweeting a distasteful meme and, in an apparent accident, a random user calling him a fascist.

    While Trump eventually deleted both tweets, the first -- an image of a "Trump" train hitting a man with a CNN logo for a head -- drew criticism for coming shortly after a pro-Trump white nationalist drove his car into a crowd of counter-protesters in Charlottesville and killed one woman.


    On Monday night, Trump also retweeted alt-right personality and Pizzagate conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec.

    I guess we don't have to worry about Trump making the wrong decision when the phone rings at 3:00 am - he'll be too busy tweeting...

    I just can't even...it's too much.  

    The blind orange squirrel... (none / 0) (#86)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 01:59:18 PM EST
    did tweet one nice nut though...

    Now that Ken Frazier of Merck Pharma has resigned from President's Manufacturing Council,he will have more time to LOWER RIPOFF DRUG PRICES!

    Yes Mr. Frazier, now that you've wisely severed working ties with the great white hope to neo-nazis everywhere, you can figure out how to lower your prices that financially and emotionally cripple the sick and the old.  


    It so frustrating to read (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 02:05:06 PM EST
    some of your comments....

    No, there is nothing redeeming about Trump.....

    Why focus on the shiny object the cheeto throws to you?


    Surely, you know (none / 0) (#95)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 02:07:13 PM EST
    that cheeto will do nothing about drug prices....He tosses out something to distract...and you fell for it.

    Lighten Up Brother... (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 02:17:37 PM EST
    of course I know Donald Trump gives no sh&ts about the sick and the old being crippled by drug prices.

    Anne brought up the twit's tweets, and I mentioned that he did stumble upon a truth in his binge of lies and innuendo...that Merck is ripping off the sick.  

    Surely a man of conscience and principle like Mr. Frazier can see that, while earning 17 million a year in compensation.  

    The Trump hate need not be so blinding and all encompassing...as deserved as it is.


    It is about perspective (none / 0) (#175)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 10:01:54 PM EST
    Now is not the time to talk about prescription drugs.....Forest and trees.....Deck chairs also.

    We've seen (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 02:09:46 PM EST
    more horseshoe politics in the last year than we're likely to see in the rest of our lifetimes.

    Trump is doubling down, (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 03:54:30 PM EST
    He has returned to "both sides"  Many people were protesting the loss of their beloved Robert E. Lee statue, and were not Nazis and White Supremacists. Just fine volks.  And, he blamed the counter-protestors, although, in even keel, we said there were some fine people there as well,  and did not approve of the car smashing into the crowd of counter-protestors, he does not know what it is, murder, terrorism.  Maybe, just a flare up of "economic anxiety."

    oh my god (5.00 / 5) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 04:01:57 PM EST
    if you thought this weekend was Trumps worst day


    man, you just gotta watch that "news conference/nazi rant"

    holy hell

    this is going to have, as they say, repercussions.


    I was in the car listening to it on (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 04:24:44 PM EST
    the radio, and I was just dumbfounded; I pretty much drove on autopilot.  I need to see what Gen. Kelly looked like - he has to know this is really, really bad.

    Photo of Kelly at Trump presser (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by caseyOR on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 05:37:43 PM EST
    Here it is http://www.businessinsider.com/photo-of-john-kelly-during-trumps-wild-press-conference-says-it-all-2 017-8

    Scroll down to see all the pics of Kelly as Trump was talking.  This is not the posture of a man happy with how his day is going.


    Kelly looks ashamed (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 10:04:45 PM EST
    as he should.  

    The military has on the whole been really good about rooting out racism and respecting diversity.

    Kelly is now enabling this series of horrors.  He is now complicit.


    IMO (none / 0) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 05:41:08 PM EST
    he could resign over this

    here ya go (none / 0) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 05:26:06 PM EST
    So pleased that he was (once again) (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 04:53:16 PM EST
    unable to restrain himself and keep to any script written for him by any halfway sane adviser. I hate to see him getting unwarranted credit, even briefly, for being "presidential." This, on the other hand, will further undermine his power and legitimacy with his dwindling Congressional allies.

    And Trump (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 04:04:33 PM EST
    has decided that he is president of the Confederacy paraphrased from GOP strategist Rick Wilson. l

    There's an Alt-left? (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by desertswine on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 04:26:07 PM EST
    The anarchists (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 04:44:22 PM EST
    and the pro Russian left.

    I thought if was... (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 05:48:37 PM EST
    Any left-leaning American of voting age who has not been disenfranchise who didn't vote for Clinton.

    I'm kidding Ga, I love ya;)


    who knew? (none / 0) (#162)
    by linea on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 08:32:17 PM EST
    There's an Alt-left? (#116)
    by desertswine

    i've never heard of it.

    i'm reading the 'alt-left' rejects 'SJWs' and supports 'gun rights.'

    apparently, it's a 6chan thing:

    A good example of the alt-right is /leftypol/

    I'm glad (none / 0) (#164)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 08:56:44 PM EST
    that you are here to explain 4Chan for us. I completely do not understand all that but then I am old.

    i'm sorry (none / 0) (#169)
    by linea on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 09:12:25 PM EST
    leftypol on 8chan.

    i can't tell if you are mocking me. there doesn't seem to be any valid definition of 'alt-left' and that's a description i found in several places... on the internet (so it must be true).


    No, i am not (none / 0) (#174)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 10:01:20 PM EST
    mocking you. Seriously I put /snark on posts where I am being snarky.

    Yes, you understand 4chan and I don't.


    thank you (none / 0) (#178)
    by linea on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 10:25:18 PM EST
    i just can't tell sometimes.

    The Washington Post tries (none / 0) (#180)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 10:34:45 PM EST
    nope (none / 0) (#182)
    by linea on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 10:44:37 PM EST
    i'm blocked. it's a pay-subscription site.

    I forgot that. I paid for a subscription (none / 0) (#186)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 11:21:29 PM EST
    to reward and thank them for their coverage of the election. Real journalism is not and cannot be free of charge.

    The WaPo wants money... (none / 0) (#183)
    by desertswine on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 10:45:08 PM EST
    before you can read their articles.  Ich habe kein gelt.

    It (none / 0) (#113)
    by FlJoe on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 04:06:48 PM EST
    is amazing how he is mentally incapable of ever backing down, he had the fire mostly tamped down...but no.

    on a completely unrelated subject (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 04:23:19 PM EST
    there are several alt right demonstrations and counter demonstrations scheduled for this weekend.

    just watching the mayor of Boston saying they MAY issue a permit with heavy restrictions.  like no signs, no loudspeakers and NO guns.


    No signs? No loudspeakers? (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 04:54:39 PM EST
    No way.  No guns, sure. No sticks, okay. No battle gear, I suppose. But no signs? No, no.

    Your vigilant comments... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 05:45:53 PM EST
    in defense of fundamental civil rights in light of recent events is truly admirable, Peter.

    Even cool heads seem to struggle with this...nazi garbage, if they have the ability to peacefully assemble, must be tolerated. It sucks till you think about it and remember it doesn't...being denied the right to carry a sign on the street is what sucks.


    My impression was (none / 0) (#133)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 06:26:56 PM EST
    They do not have to issue a permitting at all.  And might not.  That would be my call.

    City Hall does (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 07:15:57 PM EST
    whatever it wants, then its up to the Courts.

    I'd issue the permit, let these cretins show their faces instead of mouthing off their hate via keyboards. Anything less would be uncivilized, and kinda fascist.


    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 07:22:27 PM EST
    These people bring militia gear. They aren't people just marching with Nazi flags. They come decked out for full on war OVER STUPID MONUMENTS OF TRAITORS. I don't know exactly what kind of monument they are going to go after in Boston. I don't think there's a confederate one to defend.

    I hear ya... (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 07:34:07 PM EST
    It's creepy as f#ck...but if it's just clothes and helmets from the Alex Jones Company Store, whaddya gonna do?

    I know y'all got some crazy laws down south about weapons and such, you can't even carry a switchblade in NYC. Weapons are not tolerated and I'm down with that.

    Nothing you can do about a terrorist with a car besides restrict traffic.


    I find it highly (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 07:37:56 PM EST
    ironic after Muslim terrorists have driven vehicles into rallies in France that white supremacists have adopted their tactics. Of course they both are terrorists. So...

    Irony overload... (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 07:43:40 PM EST
    Even our "team" tearing down statues...I mean i get the sentiment and all, I can think of lots of monuments I'd like to desecrate, but there is a book-burning vibe about it that can't be denied.

