Wednesday Open Thread

Hillary calls Trump a "creep" in her new book. She describes the second debate, the one where he stalked her all over the stage:

“This is not okay, I thought,” Clinton said, reading from her book. “It was the second presidential debate and Donald Trump was looming behind me. Two days before, the world heard him brag about groping women. Now we were on a small stage and no matter where I walked, he followed me closely, staring at me, making faces.

“It was incredibly uncomfortable. He was literally breathing down my neck. My skin crawled. It was one of those moments where you wish you could hit pause and ask everyone watching, ‘Well, what would you do?’ Do you stay calm, keep smiling and carry on as if he weren’t repeatedly invading your space? Or do you turn, look him in the eye and say loudly and clearly, ‘Back up, you creep. Get away from me. I know you love to intimidate women, but you can’t intimidate me, so back up.’”

Jared Kushner is in Cairo. His meeting with the foreign minister was cancelled because the day before, Rex Tillerson told Egypt the U.S. was canceling $95 million in foreign aid due to Egypt's poor record on human rights violations. Does Trump's right foot know what his left foot is doing? Why is Jared wasting our money?

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Back to Afghanistan | Sunday Open Thread: Hiatus >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I heard that excerpt this morning; (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 11:51:46 AM EST
    I can't be the only one who would have cheered if she had confronted him like that in the debate.

    And it seems I may want to read the book after all...

    As for Jared - from what I gather, he isn't exactly a great steward of other people's money - does anyone imagine he sees what he's doing as a waste of money?

    And if Trump gave a damn about anything other than himself, he might had staffed the various departments so they could do their jobs; we have a skeleton crew trying to keep things going, so it's a wonder the government hasn't shut down for that reason alone.

    Longest. Seven. Months. Ever.

    You're right about her book Anne. (none / 0) (#3)
    by fishcamp on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 01:04:37 PM EST
    I read on my iPad and I'm now going to order it.  I still need ammo with the gym guys.

    And oculus it sounds like you San Diego folks are mad about the Chargers fleeing to L.A. with  those knee-capping thoughts.


    Do I give a flying (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 05:32:38 PM EST
    f*c* about the L .A. Chargers?

    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 07:06:57 PM EST
    maybe not a flying f*c*.

    Cryptic cursing (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 09:47:40 PM EST
    I believe that's what ... (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 29, 2017 at 05:06:18 PM EST
    ... the people of San Diego said about the team when they were still the San Diego Chargers. And one has to respect them for not kowtowing to the NFL's efforts at corporate shakedown. There was nothing wrong with Qualcomm Stadium other than its obvious lack of multi-million dollar luxury skyboxes.

    And now, having forsaken their long-suffering fan base in San Diego for glamorous Carson, CA, 100 miles north on I-5 / I-405, the Chargers are charging an average of $194 per ticket for a seat at their idyllic (albeit temporary) home, the 27,000-seat StubHub Center -- and not surprisingly, they can't sell the place out.



    Arpaio will get a pardon. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 04:17:30 PM EST
    Cheeto didn't do it yesterday. But gave every indication that it will happen. Can there be a more tone deaf so-called person on this planet?

    Trump is (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 05:06:28 PM EST
    pitch perfect as President of the Base. A pardon for Trump's old birther buddy is catnip for his sulfurous nativists and white nationalists. Reporting is that the White House has prepared the paper work and talking points for a pardon (not appropriate to send him to prison for enforcing the law and working to keep people safe).

    Even if this reprehensible action does not come to fruition, Trump has layered amends for his "Monday" Charlottsville statement which may have offended the very fine people marching as, or with, Nazis.

     Arpaio, the former sheriff (defeated in the Nov election) has yet to be sentenced (Oct 5, 2017) for being found guilty by a federal judge for contempt after a year-long saga over discriminatory policing tactics.