    Better angels, hard to find...


    On this we agree (none / 0) (#153)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 07:50:19 PM EST
    It was some ugly video.

    Particularly the dweebs kicking and stomping the statue.  I mean really.


    Yeah, I agree (none / 0) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 08:24:14 PM EST
    I think they should be taken down and put in a museum. Some of them were probably done by famous sculptors. They could have an artistic value. I don't know. I just do know that they don't belong on the public square. We should treat them like the Germans treat the Nazi memorials like a shameful part of our past that we should remember so as to never repeat it.

    BS (3.00 / 1) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 07:19:05 PM EST
    no permit means they can't do it Boston.  No one is stopping them from rioting in the Berkshires or the mountains of Vermont.

    The citizens of Boston have "rights" too.


    Good for him (none / 0) (#141)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 07:24:11 PM EST

    Speaking Monday at a press conference following a weekend of racially charged violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh told members of the alt-right planning an upcoming free speech rally in his city that they were categorically unwelcome.

    "Boston does not want you here," Mayor Walsh said, addressing those organizing and planning on attending the Free Speech Rally on Aug. 19. "We're going to do everything we can to make sure that this demonstration does not happen here."

    Though Walsh did not clarify at his press conference what those actions might entail, the Boston Herald previously reported that the mayor was exploring "legal and tactical options" to prevent the rally following the violence in Charlottesville.

    Oh, look! (none / 0) (#143)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 07:30:25 PM EST
    The founder of an alt-right group who was set to headline Saturday's Boston Free Speech Rally said he no longer plans to attend and accused Boston Mayor Marty Walsh of wanting riots to happen so he can "take more power."

    Gavin McInnes, the founder of Proud Boys, an alt-right men's organization that advocates "Western values," said the past weekend's events in Charlottesville, Va., have changed the context of the rally and he believes Boston's Democratic mayor is using it to his political advantage.

    Wow having a spine actually works! Who knew!


    Mob rule! ;) (4.00 / 1) (#145)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 07:37:21 PM EST
    Proud Boys....are they kidding with that name? Sounds like a club where you might have partied all night long in the 80's.

    I see that as deeply insulting (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 07:40:01 PM EST
    To partying in the 80s

    You're a pisser... (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 07:46:16 PM EST
    Wish I could make it to the eclipse party Man...

    So do I (none / 0) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 07:48:49 PM EST
    You do not need a permit at all, in America (none / 0) (#155)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 08:04:10 PM EST
    to exercise your First Amendment rights. You only need a permit to claim "dibs" on a particular location at a particular time, where people who oppose your message (or have any other message, for that matter) can be held back (but not suppressed) and kept from stopping you from speaking/marching. A permit can also give you permission to march in the street, which might otherwise be barred by police as obstructing traffic. But even then, in many cities (Philadelphia among them), the police will in fact divert traffic and give a route over to a march that had no advance permit.

    I hadn't heard the term "dibs"... (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by desertswine on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 10:38:39 PM EST
    in quite a while.  Thanks for the smile.

    Well (none / 0) (#156)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 08:09:01 PM EST
    The mayor seems to think they might be able to stop it.  There is reporting on it.

    I hope he does.


    Boston Globe (none / 0) (#157)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 08:13:32 PM EST
    Three speakers backed out of a far-right rally planned for this weekend on Boston Common, casting doubt on the event amid strong opposition from city and state officials fearful about a repeat of the bloodshed in Charlottesville, Va.

    In a show of resolve, Mayor Martin J. Walsh joined Governor Charlie Baker, other elected officials, and civil rights leaders on City Hall Plaza Monday afternoon to denounce the hate and white nationalism that authorities said fueled the violence in Charlottesville, where a woman died Saturday after an Ohio man allegedly drove his car into the crowd.

    Like I said.  Good for them.  


    how about no cars? (none / 0) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 05:01:55 PM EST
    given recent history is that allowable?

    no problem. (none / 0) (#125)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 05:34:45 PM EST
    Cars are not a basic means of expression of their message (in this context).

    A grateful Boston (none / 0) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 05:43:28 PM EST
    Breaths a sigh of relief

    I would add: (none / 0) (#118)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 04:47:48 PM EST
    no vehicles in protest zone.  Pedestrians only.

    Fine people..... (none / 0) (#121)
    by vicndabx on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 04:57:40 PM EST
    man F8ck him.

    To be clear he wasn't just talking about Saturday, he was talking about the march on Friday night also.

    F8ck him!


    FYI (none / 0) (#123)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 05:12:11 PM EST
    Ari Melber is about to show the whole thing.  because, they rightly IMO say, it needs to be seen.

    Trump's remarks were riddled with (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 07:19:02 PM EST
    inconsistencies, so much so that it had my head spinning a little.

    Without the transcript, and just paraphrasing from memory, I recall that he said he likes to make sure when he makes statements, that the statement is correct, and that's why he couldn't immediately respond on Saturday.  This is the same person who tweets at the drop of a hat, and has never shown any concern that he's tweeting before he has all the facts.  Who, frankly, lies about everything.

    He says we didn't know what was happening, but also said he was watching the coverage.

    He re-reads his Saturday statement, but conveniently leaves out his "from many sides" part.  He seemed to want to characterize the alt-right protesters as good people, not violent.  almost seemed to be edging into saying it wasn't the group with the permit that was the problem.  Were there really "alt-left" people with clubs?  Were they really "very, very violent?"  Or were they perhaps defending themselves.

    And where, pray tell, was the group that was quietly protesting the taking down of the statue - I must have missed that.

    No one said his statement on Saturday was "beautiful."

    Has anyone checked to see if Heather Heyer's mother really did thank him for his remarks?

    Steve Bannon is not a racist.  Okay, then.

    The nasty comments about McCain - really?  Was that necessary?

    The man who waged a campaign to delegitimize the first black president, thinks he's making progress on race relations.

    I'm sick.

    The mother (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 07:42:49 PM EST
    Actually did thank him for the hostage video statement.

    I suspect she will revise and extend those remarks.


    You probably never actually want to read (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 09:15:45 PM EST
    a transcript of what Trump says when he is freewheeling it. If it makes your head spin listening to it, reading it will make you wonder what language he's speaking.

    this is important (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by linea on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 11:45:27 PM EST
    California Sues Justice Dept. Over Funding for Sanctuary Cities
    By VIVIAN YEE. AUG 14, 2017

    Intensifying California's standoff with the Trump administration over immigration policy, the California attorney general sued the Justice Department on Monday over the administration's plans to cut off millions of dollars in federal funding to so-called sanctuary cities unless they begin cooperating with federal immigration agents. ...

    "It's a low blow to our men and women who wear the badge for the federal government to threaten their crime-fighting resources in order to force them to do the work of the federal government," Mr. Becerra said at a news conference. "We're in the best position to determine how best to enforce the law and keep our people safe."

    one question being asked a lot (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 08:05:13 AM EST
    is why?  why is Trump doing this?  politically it seems almost suicidal.  even if this is what he really thinks ( clearly it is ) what ends does he serve by whipping up these crazy nazis and white identity terrorists.

    one possible reason i see could keep you up nights.

    IMO he knows he is headed for impeachment and removal from office and probably serious legal problems after that.
    he knows better than any of us what is out there to find.  he sees who Mueller has brought on board to find it.  he has been told in  no uncertain terms by republicans that if he tries to stop it, it will only get worse.

    so.  what to do?

    if you are Donald Trump,  if you are a twisted narcissist who has no loyalty to anyone or anything but himself, if your primary character trait is petty revenge and "hitting back twice as hard" what you do is try to take revenge on the country.  

    i believe what he is doing is creating a rag tag army who he fully expects, justly so IMO, to hit the streets with bombs and guns if he is removed.  a group of his last die hard supporters who hate as much as he does.  he is threatening the country.  you what me?  what you will get is blood in the streets.  

    IMO thats why.  

    if you find this far fetched (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 08:08:28 AM EST
    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 08:22:24 AM EST
    it's about the only thing that makes sense. Even if he had lost in November I fully expected him to have a rag tag army following him around and have him screaming about Hillary every day of his life.

    Anne, don't listen to (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 17, 2017 at 11:20:20 PM EST
    the criticism by one poster here of you. It is not shared by me and I am very glad you are commenting here again. I don't know what you may have written elsewhere, but you have nothing to apologize for here. I would have put this under the critical comment of you but we're over limit so threading doesn't work.

    Revile (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 11:14:11 AM EST
    the verb

    verb: revile; 3rd person present: reviles; past tense: reviled; past participle: reviled; gerund or present participle: reviling

    criticize in an abusive or angrily insulting manner.
    "he was now reviled by the party that he had helped to lead"

    I meant it as a noun, "national revile" as in every comes together to angrily denounce Donald Trump"

    so you thought August was bad? (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 14, 2017 at 03:11:08 PM EST
    Trump aides predicting 'brutal' September

    Senior officials have described the coming month as "brutal," "bad" or "really tough" because of the confluence of complicated issues -----the nation's debt ceiling, the 2018 federal budget, tax reform, infrastructure spending and perhaps another stab at repealing Obamacare

    so after doing nothing for six months its all going to happen in Sept?  mmmmmk.

    the debt ceiling is like the iceberg in the path of the Titannic.

    Trump's D.C. September, (none / 0) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Mon Aug 14, 2017 at 04:03:17 PM EST
    preceded by his Charlottsville in August will tempt him to distract Americans so as to re-focus us on his lesser messes: Russia/Trump collusion/obstruction of justice/financial dealings scandals.  

    Gee I hope (none / 0) (#62)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 12:00:49 PM EST
    there are indictments by then.

    Translation (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 14, 2017 at 07:30:33 PM EST
    we only have September left to get these things done.

    Another stab at Obamacare (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 14, 2017 at 08:37:28 PM EST
    Very apropros with this administration. There's back stabbing and front stabbing, lots of stabbing.

    I was just reading some of the bots attacking McMaster, and there is at least one website dedicated to smearing McMaster now. I can't say that I'm delighted with McMaster's interview on Sunday. But my head didn't splode either. God knows their keeping this White House afloat with twine, duct tape, dirt, and spit. How can Bannon not be behind that though? This will probably be what causes something to be done about the paid bots.


    The release (none / 0) (#27)
    by Nemi on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 05:31:03 AM EST
    of Hillary Clinton's book, "What Happened"?

    This the First I've Heard of It (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by RickyJim on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 10:36:03 AM EST
    I hope she will admit that she needed more of a message than "I am the anti-Trump".  The Dems need to recognize that their winning message is that something has to be done about .1% of the people (like Hillary and Bill as well as Donald) owning 1/2 the wealth of the country.  By fixing that, we can have as a bonus, Universal Health Care, Free College Tuition and other fine things.

    If you want (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 10:47:07 AM EST
    those you have to be honest about the cost and the consequences.

    And her message was more than that but unfortunately when you are dealing with a press that only plays lowest common denominator politics that is what most people hear.


    RickyJim: "The Dems need to recognize that their winning message is that something has to be done about .1% of the people (like Hillary and Bill as well as Donald) owning 1/2 the wealth of the country."

    Per G. William Domhoff, Ph.D, of the University of California at Santa Cruz, who's been tracking these sorts of statistics for years:

    "In terms of types of financial wealth, in 2013 the top one percent of households had 49.8% of all privately held stock, 54.7% of financial securities, and 62.8% of business equity. The top ten percent had 84% to 94% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and almost 80% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America[.] ... The only category which is not skewed severely toward the upper class is debt."

    As of 2013, the wealthiest 1% of Americans accounted for 43% of the country's financial worth. If we expand that to the wealthiest 5%, that share rises to 73%. The least wealthiest 80% of Americans held a paltry 5% of the financial worth of the United States.

    Those should be sobering enough statistics for us to consider when pondering the inequality of wealth in this country. There's really no need to exaggerate them.



    She needs (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 07:44:16 AM EST
    to rewrite that book in light of recent events. Honestly she should wait until Mueller is done to write and release that book.

    Maybe she could call it, (4.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 08:25:28 AM EST
    "You Can't Say I Didn't Warn You"


    "And Then This Happened"


    "How Gloating Helped Me Heal"

    I agree with you about the book; to me, it seems like a distraction akin to a kid tugging on your sleeve wanting to talk while you're engrossed in a movie - we're too busy watching this train wreck of a presidency to stop and read a book that likely isn't going to offer us anything we didn't already know.

    I suppose my thoughts about Clinton and her book are: work it out with a therapist, write your feelings in a journal, don't try to make us go through it all over again, and if you're not going to admit how you and the DNC engaged in your own kind of collusion to deny the people a full and fair primary, whatever brutal honesty you think you're bringing to this, it's not brutal or honest enough.

    When Hillary Clinton ran for president, she said she wanted to help people who had been marginalized and left behind; she doesn't have to be president to do that, and I would be far more impressed if she were to can this navel-gazing, vanity book project and actually go about doing what she said she really cared about.


    The collusion (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 08:44:40 AM EST
    thing was a Putin narrative so please don't go there. You're not helping yourself with that kind of thing.

    No, that's not what I was saying, and (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 09:40:06 AM EST
    apologies if it read that way.

    I wasn't in any way accusing them of collusion with Russia, but of the DNC treating Clinton like she was the default nominee and DWS working the system to make sure that was the outcome.


    That was what (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 09:55:32 AM EST
    Putin put out through wikileaks. Look Bernie couldn't get enough votes. He lost by close to 4 million votes in the primary. He whined that not enough primaries were open but yet the primary here in GA was open and he lost by 50 points. If you think Hillary was a terrible candidate then you have to accept that Bernie was an even worse candidate.

    Now let's move on past the primaries.


    To the extent this was (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 12:11:05 PM EST
    the case, the same was done vis-a-vis Obama. Hillary would have won the Dem nomination any way.

    And yet, millions of others ... (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 09:32:00 AM EST
    ... want to hear what she has to say and will be buying the book.  But I also hope she addresses the conspiracy theories that are still being promoted by the Bitter Berners.

    Bernie (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 09:34:07 AM EST
    was the first one to lay down prostrate in front of Trump after the election. IMO that should have been enough to make people move on from him.

    Funny how people can see things to (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 09:49:56 AM EST
    differently.  I saw Sanders immediately go to work to hold Trump to the many promises he made during the campaign about leaving SS, Medicare and Medicaid alone - and he continues to this day to remind the electorate of those promises - perhaps in the hope that the Trump voters would also put that pressure on (for reasons I simply cannot understand, it seems Trump could push to eliminate these programs altogether, and there would be a fair number of Trump voters who would be convinced this was all about MAGA).

    But, I don't know...maybe he should have just retreated to the woods to lick his wounds and give up being a force for resistance to the GOP/Trump agenda.


    Well (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 09:59:30 AM EST
    the day after the election he said he was willing to work with Trump on a $10.00 minimum wage which previously he said wasn't good enough. He also immediately started pushing the right wing narrative of "identity politics" as if the concerns of anyone outside of the WWC are not relevant. He spent more time criticizing Democrats and demanding that they listen to him than Trump. I just find him to be sad.

    and he voted against (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 12:03:55 PM EST
    Russia sanctions.  

    It was not just a bill sanctioning Russia, (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 12:33:40 PM EST
    it was also sanctioning Iran - it gave cover to both parties - Dems could say they were voting to punish Russia and tie Trump's hands, and GOP could say that they were voting on the Iran component because they didn't like Obama's deal with Iran.  

    Here is the statement Sanders issued at the time (my emphasis):

    "I am strongly supportive of the sanctions on Russia included in this bill. It is unacceptable for Russia to interfere in our elections here in the United States, or anywhere around the world. There must be consequences for such actions. I also have deep concerns about the policies and activities of the Iranian government, especially their support for the brutal Assad regime in Syria. I have voted for sanctions on Iran in the past, and I believe sanctions were an important tool for bringing Iran to the negotiating table. But I believe that these new sanctions could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its partners and Iran in 2015. That is not a risk worth taking, particularly at a time of heightened tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia and its allies. I think the United States must play a more even-handed role in the Middle East, and find ways to address not only Iran's activities, but also Saudi Arabia's decades-long support for radical extremism."

    As if (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Nemi on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 01:03:49 PM EST
    she has just "retreated to the woods to lick her wounds and give up being a force for resistance to the GOP/Trump agenda." (smh)

    The groups backed by Onward Together include Swing Left, which offers its support to Democratic candidates in swing states with the goal of taking back the House in 2018; Emerge America, which works to inspire and train Democratic women to run for office; Color of Change, an organization that fights criminal justice reform, voter freedom, and other critical issues of racial justice; Indivisible, an organization led by former Congressional staffers who work to help ordinary people reach members of Congress; and Run for Something, which two former campaigners started on Inauguration Day to recruit and support young people running for office.