     Arpaio ignored a court order to stop racially profiling Latinos. Arpaio just scoffed at the federal judge's order. And, Trump at law and order.


    what's good for the goose is good for the gander (1.00 / 3) (#130)
    by thomas rogan on Sat Aug 26, 2017 at 12:31:49 PM EST
    President Obama commuted Chelsea Manning's 35 year sentence; effectively the same thing.  

    You are the lowest form of troll. (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Aug 26, 2017 at 02:01:54 PM EST
    Not even close. A commutation is nowhere the same as a pardon. Chelsea Manning served a significant amount of time incarcerated. Go crawl back under your rock.

    And Manning (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 12:11:27 PM EST
    was not Obama's political crony getting paid back for prior political support.

    Pardoning Arpaio was a corrupt act.  Valid under the Constitution.  But a misuse of Presidential Power justifying Impeachment.  

    Add that one to the pile of offenses.....in case the GOP ever finally decides to no longer tolerate cheeto's corruption.  


    Here is an excellent analysis (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 12:15:53 PM EST
    by a basically conservative law professor (former prosecutor, with whom I often disagree on criminal justice issues) of why the Arpaio pardon, while lawful under the Pardons Clause, constitutes an impeachable offense.

    Wrong (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by FlJoe on Sat Aug 26, 2017 at 02:18:05 PM EST
    Manning was a nobody, who committed a crime of opportunity, and has already spent significant prison time.

    Arpaio was a man with immense  power, who used that unconstitutionally before and after he was told to cease and desist by a federal judge.

    Manning committed a crime and was punished by the justice system. Arpaio spit in the eye of the rule of law, his actions were nothing short of police state tactics.

    Trump and his merry band of deplorables are quite alright with that. Anybody who in any way condones, pardons or shrugs off Arpaio's crimes is profundly un-American.


    Chelsea Manning (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by KeysDan on Sat Aug 26, 2017 at 03:07:18 PM EST
    served seven years in prison for leaking classified documents and had the rest of her 35-year sentence commuted. Manning was demoted from PFC to Private and dishonorably discharged.  Of the 20 counts of conviction, one was the Espionage Act of 1917, a paroxysm of war hysteria which fell into disuse and was picked up by Obama in whistle blower cases, since the act does not readily permit such a defense.

    Commutation reduces sentences being served but does not change the fact of conviction. For example, President Bush commuted the 30-month prison term for the felony conviction of Scooter Libby, and aide to Cheney. Libby was convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators in the probe about the leak of the name of a CIA operative (Valerie Plame). Bush considered the sentence to be excessive.

     A pardon forgives the criminal offense but carries an imputation of guilt and its acceptance carriers a concession of guilt.( US v Burdick, 1915).  


    US v Burdick (none / 0) (#134)
    by linea on Sat Aug 26, 2017 at 03:31:10 PM EST
    he was already found guilty. the pardon removed his conviction. not sure what concession of guilt means here.

    perhaps it means that the court decision in 'u.s. v arpaio' remains 'determinative of facts' is any future civil litigation? specifically, that his violations were willful.

    In most jurisdictions within the United States, a criminal conviction is not only admissible in a subsequent civil proceeding (based on the same wrong) - it is determinative of the facts on which the criminal decision was based.  Hence, the findings of fact in the criminal case are not subject to challenge in the civil action.

    Burdick uses (none / 0) (#136)
    by KeysDan on Sat Aug 26, 2017 at 05:17:41 PM EST
    the word .."confession of guilt."  I believe in the statement of President Gerald Ford to the House regarding his pardon on Nixon, concession was used.  