    But then we also have the (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Zorba on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 01:35:54 PM EST
    DCCC's chair Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) saying that the DCCC will continue to fund "pro-life" (or as I prefer to say, anti-women's reproductive rights) Democrats.
    He has said that they don't want a litmus test for Democratic candidates.
    Well, I have a litmus test for Democratic candidates.  If you are not supportive of women's reproductive rights, including the right to abortion, then I will not support you.  No money, no vote.

    My question about (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 01:50:49 PM EST
    that is what exactly do they mean? Do they mean Joe Biden types that say while I'm against it I don't think the government should make that decision or the Republican type of pro life?

    First, someone needs to tell me what the (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 02:06:44 PM EST
    chances are that Republicans or conservative Democrats are going to vote for an anti-choice Democrat (sorry, but I can't bring myself to use "pro-life" because it sets up the false idea that the opposite is "anti-life," and that's just not correct) who takes the position that the government should not be controlling women's reproductive choices.

    Does anyone really think that position satisfies the anti-choice crowd?  I don't.  

    I also don't see the point of running fiscally conservative Dems who think the social safety net needs tinkering with.

    Oh, sure, maybe Dems could end up with more seats, but what the heck good is it if these Dems are going to vote against women's rights, against expanding or improving the social safety net?

    What's the point of that?  


    Did you read (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Zorba on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 02:06:53 PM EST
    The article?
    Because it seems pretty clear to me that they seem to be willing to support candidates who have waffled on this and not totally supported abortion rights.
    And that includes both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

    "Throwing weight behind anti-choice candidates is bad politics that will lead to worse policy," Mitchell Stille, who oversees campaigns for NARAL Pro-Choice America, told The Hill. "The idea that jettisoning this issue wins elections for Democrats is folly contradicted by all available data."

    I agree with NARAL.


    But then, who thought so many women (none / 0) (#102)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 02:22:21 PM EST
    would vote Republican? I sure as hell didn't.

    like omg (none / 0) (#158)
    by linea on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 08:15:54 PM EST
    Well, I have a litmus test for Democratic candidates.  If you are not supportive of women's reproductive rights, including the right to abortion, then I will not support you.  No money, no vote.

    maybe we make the Democratic Party Platform the litmus test? i mean really. it's ridiculous for the dem-party insiders to tell the 'bitter bernistas' to get lost and then court the anti-choice vote.


    Or how about (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 10:30:22 PM EST
    ... being an actual Democrat?  

    What "dem-party insider" are you claiming is telling the "bitter Bernistas to get lost"?  Personally, I think they're welcome to stay, unless they want to keep pushing lies and conspiracy theories about actual Democrats.  If so, don't let the door hit ya!


    "Just retreat to the woods ..." (none / 0) (#58)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 11:24:15 AM EST
    "... to lick his wounds" - heh.

    You have to be s target before you have "wounds" to lick.  He was on the national stage for about 10 minutes.  As an independent Rep./Sen. from the most liberal state, he's mostly been ignored while the right focused their venom and conspiracy theories on national (and actual) Democrats.  Although now he's getting a tiny taste of the battle.


    I'm not sure she has a whole lot of (3.50 / 2) (#47)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 10:20:06 AM EST
    credibility on that subject, Yman.

    What strikes me is that there's a lot of work to be done pushing back against Trump and the GOP agenda, and Clinton chose to write an epitaph instead of getting back to working for the changes she said she wanted to bring about.

    Sitting on the sidelines writing a book for which she is being paid an ungodly amount of money just seems a little like fiddling while Rome burns.


    You just cannot stop hating her (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 11:04:23 AM EST
    For no good reason

    This is my problem with the alt left. Mention Clinton and they 5 times the vitriol for her than Trump.


    Yeah I remember this.. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 11:20:20 AM EST
    Any criticism is pure unadulterated "hate". Hatred I tell you.

    Tracy you're being about as rational as when you said Maradona was overrated because he did one thing once that pissed you off.

    Somehow I suspect that Anne harbors a tad more indignation toward Trump and his cohorts than she does toward HRC. But that's just me.


    Whatever (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 01:24:37 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 12:08:47 PM EST
    is the last person who should be accused of sitting on the sidelines and not getting to work. Anyone bother to look at her life's resume? In addition, I don't blame her if she felt personally despondent after the so-called election and wrote the book in part as a way to work through things. And, could you see it now --if Hillary were to get behind any move by Dems, Drumpf would take to twitter to make her the story as yet another form of distraction. I think her staying out of the public eye for the most part is smart strategy.

    I noticed that MSNBC and CNN ran stories w/video yesterday of her warnings about Drumpf's real views on race. About time someone gave her credit.


    I'm sure she does (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 11:11:52 AM EST
    ... and I'm positive the Bitter Berners have none.

    Unlike Bernie, she is now a private citizen.  Unlike Bernie, she's been a primary target of the right-wing (and some of the left-wing) for 25+ years, which would make her criticisms of Trump less effective (and arguably counterproductive) immediately after a heated election.  Unlike Bernie, she's been an active Democrat for 50 years, rather than just a year or two for convenience.  

    But yeah, ... some of those Berners demand that she, as a private citizen holding no office, return to the front lines immediately.  Of course, if she did, they'd say they don't want to hear from her (like her book) and she should just get off the stage and make room for someone they prefer.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't, so I say ... Screw 'em.

    BTW - Just curious, how much is an "ungodly sum"?  Is that more or less than the $795,000 advance Bernie got for his book?  Is he donating the profits to charity, as she did with "It takes a Village"?  


    pretty much, they already have (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by mm on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 11:59:30 AM EST
    Of course, if she did, they'd say they don't want to hear from her (like her book) and she should just get off the stage and make room for someone they prefer.

    Pretty much every time she opens her mouth she's told to shut up and go away.

    You've seen the headlines, begging Joe Biden to just give it up and get out of our faces already. "Dems want Joe Biden to leave spotlight," says The Hill. "Dear Joe Biden, please stop talking about 2016," says a USA Today columnist. "Joe Biden is back. Should Democrats be worried?" asks The New Republic. "Can Joe Biden please go quietly into the night?" asks a column in Vanity Fair. A Daily News columnist begins his missive with, "Hey, Joe Biden, shut the f―- up and go away already." Folks sure do hate that guy. And all he did was give a couple of commencement speeches and an interview or two.

    Okay, you've probably guessed: Joe Biden wasn't the subject of all those headlines. In fact, when the former vice president has made noises suggesting he still yearns to sit in the Oval Office, reporters treat it as at worst the understandable desires of a beloved uncle who may have lost a step or two, and at best a tantalizing possibility--despite the fact that Biden ran for president twice, and could barely have performed worse if he had punched out the mayors of Des Moines and Dixville Notch on national television.

    No, the target of all that anger and contempt is Hillary Clinton, who has dared to be seen in public on a few occasions since last November, violating some unwritten rule that says that unsuccessful presidential candidates must never be heard from again.

    Or to be more precise, it was a rule that didn't exist until Hillary Clinton came along.

    The problem isn't just that Clinton has the temerity to show her face, it's also what she says. One writer after another has been incensed that when Clinton is asked about why the 2016 election came out the way it did, she fails to perform a ritual of self-abasement with sufficient enthusiasm so we can all stand back and enjoy her humiliation. What she does say is that the ultimate responsibility lies with her and she made plenty of mistakes, but she also notes that had James Comey not rushed to publicly declare 11 days before the election that he was examining some emails that might be related to her -- leading to a collective orgasm on the part of the mainstream media -- she would probably be president. That happens to be true, but she's not allowed to say it. Nothing short of her crying out, "Yes, I'm the worst! I deserve every ounce of your hatred!" will do.

    Is there a person alive who didn't know (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 12:42:27 PM EST
    that when Comey announced there were more e-mails he felt he had to examine that he had killed the momentum she had up to that point?  

    No one - not even Comey himself - could convince me he "had" to do that.  I heard his explanation, but I wasn't buying it.


    it's their (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 12:12:09 PM EST
    own guilty conscience that is showing when they attack Hillary. They can't stand for her to say anything because it reminds them of their part in the rise of Trump.