    Burdick's wording to the contrary notwithstanding (none / 0) (#156)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 12:05:08 PM EST
    The Supreme Court is not an oracle, and not every word of every published opinion is Gospel. Acceptance of a presidential pardon does not, as a matter of law, require a "concession" (or confession) of guilt. The 1915 Burdick decision holds that a person may decline/refuse a presidential pardon on the basis that the recipient perceives it to imply a confession of guilt. Not quite the same thing. Thoughtfully analyzed here by UCLA constitutional law prof (and libertarian-leaning blogger) Eugene Volokh.  
    [S]ome pardons expressly state that they are based on the pardoner's decision that the defendant was actually innocent .... The Justice Department Standards for Consideration of Clemency Petitioners also expressly contemplate the possibility of "pardon on grounds of innocence or miscarriage of justice," ....
      ... Another function of a pardon has historically been protecting people who were seen as legally guilty but morally innocent.

    What is it about (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 12:02:53 PM EST
    Republican Trolls, where they try to justify all manner of bad acts by saying the Democrats do it too?

    Even if you were correct that Manning serving years in prison and Arpaio  not serving a single day were equivalent, the issue would still be whether pardoning Arpaio is supporting racism and undermining the rule of law.

    You guys are all about "sticking it" to liberals....all grievance and revenge....not policy or real issues....


    First of all, you clearly don't even know the (none / 0) (#135)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 26, 2017 at 03:37:18 PM EST
    difference between a commutation and a pardon, which is sad, considering it is so easy to learn.

    All a commutation does is wipe out the balance of someone's sentence; it does not eliminate the conviction.

    A pardon, on the other hand, wipes the slate clean: no conviction.

    Now, go back under the bridge you wandered out from.


    i would expect (none / 0) (#19)
    by linea on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 08:41:35 PM EST
    that president trump waits until arpaio is sentenced by the judge. them trump 'commutess' the sentence. it's a misdemeanour. there is no need to 'grant clemency.'

    though i'm strugging with: clemency v. pardon v. commute.


    Technical vocabulary lesson alert (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 09:45:16 PM EST
    All forms of executive relief from conviction or sentence are in the general category called "clemency." The types of clemency are: pardon (forgiveness, which relieves the conviction entirely, or if granted in advance prevents conviction); commutation (shortening of prison sentence or conversion of sentence from one form to another, such as death sentence to life imprisonment, or imprisonment to probation); remission (elimination or reduction of financial penalties, such as fines); and reprieve (postponement of punishment, as the governor of Missouri did with a death sentence yesterday, to allow further consideration of new DNA evidence). In the Constitution, the President's authority to grant clemency is limited to federal cases, and is referred to as the Pardon Power. State constitutions typically confer this power on the Governor, with respect to state-court crimes. It is one of the very few ancient, sovereign powers of the British King (or Queen) that the Framers of the Constitution decided to retain and confer on the President.

    He will give Arpaio (none / 0) (#20)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 08:50:08 PM EST
    a full pardon. Not clemency. Not a commutation of sentence. A full pardon says it never happened. That will be sheriff Joe's reward for loyalty.

    Well, after all (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 09:36:58 PM EST
    Trump has replaced Jefferson Davis as the president of the Confederate States of America. The only difference is that Trump doesn't realize that the CSA no longer exists.

    Let's get our stuff together people (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by vicndabx on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 05:20:45 PM EST
    maybe learn to coalesce earlier around a leading candidate?  At the very least, do not let the primary process beat up our candidates to the point they are weakened in a GE.

    We are now discovering more about the destructive aftermath of Bernie Sanders's negative campaigning: More than 20% of Sanders voters did not vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election.

    It's one thing for Republicans to smear and demonize Hillary Clinton. That was to be expected. It's another altogether for the supposedly non-partisan news media to side with her opponents, or for a candidate on the left to teach young progressives to despise her.


    Good luck with that. (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 05:50:54 AM EST
    i know this is old (none / 0) (#142)
    by linea on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 12:03:27 AM EST
    i high-five'd this days ago.  it's one one the funniest things i've ever seen.  i'm proud that democrats are un-herd-able cats. i don't wanna be like republicans.

    it's like some are saying, 'smart people argue among themselves; we should be more like stupid people.'