    I see some things never change... (4.75 / 4) (#60)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 11:55:26 AM EST
    I guess you have decided that I am one of the despicable "Berners," I guess by virtue of having the gall to say anything negative about Clinton.

    If I can, let me just say that I would prefer Hillary over Trump a thousand-fold.  I didn't vote for him, I don't understand why anyone voted for him, and I don't understand why anyone ever would think he would be a better president than she would.

    Whatever reservations I had about her, one thing I was sure about: she would not have us simultaneously on the brink of wars on multiple fronts with a nuclear component, she would not have nominated someone like the horrid Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, she would not have named Cabinet Secretaries for the express purpose of destroying the work of the various departments, we would not have white nationalists in the WH, the State Department would be fully-staffed, we would have actual diplomacy - I could go on - the list is endless and I feel sicker with each thing I think about.

    You are correct that she is a private citizen, and that she wasn't obligated to immediately head back out into the country to unite people in the fight against Trump and the GOP.  I guess I just don't understand, Yman, how someone who seemed so driven to be president could, in the face of the evil of Donald Trump, just walk away.

    The country needed her more than ever.  Those millions of people who voted for her needed her to stand with them, not disappear from view.  Those of her voters who weren't in the Sanders camp needed her to be part of the resistance.

    You're right that she would have gotten slammed for not going away - I get that for a great deal of her political life, she's been damned if she did and damned if she didn't.  If people can't admire her for anything else, they could admire her for not seeming to have any quit in her.

    She had to do what was best for her - I get that.  As much shock as we were all feeling when it became clear she was going to lose, it had to have been orders of magnitude worse for her.  Trump-as-President felt to me like an all-hands-on-deck, 4-alarm kind of thing, so don't damn me for wanting her to have been another force crowding Trump from the stage.

    I don't hate her, I'm just sorry she hasn't brought her considerable talents and experience to this fight for the heart and soul of the country.


    Do we know what else (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 12:19:25 PM EST
    HRC is working on? I wouldn't assume she is not active in some way just because she has a book coming out. There is a very serious legal process going on related to the Nov. election, and I think it best she continue under the radar so as not to support false claims of obstruction or interference. Anything she would do publicly would be made the story, all to the detriment of national focus on understanding where the problems lie. -- IMO

    My view is that (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 02:04:13 PM EST
    by authoring a book on the election, Mrs. Clinton is providing the service to the country that is needed, at this time.  Of course, it being her account, it will be imbued with her perspectives.  But, this is just what historians will savor, and what contemporary analysts can deploy.

    As tempting as it is to avoid recounting the tragedy that resulted in the election of one of the most, if not the most, unfit presidents in US history, it is still front and center in the national countenance, and Mrs. Clinton is its cynosure.

    As in the case of President Obama, Mrs. Clinton's direct speaking out in challenge, plays into Trump's need for a volley with a villainous scapegoat.  It makes his attempts to resuscitate "crooked" Hillary more effective with the deplorables--firing them up. And, they need very little to do so.

      Trump is presently bereft of targets of wickedness, leaving him, in essence, with the tiresome "fake" media and counter-productive attacks, such as  on Mitch McConnell.

    And, too, at this point, Trump is reeling not only from self-inflicted perceptions of his being a Nazi and white supremacist sympathizer, but also, that he is weak and a loser.

    The amorphous resistance, along with age-old tactics of ridicule and satire, are his Professor Moriarty.  It is an all-out effort, requiring every Democratic office holder, to speak out and oppose Trump at his every bad turn, which is to say, at his every turn.

    The problem that is Trump requires a political resolution; it is unlikely that Bob Mueller will come up empty-handed, but then what?  No need to wait until the jury is in with whatever verdict, for whomever.

     The politics are already in, on collusion, as seen by that little meeting convened by Don jr., for example, and, for abuse/obstruction of power, in the firing of Comey, to, in Trump's own words, to ease pressure, as told, no less, than to the Russian Ambassador--in the Oval Office. And, then there is that Emolument Clause.  Plenty to work with, and speak about, thanks to Trump himself.


    i agree with (none / 0) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 02:18:26 PM EST
    everything you said

    tht said as i said in another comment i dont think whatever she says is going to change a single mind.  IMO its not that her story, her point of view of a disasterous moment in history, is not valuable.  particularly to historians.  it surely is.    its that i think the timing is not optimal.  we are in a very bad moment.  lots of things are coming to a head.  another "thing" is not really what e need.

    as GA said, would it not be better to wait.  just for a bit.  to see if, for example Trump goes to prison?   my point is the story does not have an ending yet.  just now it seems to me we as a country need to focus on ending the nightmare.  not, again, how it started.

    i dont understand why it has to happen now.

    THAT said, im not sure it matters that much.  now or later.  the truth is it just seems a bit self indulgent to me with all the other thngs we face at this particular moment.


    You (and GA) (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 03:32:31 PM EST
    raise good points on timing.  However, my concerns in that regard are not so much related to self-indulgence, as they are, as I discussed, as being a resource for Trump's renewed "crooked" Hillary routine.  The advantages of getting Mrs. Clinton's story out now, outweigh those disadvantages.  Yes, the historians can wait, but the contemporary analysis she may provide may inform and shed light on the entire story...since its end is of one piece with the beginning.

     And, without seeming to have put on a tinfoil hat (but then who would have thought we would be talking about Third Reich stuff)  the re-activated Nazi/White Nationalist threat may be a part of that story.

     The Bannon planned chaos/dismantling, Russian goals for destabilization, Evangelical love for Putin's Russia as the Christian bulwark, white nationalism as a cure for cultural "anxiety," are looking more like a circle than parallel lines.

     Don't know what relationships exist with White Nationalists, but, they need to be looked into for once fringe players, such as Julian Assange as well as David Duke (who lived in Russia for four years).  


    i agree (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 03:43:37 PM EST
    it would be great if it helped END the nightmare.

    i am incredulous.  i doubt there will be any new information that would do that.  it would be great i just doubt it.

    OTOH if she actually has such information and has not shared it until now thats a whole different discussion.


    Oh phucking please (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 01:25:31 PM EST
    Oh, it's no time for modesty (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 02:06:10 PM EST
    Its not "saying anything negative about Hillary" that makes someone a Bitter Berner.  It's stewing over the tired DNC conspiracy theory/ "rigged primary!" a year later that does.  It's chastising Clinton for earning. "ungodly sums" (aka - no idea how much, but gotta make it sound bad) for writing a book, while hypocritically ignoring the fact that Bernie did the same thing.  It's pretending she's been completely silent since the election, while ignoring the fact that being the voice of the resistance would only serve to energize both Trump supporters and agitate the still-resentful Berners.  She not only deserved a rest, but it was the smart thing from a tactical and a healing perspective.  Yet you pretend you understand she was motivated by her own needs, when you have absolutely zero clue (or evidence) of her motivations.  

    I never said you hated her, but offering platitudes about how she'd be better than Trump is meaningless.  Of course she would be.  What was particularly telling was what you didn't say.  You said you didn't (of course) vote for Trump.  You then proceeded to state what the " millions of people who voted for her ... who weren't in the Sanders camp" needed her to do, which (naturally) was the opposite of what she did.  So the natural question for such a bold claim is ... How do you know this?  Are you even one of them?  Our are you just pretending to speak for the millions of us that are actually
    part of that group
    ?  Because if (as I suspect) it's the latter, it only serves to further prove my point.  But I thank you for your Berncern and for Bernsplaining what her actual supporters "needed" her to do, as well as Bernslaining why she needed to immediately return to "face the evil of Donald Trump".  Like a Steelers fan in the cheap seats explaining to Ravens fans how they feel, then telling Flacco how he needs to play.


    This isn't about me, Yman. (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 02:16:52 PM EST
    You can't even mansplain correctly.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 03:20:59 PM EST
    That's what I thought.

    Yman, I truly do not want to fight with you. (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 07:27:31 PM EST
    I don't want to keep this going.  Not because I need to run away from anything I said, but because I just don't have it in me.  It wasn't my intention to stir anything up, and if that's what I did, I apologize.

    I think - I believe - that we both deeply care about our country and where it seems to be headed, and on many issues, I think we are almost of one mind.

    The events of the last couple days are perhaps making me feel more anger than usual that we're in the position we're in - and I know I'm carrying a lot of emotion over a family situation (son-in-law's father, only 61 - diagnosed with glioblastoma with maybe a year, if he's lucky) that is wearing on me.

    Life's too short; I wish you well.