    I don't consider this a tried and true fact (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 10:13:31 AM EST
    It is proven that a lack of healthy curiosity can be detrimental to survival, but strategically speaking infighting is very weakening. Through the use of propaganda Russia is currently undermining democracy via infighting. And this is old but worth repeating, even on this site self proclaimed Democrats were arguing abut Hillary's emails. And those very real concerns went?

    So no, I don't think we liberals are half as smart as we think we are.


    Interested to know your thoughts on (none / 0) (#158)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 12:10:56 PM EST

    I wanted to make note that the Democratic Unity Commission is meeting in Chicago and people are being silly in the face of the ongoing catastrophe that is the current administration. There is an actual fight going on over whether the Democratic Party should change entirely to a system of open primaries or, even more horribly worse, a system of caucuses, to pick its presidential nominee.

    Point The First: Who cares in 2017? The house is burning down and you're vetting the firemen.

    Point The Second: Don't do this. A political party that conducts open primaries is a political party just begging to be hijacked by the loudest voice in the room and/or ratfcked by any half-witted operative on the other side. Your party's nominating process should be kept within your party. And caucuses are completely worthless, both in terms of practical politics and in terms of the basic function of finding a nominee.

    Point The Third and Final: To go to open primaries and caucuses will work in many states to dilute the influence of minority voters, which is the true Democratic base and has been for several cycles now. I realize that the Sanders campaign was a transformative experience for a lot of people. But there is nothing in its history or its outcome that would lead anyone to believe that it was successful at anything except pushing the platform to the left, which was a very good thing. The 2016 Democratic platform was the most progressive of my lifetime.

    But times and circumstances are different now. There is an existential threat to the Republic unfolding in Washington. Mass marches are fine; everybody should go to one. But the only actual vehicle with which to confront this political disaster is the battered old Democratic Party, which needs to consolidate itself as a force, and not spend all its time handing out participation ribbons to angry people.

    Emphasis is mine.

    Charlie Pierce is the only one I have seen mention this - perhaps because our media can't seem to look away from the petty orange monster in the WH for more than a couple of minutes (how sad is it that a hurricane has brought some welcome relief to the non-stop Trump coverage - and that Trump has exploited it successfully in his Friday news dump?) - but the idea of open primaries and/or caucuses strikes me as an insanely bad idea.


    Being from Colorado (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 03:03:40 PM EST
    Having a grandmother who was a local party leader, caucuses serve those who can be very politically active. A caucus system places power and authority in the hands of party leaders, displaces the voice of the voter flipping burgers at McDonalds.

    It's a cool system when it benefits your family like it did mine, not so cool though when voices are stiffled.

    My old Colorado precinct's primary night during Obama/Clinton was miserable. The first vote yielded a Clinton victory but Obama supporters demanded 2 revotes. One of my neighbors said that the majority in the end voted Obama just so they could go home. It was a school night.

    So my opinion on caucuses for all serving all, NO!


    Armando is big on this issue on Twitter (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 03:44:23 PM EST
    As usual he issued an early alarm and was attacked for it. But turns out oops...it's true. Joy Reid has also tweeted now about this.

    And (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by Nemi on Mon Aug 28, 2017 at 06:03:04 AM EST
    Charles Pierce initially learned about this from Armando.

    They seem to track each other closely (none / 0) (#180)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 28, 2017 at 10:00:19 PM EST
    They have that love of sports thing too

    I reread the exchange (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Nemi on Tue Aug 29, 2017 at 06:31:20 AM EST
    between the two, starting with Armando voicing his concern and linking to his piece @dailykos, dating all the way back to June 13. I also started on the comments, but even though I was "late to the party" back then, it didn't take me long to imagine how the now infamous "pie fight" got started and evolved, lolsobsnort. First Armando was accused of trying to instigate a new piefight war, then guess who was next up being verbally shredded to pieces? Hillary Clinton of course though totally off topic, sigh!