    Wellll, (none / 0) (#200)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 08:26:26 AM EST
    if said Steelers fan is in the cheap seats at M&T Stadium explaining things, there are fisticuffs to follow. We clean the toilets at M&T with "terrible towels." :)

    Just like (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by Nemi on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 06:56:32 AM EST
    Bernie Sanders initially chose to retreat, not to the woods but to his summer residence by the lake side to "lick his wounds", sulk and ... oh yes, right, write a book! Or was that an "epitaph" too? For which he was "being paid an ungodly amount of money". Instead of, at a time when it had mattered so much more than now, immediately had hit the campaign trail on behalf of the Democratic candidate "pushing back against Trump and the GOP agenda" -- something she for some reason is being scolded for doing, go figure. And no that's not all she ever spoke about. Far from. His choice at that time actually seemed "a little like fiddling while Rome burned".

    All the while Donald Tr*mp consistently -- and to this day! -- referred to SoS Hillary Clinton as "crooked Hillary" with close to no opposition or push back. Different rules for, I don't know, different genders? I for one can't think of any other civilized country, where that kind of conduct from a politician would have silently been accepted. Neither during nor after a campaign.


    Do you remember the anger among (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 08:38:56 AM EST
    Clinton supporters in 2008, when, after Obama clinched the nomination, she threw her support to him?  I do, because I was one of those who was angry.  While on one level, I understood that she put the goals of the party over her own crushing disappointment, on other levels, I didn't understand how she could enthusiastically support  - and encourage her supporters to get behind - the person who ran a  not-so-subtle sexist campaign against her.

    I think Sanders remembered that, too.

    That was the year I didn't vote for anyone for president.  Admittedly, it was a safe decision, living as I do in a reliably blue state where there was never any question that Obama would prevail over McCain.  

    I will not apologize for supporting the ideas and agenda that Sanders ran on.  Even as I knew he probably couldn't win the nomination, his presence in the race, the huge following he attracted, the interest and enthusiasm he generated, the activism he inspired, were good for a system that had grown increasingly less responsive to the voters.  You may disagree, but I believe his presence also pushed Hillary more to the left than she had been in a long, long, time.  I think it was a struggle for her, because I don't think she's naturally comfortable in that space.  And I'm not so sure she would have stayed over there closer to Sanders' place on the spectrum, but I was encouraged by the idea that it would provide a basis for holding her accountable after she was elected.  And I never - until the late Comey announcement - ever really believed she wouldn't win.

    Is there much point in discussing Trump?  He has proven to be as bad or worse than we all expected.  After yesterday's display, I feel he may be one outburst away from having the 25th Amendment invoked on him.  But, going back to the campaign, he had derogatory nicknames for everyone, as I recall - exept maybe Kasich?  Everyone in the race, in both parties, got labeled.  The dilemma was, do people push back and end up drawn into a sandbox-level argument, or do they take the high road and just push on?  "Lyin' Ted Cruz" finally lost his sh!t when Trump went after his wife's looks and drew his father into the JFK assassination story.  

    But then, it was just Trump and Clinton.  And it got worse.  The debate where he held a pre-event presser with all of the Bill Clinton accusers and seated them at the debate in an impossible-to-miss area was a bridge too far, for me.  But Hillary soldiered on - as she always has, never publicly letting anyone see her sweat.  Her failing to take Trump's ugly bait, in my opinion, just made him look like the very small person he is.

    For some reason, even the smallest criticism of Clinton is met with outrage that Sanders isn't being painted with the same brush.  I'm fine with people disagreeing with me or giving me some reason why I'm wrong about what I've said about her; I find the "but what about Sanders?" response to be a distraction, a way to move the goal posts.  I've never said that Sanders shouldn't be held accountable for himself, but apparently, every criticism of Clinton is deemed to be an affirmation of Sanders, when that is just not the case - at least not with me.

    Mock my words if you must, but I hope you understand that I'm allowed to express disappointment that Clinton has, for the most part, all but vanished from the scene at a time when her intelligence, her knowledge, her belief in the integrity of this nation, would be a welcome addition to help counter the insanity that reigns at the White House these days.  Can you honestly say you don't also want that?

    I've gone on too long, and probably nothing I've said will be enough for those who seem to think branding me a hater accomplishes something.  


    I agree (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 08:31:45 AM EST
    More or less

    I don't think whatever it says is going to be seen as important or relevant to or current problems except by those who are already inclined to think so.

    A shrinking number, IMO.


    Good lord (none / 0) (#69)
    by vicndabx on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 12:30:40 PM EST

    Personally, we would do much better if all of us who are aligned around key goals could stop tearing each other down. That negative energy goes out and stays out there.

    Maybe a little less expectation of perfection in the systems that have been in place for decades and don't get the financial support needed? Maybe we should focus on getting control first?


    Personality (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 01:18:55 PM EST
    politics is going to be the death of any issue. Both the alt-left and the alt-right are big time into them. You'll never win against the GOP if you play their game. They are the masters of character assassination. They've had to learn to be because no one likes their issues.

    that would explain Bernies massive crowds (none / 0) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 01:25:31 PM EST
    no one was interested in his issues.

    hard to believe we are still doing this.


    Missing my point (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 01:34:02 PM EST
    GOP could assassinate Bernie in 2 seconds if you're gonna play their game. Honest to gawd sometimes I wish he had been the nominee so that everybody could see but judging by how his candidates ran behind Hillary the outcome would have been worse down ticket.

    yeah i guess because they (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 01:54:16 PM EST
    sure didnt succeed in assassinating Hillarys character.  

    im not playing anyones game.  not even yours.  i am doing my best to see what happened clearly.  as far as how Bernie would have fared, the fact is you dont know and neither do i.

    although i did say before Trump got the nomination that IF and only IF Trump was the nominee Bernie might actually be a safer pick than Hillary.  and yes, i also said at different times they would destroy Bernie.  more or less like they destroyed Hillary.

    personally i think this whole back and forth is ridiculous.  i am having acid flash backs of 2008.  
    same sh!t different day.

    i dont have time for it my country is being swamped by nazis and circling the toilet and this will be my last comment on the subject.


    Yeah, (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 02:01:47 PM EST
    they did a great character assassination on Hillary. I'm not denying that one. I've just got no patience for the alt-left at this point and don't want to argue any of this stuff anymore.

    For gawd's sake, given recent (none / 0) (#189)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 01:18:29 AM EST
    events, why expend so much thought and energy on Hillary?

    Trump considering a pardon for Joe Arpaio (none / 0) (#4)
    by CoralGables on Mon Aug 14, 2017 at 03:34:11 PM EST
    The clueless gene runs deep with this one.

    Really, how seriously could anyone take (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 14, 2017 at 03:56:33 PM EST
    his statement today when it was accompanied by his slamming (within a couple hours, not several days) the Merck CEO for stepping down from the manufacturing council  because of Trump's weak response to Charlottesville, and then announcing he was considering a pardon of Arpaio?

    Yes, and it did not (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by KeysDan on Mon Aug 14, 2017 at 04:09:09 PM EST
    take several days to slam the Merck CEO. And, the tangling yesterday of a pardon for Sheriff Arpaio was to assuage his base for his forced statement of today. Wink and a nod to all the deplorables in his basket.

    He's not clueless at all (none / 0) (#8)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 14, 2017 at 04:05:46 PM EST
    about the kind of sh*t his base loves.

    Plus, he's gotta do something to placate them after he didn't make Sheriff Joe head of the FBI or Homeland Security.


    Today's Gallup Poll (none / 0) (#10)
    by CoralGables on Mon Aug 14, 2017 at 04:13:15 PM EST
    Approve 34%
    Disapprove 61%

    I'll stick with clueless


    Now if we can just get (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 14, 2017 at 04:31:31 PM EST
    a good percentage of that 61% to actually get off their aces and vote, we'll be getting somewhere.

    The trouble is is that almost that entire 34% votes.


    "Now if we can just get (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 14, 2017 at 09:23:03 PM EST
    that 61% to actually get off their aces and vote..."
    Here's a novel idea: Nominate a candidate you actually want to vote for. "Hey, Stupid, where you gonna go" won't work any more.

    You remember Chuck Schumer last year when asked why Hillary's campaign wasn't doing more to bring in working class voters, and, left leaning Dems?

    Chuck Schumer--Quote: Because "For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, ..."


    You mean (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by Nemi on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 05:36:41 AM EST
    Nominate a candidate you actually want to vote for.

    like a woman who got more votes than any white male presidential candidate before her ever got?


    In light (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 07:46:55 AM EST
    of what happened in Charlottesville I can't believe we're even talking about those voters. Need to face facts and realize that those WWC voters are gone for good after Obama. Secondly the left ignored Trump's Nazism in pursuit of "revolution". I wonder if they are happy now?

    Here's another "novel idea" (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 09:39:40 AM EST
    Stop using an outdated, undemocratic method of choosing a POTUS.  Then stop the lie that people didn't want her as a candidate.  They did ... by several million votes.

    we call that the (none / 0) (#187)
    by linea on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 11:22:14 PM EST
    Stop using an outdated, undemocratic method of choosing a POTUS.

    Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution


    Another novel idea (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by vicndabx on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 10:57:59 AM EST
     - voting is about more than just you.

    Working class voters and so called "left-leaning dems" supported the last candidate just fine. Anyone that doesn't understand that at this point should probably explore other information sources.

    Who cares that Chuck Schumer wants to make the coalition as broad as possible?


    Obviously they didn't support (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 11:12:48 AM EST
    the last candidate just fine enough. Obviously.

    That election, featuring an inarticulate reality tv clown, should've been the worst electoral slaughter in American history.

    And how to explain all the women who voted for Trump? F*cking women. It was an act of pure masochism.


    If you only focus on WWC (none / 0) (#59)
    by vicndabx on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 11:54:31 AM EST
    then your statement is true.

    Link 1

    Link 2

    There's more to the working class than white people.

    Fact is Democrats have lost this specific group since the 60's.  Personally I don't think they're the path forward. At least not at the moment.


    i agree (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 01:16:19 PM EST
    demographics really are destiny.   its just not happening nearly fast enough.

    White college educated (none / 0) (#85)
    by vicndabx on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 01:57:25 PM EST
    can be targeted now. No reason why we can't focus on urban voters in some of those swing states or latinx in AZ, NV, CO.

    Not all is lost if we're clear on where we should focus our efforts.


    That's where (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 02:20:23 PM EST
    the gold is located. I mean the 6th district here in GA swung 20 points away from the GOP. Hillary won white college educated women which Obama lost to Romney by 14 points. Once you start digging you can find some gold.

    true (none / 0) (#163)
    by linea on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 08:56:28 PM EST
    Hillary won white college educated women

    hillary won white college educated women, lost millennial women of colour, and lost a swath of white labourers who voted for obama twice.


    And yet, ... (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 10:19:41 PM EST
    ... she crushed Bernie.

    Go figure.

    BTW - Nice mixing and matching of primary and general election results.  Maybe it even fools some people.


    The white (none / 0) (#165)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 09:00:47 PM EST
    laborers are not coming back. They said they wouldn't vote for Hillary because they had lost faith in Obama. And since then they have said they are not coming back. Nate Cohn in the NYT did an article on this.

    So it seems it is time for a new coalition. Really the coalition Obama had was the Dukakis coalition that had grown large enough to bring you a 51% win. As far as millennials it depends on their age. The frontal brain lobe is not even developed on most until 25 years of age.


    okay (none / 0) (#172)
    by linea on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 09:35:31 PM EST
    laborers are not coming back

    seems a lot of dem-power-brokers like it that way. why would they want to move from their firmly centrist stance and champion labor/worker issues? that's bad for business. apparently, the dem-insiders are courting anti-choice candidates now (see zorba #82). gotta get the votes somewhere.


    They said (none / 0) (#173)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 09:59:47 PM EST
    they are not coming back and there is nothing we can say to get them back. That doesn't seem conducive to pushing issues that they are going to like.

    After Dem primary (none / 0) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 02:23:03 PM EST
    There is always "a stupid". I guess because libs indulge in so much I'm so smart I'll just shoot myself in the face and butthurt these days.

    I'll see your "clueless," CG, ... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 14, 2017 at 07:24:00 PM EST
    ... and raise you to "amoral fckn basterd."

    Call. ;-D


    I fold (none / 0) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Mon Aug 14, 2017 at 08:22:36 PM EST
    You win.

    Anybody else... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 14, 2017 at 04:39:20 PM EST
    have Dead Kennedys stuck in their head since the weekend?

    Nazi Punks Fxck Off!

    With Robert Mueller running around investigating (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 14, 2017 at 08:42:18 PM EST
    Russian collusion and hack type/election influencing, would any of you be using the Internet and bots and trolls to smear the NSA (McMaster) and get him Trump fired?

    Someone's dumb as a post out there.

    I been singing the praises (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 14, 2017 at 08:50:18 PM EST
    Of IDIOCRACY here for years.


    "I mean, in a way Idiocracy kind of looks optimistic right now," Mike Judge tells The Daily Beast by phone from his Los Angeles office.
    Last month, Judge received his 12th Emmy Award nomination, this one for directing the fourth season finale of Silicon Valley (more on that in our full Q&A coming later this week). But while that show may be a bona fide hit for HBO, it is his cult favorite film Idiocracy, released in 2006 to little fanfare and even worse box office receipts, that still somehow feels like his most relevant and prescient work.
    Judge's story is about an America that has devolved so much it elects as president a former professional wrestler and porn star named Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho, played by Terry Crews, 500 years in the future.

    It only took a decade for the country make reality TV host and former WWE guest star Donald Trump leader of the free world. And now some see Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson as the Democratic Party's best hope to beat him in 2020

    Question (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 14, 2017 at 08:53:57 PM EST
    Who here would NOT vote for The Rock in that contest?

    I sure would.


    I thought The Rock was a Republican (none / 0) (#50)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 10:47:13 AM EST
    Jesse Ventura would beat Trump probably. The WWC loves Jesse's ace

    Sure, he's a little nutty, but we're living in nutty times.

    As some Englishman said about Churchill back then, he's indecent, but this is no time for decency.


    he is officially (none / 0) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 01:23:08 PM EST
    an independent

    Campaign Committee Set Up to Explore Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson 2020 Presidential Run

    there is an argument being made (that a year ago i would have said was nonsense, now not so much) that there are two paths to defeating Trump in 2020.  that is assuming he is not incarcerated.  one is to find a candidate like Obama that can put that coalition back together.  thats a great idea but.....
    the other, the argument goes, is to run another celebrity.

    A poll that month by Public Policy Polling also showed that Johnson would "lead Trump 42/37 in a prospective contest." Either this committee gets him a step closer to putting that poll to the test or it adds to the ongoing joke of him being the next President.

    It was a public monument to a bygone era, ... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 02:46:22 AM EST
    ... one which had been commissioned, erected and maintained with public funds on public property. And tonight, the public themselves unilaterally decided that it no longer belonged there, standing guard metaphorically as it was in front of the county courthouse. And so, they summarily removed it.

    This is what resistance looks like.

    i think (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 06:38:47 AM EST
    Chuck sadly nailed it.  this is going to escalate quickly.  on both sides.  the alt right leaders, Spencer and others, have been very clear on this.  they are on the move they believe they have a friend in the White House.  i believe that too.

    yesterday they were quick to make it clear on social media that Trumps "condemnation" was theater.  simply what he had to do to keep the game going.

    its going to escalate.  i would say we are a conflict or two away from armed conflict.  maybe less.


    And a real President (none / 0) (#87)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 02:00:10 PM EST
    tweets in response to Charlottesville....He quotes Nelson Mandela.

    Ironically (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 02:05:59 PM EST
    some GOP and all Dem tweets were more presidential than Trump but I guess that should surprise no one. I called my rep and asked his office about his tweet. He said we all need to come together. I asked do you want us to unite with the Nazis? The person in the office said no. I said then why couldn't he say that. I mean to me it's a gimme to dump on Nazis but either Republicans are sympathizers or they know the majority of their voters are Nazi sympathizers and are afraid to speak out.

    They know their voters (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 02:07:57 PM EST
    ECLIPSE (none / 0) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 02:32:10 PM EST
    its non political!

    i am having an absurdly huge eclipse/housewarming party starting this weekend.  which could easily turn into a housewarming party if it rains which seem more likely than not considering recent weather patterns.

    so far there are 7.  i am borrowing my brothers RV (which sleeps 6) so there are still a few bed left!
    get them while they last.

    the thing is, sunday night its going to be Game of Thrones.  and 'if you dont follow the show just try to go with it but save you questions till the end'.