    And some of the responses to Charles Pierce's tweets makes you go, Wow! Some are so revolting, disgusting and outright slanderous that I really don't understand neither what makes people write stuff like that, nor why Twitter allows it.


    Watching Texas now (none / 0) (#174)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 03:07:15 PM EST
    The feeder bands continue to be fueled from the gulf. I have doubts that fatalities aren't going to climb. Too many people to rescue, night is falling, more rain coming, people become too fatigued and decision making falls off.

    And as in New Orleans, fragile people become forgotten and found later :(


    Dems have got to find a way to (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 07:51:07 AM EST
    accommodate the many members of the party who want more progressive policies, and who are tired of being run over by the Third Way and New America devotees who are more interested in shaping an agenda to appeal to moderate Republicans and reviving Clintonomics than doing something really radical like not shutting out the more progressive wing of the party.

    Perhaps coincidentally, I read this, this morning, and nearly lost my breakfast.  The guy who is president of Third Way, who says he is dubious of claims that socialized medicine is wildly popular, reveals a level of ignorance that is more than a little shocking - and is an example of why the more progressive members of the party are unhappy.

    This, from the article, is Exhibit A for why progressives who were attracted to Sanders' policies believe the Democratic partry simply is not interested in theor point of view:

    Worried that they have nobody with equal star power to Sanders or Warren, centrists are eagerly seeking out recruits in such places as a stealthy confab held in Aspen, Colo., this month by the centrist New America Foundation. But in a sign of the sensitivities, organizers promised not to name the nationally known politicians in attendance lest they face harassment from the left for showing up.

    A formidable group of Democratic elected officials led by one of the creators of Clintonomics, Will Marshall, has banded together under the name New Democracy to confront the growing influence of the left. Many of them hail from Trump country.

    The group Priorities USA, which is packed with Hillary Clinton loyalists, has also plunged into the economic message debate armed with data from its focus groups of "persuadable" Trump voters in swing states. The effort is promoted as beneficial to Democrats of all varieties -- and Priorities USA has no plans to get involved in primaries -- but it also cautions candidates against banking too far left. Priorities Chairman Guy Cecil, citing the focus group findings, warned Democrats it would be a mistake to stress economic "fairness" over growth.

    "Achieving economic success to these voters is more about working hard and leveraging the opportunities you are given, not leveling the playing field," Cecil wrote in a widely distributed memo earlier this month.

    Yes, we know that Clinton actually garnered more votes, but on what planet does it make any sense at all that the strategy that failed to win her states she needed to get the Electoral College win, seems to be the strategy the Third Way crowd wants to return to.

    And apparently is willing to fight tooth-and-nail for.

    From the article:

    Union leader RoseAnn Demoro has equally strong views about what will fail Democrats: Ryan's corporate-friendly approach, which she complains the party has clung to since Bill Clinton entered the White House. "In any other place they would have fired the entire group of people and started from a different narrative after the last election," said the executive director of National Nurses United. "Not the Democrats. They have lost a thousand seats in the last decade and they are still staying the course."

    Do you actually read the links I post? (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 09:12:45 AM EST
    They indicate both where the party is and the fallacy of what you think the voters we "lost" actually want. They may want progressive policies but unlike actual progressives they only want them for certain people.

    The strategy you propose is the one the Dems tried last election and lost because those so-called progressives voted for Trump. They can't be counted on. They've been unreliable for generations. Do you not remember the changes made to the platform after Bernie lost?

    We've actually had a string of local victories recently using the platform I've linked to previously tailored to the local politics of the district.


    I do not consider an article by (3.50 / 2) (#38)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 09:38:56 AM EST
    Peter Daou to be definitive, sorry.  He has a side and he's taking it here.

    I am one of those progressive voters.  The party lost me because it made it crystal clear that it wasn't interested in listening to what I wanted, it was focused on wooing moderate Republicans and Trump voters with policies that would appeal to them.