    Have you seen this, Howdy? (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 02:35:52 PM EST
    Pretty cool:

    Put in your location and it simulates what the eclipse will look like where you are.

    It may be busy as it's all over social media now.


    i had not. (none / 0) (#106)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 02:46:30 PM EST
    its about 95% at my house.  our plan is to drive about one hour north to be in the path of totality.

    if it doesnt rain.


    Solar eclipses move very fast, (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by fishcamp on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 02:20:19 AM EST
    something like 1,200 mph.  I actually filmed one once from a Lear jet high above Walla Walla, Wa. at 4:45 a m. We were at Heavenly Valley, Ca. ski area adjacent to Lake Tahoe filming the John Denver celebrity pro-am ski race.  John had just bought a new Lear 35 whisper jet that was parked in Reno along with another celebrity jet.  I had just gotten to sleep when the boss called to tell me to get up, bring my camera, batteries, lenses, and all the stuff necessary for 16 mm filming.  We drove to Reno, loaded up and flew in formation with the other jet up to Walla Walla.  Another cameraman was in the other jet.  We had it covered.

    When we got there many other airplanes were at various altitudes to see the eclipse.  The little Cessna's were down low with a stack up of different sized planes above them.  We were at about 20,000 feet with Air Force and other mystery government planes above us.  Walla Walla ground control was very busy assigning altitudes for everybody.  John didn't have his instrument rating yet so his father, a retired Air Force jet flight instructor, flew the plane.  It was a very military type flight with John's father ordering the other jet with us what to do.  John had his Lear rating but not IFR.

    I had never filmed an eclipse before but certainly didn't want to look through a lens at it.  I just pointed my camera out the window, closed the eye piece down, and rolled film.  We flew along with the eclipse for a short time, but it was way faster than us.  There was a strange shadow against the clouds moving along with us that I also filmed.

    I knew ABC would never use the eclipse footage in a ski race film, but we shot it anyway.  When we got back to Reno and drove back up to Tahoe it was time to go right back to work filming the celebrity race.  It was a very long day and that is my best eclipse story.  


    I doubt anyone here will (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 02:25:37 AM EST
    top that eclipse story!

    clearly (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 07:20:54 AM EST
    i should have gotten a Lear Jet instead of an RV.

    next time.


    I don't wanna misquote him (none / 0) (#132)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 06:07:24 PM EST
    Did he say many people who chose to march with the neo-nazis and white supremacists "have been treated absolutely unfairly"?

    Did he actually say that?

    He sure did (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 06:32:59 PM EST
    One thing he did which seems to be causing the most unease is an equivalency of Robert E Lee and Washington and Jefferson.

    Which is a bit funny in that it, among other things, sort of glosses over some of the really vile thing both did in the area of slavery.

    Or perhaps that was his point.  Our country was built on the blood and sweat of slaves.  Embrace it.


    Having that discussion (none / 0) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 07:19:14 PM EST
    with high school classmates on facebook. Washington released his slaves. Thomas Jefferson had a slave as a mistress but neither one of them were traitors to the US.

    Washington released slaves in his will (none / 0) (#159)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 08:16:41 PM EST
    not during his lifetime, and not the ones he gave as gifts to family members. He hunted the two slaves that ran away from the first White House (in Philadelphia) for years. Jefferson freed the slaves who were his offspring, but no others.

    I'm not clear enough (none / 0) (#160)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 08:21:21 PM EST
    To explain it well because I have not yet dug into it but Washington also did something really sketchy having to do with blacks trying to escape to Nova Scotia in ships after the revolutionary war.

    Another thing I learned from an AMC  series on revolutionary war spies.


    He Did Raise a Valid Question (none / 0) (#151)
    by RickyJim on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 07:48:12 PM EST
    Where does it end?  He may be right that somewhere down the line there will be demands to chop some heads off Mr. Rushmore or remove some big tourist attractions or even the name from the nation's capital.  Recent events have caused J.C. Calhoun's name to be removed from a building at Yale while such an attempt against Woodrow Wilson at Princeton didn't succeed.  It seems that Andrew Jackson is headed off the $20 bill to be replaced by Harriet Tubman unless Trump issues an executive order to reverse that Obama era decision.  The distinction between Confederate generals and racist, slave holding US Presidents isn't clear to everybody.

    Just to be clear (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by CoralGables on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 09:12:40 PM EST
    You don't see a difference between the Founding Fathers of the United States and those that fought against the United States?

    RickyJim: "The distinction between Confederate generals and racist, slave holding US Presidents isn't clear to everybody."

    ... one of those distinctions in his iconic address at Gettysburg, in which he first recalled of the significant passage of time between the adoption of the Declaration of Independence by our country's Founding Fathers, and Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee's ill-advised and ultimately futile attempt to break the Union Army of the Potomac upon the very battlefield which the U.S. president and others were dedicating that late afternoon of November 19, 1863:

    "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

    But further, I would strongly suggest that you read and familiarize yourself with Alexander Stephens' "Corner Stone" speech, which he delivered in Savannah, GA on March 21, 1861, only 22 days before the Confederate assault on Fort Sumter in Charleston, SC commenced the South's armed insurrection against the federal government. Because in that long speech, the new Confederate vice president plainly laid out the entire raison d'etre for the Confederacy's very existence:

    "The [United States] constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the 'storm came and the wind blew.'

    "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity."

    (Emphasis is mine.)

    No doubt, Stephens' grievously misguided sentiments stand in very sharp contrast to those poignant ideals which Lincoln would espouse some 32 months later in only 272 words, at the new national cemetery in south-central Pennsylvania.

    And thus, Confederate political leaders and their generals suborned an entire generation of Southerners to commit treason en masse, in defense of that moral aberration which Mr. Stephens himself quaintly called "our peculiar institution," human slavery.

    I hope that I was able to clarify those distinctions for you.


    I rarely agree with you (none / 0) (#154)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 07:56:49 PM EST
    But I agree with you.  It's a valid question.  One that should, in my opinion, be asked.

    While I am not for using Rushmore for artillery practice or changing the dollar bill I think it might not be a bad thing for school children to know some of the things I have learned recently, actually some as a result of watching a series on AMC on the revolutionary war, about Washington.


    Funny bit on (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 08:33:58 AM EST
    The Jeff Jeffries show on Comedy Central about Stone Mountain, GA. You should watch it.

    According to the treaty signed in 1868 (none / 0) (#184)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 10:48:17 PM EST
    Mount Rushmore should be Lakota Sioux land to do with as they wish.

    Maybe should have the Afghani mujahaddin that we armed come over and blow the faces off. They're good at that sort of thing.

    I wouldn't lose one millisecond of sleep over it.


    this? (none / 0) (#185)
    by linea on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 11:03:39 PM EST
    What he says! (none / 0) (#135)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 15, 2017 at 07:10:54 PM EST
    President Donald Trump on Tuesday shared a Twitter post with his followers that called him a "fascist."

    The Twitter exchange began Tuesday morning when Trump retweeted a post from the account of Fox News' morning show "Fox & Friends" linking to a story about the possibility of the president pardoning former Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was recently convicted of criminal contempt by a judge in Arizona. Arpaio, a controversial figure for, among other practices, his aggressive enforcement of immigration law, was a vocal Trump supporter during last year's election.

    A Twitter user named Mike Holden responded to the "Fox & Friends" post by writing "he's a fascist, so not unusual," which Trump then retweeted from his own account. Holden later clarified that his "fascist" label had been directed at Trump.

    Minutes later, the president undid his retweet without explanation.

    My initial comment (none / 0) (#196)
    by Nemi on Wed Aug 16, 2017 at 07:38:28 AM EST
    referring to Hillary Clinton's upcoming book was meant as an add-on to the list of why Donald Tr*mp might fear September. Which I still believe is the case as her book among so much more is about

    ... what it was like to run against Donald Trump, the mistakes she made, [oh no, can't be! "That woman" never admits to making mistakes, does she now] how she has coped with a shocking and devastating loss, and how she found the strength to pick herself back up afterwards."

    And funny isn't it, how a book that allegedly noone cares to read hit the number one spot of pre-orders on Amazon within hours of the publication of the release date:

    Plenty of readers are clearly eager to see what Clinton has to say, as shown by the number of pre-orders on Amazon.The AP reports that, within hours, the title had jumped from No. 3,350 to No. 17. It wasn't much longer before it reached No. 1.

    Hillary Clinton's New Book Is Already A Bestseller, And It Isn't Even Out Yet.