    Hillary Clinton didn't lose because she adopted the Sanders agenda and went way left: she lost because she abandoned progressive voters who wanted at least a chance at something more than warmed-over Third Way policies and a continuing nod to the corporate world.

    To my everlasting chagrin and embarrassment, I voted for the apparently-loony Jill Stein - but being from a solid blue state, I could have voted for Bugs Bunny - Clinton won my state by something like 60 points, so it wasn't ever close.

    Speaking for myself (I presume it is acceptable for me to do that, and not defer to Peter Daou's idea of what I wanted), I did not only want progressive policies for "certain people."  I don't even know what that means, and I'm not sure you can tell me, either.

    You state rather authoritatively that every progressive voter voted for Trump, but the statistics you cited do not support that assertion - oh, but maybe it's because you meant the "so-called" progressives - which, by the way, I'd like you to define, if you can.

    The strategy in the last election was to close their eyes and ears to progressive voters and target Republicans.  Just as they have in the last couple of elections, which has seen Dems getting less and less of the white, working class voters each time.  Do you think that means something isn't working?  And you want to blame that on progressives, and just keep trying to make a failed strategy work?

    Okay, so good luck with that!

    Is it okay if I call you a "so-called" Democrat?  How does that feel?


    Don't take it personally (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 10:45:33 AM EST
    I never said every progressive. I'm talking about those progressives that could not bring themselves to vote for what was a pretty progressive platform, bolstered by some of the demands of Bernie Sanders during the convention. The reasons behind that vary, but for many of that subset, there is a pretty clear reason, identify politics that don't center their identity.  So-called progressives. If that's not you, great for you.  I wasn't talking about you specifically.

    Secondly, the study was not done by Peter Daou, it was done by Brian Schaffer of UMass Polling using Harvard University data. Not biased and certainly reputable.

    I'm not interested in looking backward other than to learn from history what has and has not worked.

    Apologies if I was not clear. The link to which I referred is here, posted twice previously and at least once in a prior reply to you.

    Finally, this is not about you or me personally. You are arguing a certain perspective, I am arguing another.  

    You can call me whatever you want.  I know how I've voted for the last almost 30 years, pragmatic, consistent D.


    the source for the reference (2.00 / 1) (#73)
    by linea on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 09:42:09 PM EST
    Secondly, the study was not done by Peter Daou, it was done by Brian Schaffer.... Not biased and certainly reputable.

    actually, it was a tweet. a college professor tweet'd it. he "hasn't written anything up yet" or submitted a formal presentation or described his methodology. but he has a tweet. here's the tweet.

    even if one blindly accepts the validiy of his tweet, he never claims "millennial progressive democrats" are the culprits. he claims a certain percentage of people who voted in the primary for senator sanders later voted for donald trump.

    also in that twitter thread:

    Nan @NanInKansas
    Also, what percent of Clinton primary supporters voted for Trump?

    Discount Dog Scuba @ScubaForDogs
    Hey buddy I'm still over here waiting for an explanation of your methodology.

    Bender Rodríguez @plungerman
    I know 2 conservative white males at work who voted for Bernie then trump. They would never vote for a democrat but bernie spoke to them.

    nerdlogic @nerdlogic0_o
    Yeah he was the only candidate that could pull both Rand Paul supporters & community organizers of color.

    Dilan Esper @dilanesper
    and according to "Shattered", the Clinton campaign cut ads with Sanders endorsing her, and then never ran them.

    President Dad @nickexperience
    You're supposed to nominate a candidate that can win. Moron centrists nominated Clinton and predictably lost.

    Konstantine Anthony @KonstantineinCA
    I voted for Bernie in the Primary and then voted for who he endorsed. It was simple, really.

    Josh Miller-Lewis @jmillerlewis
    And here's some more context: about 13% of all Trump voters cast a ballot for Obama in 2012. centerforpolitics.org

    Jon Powell @jayspacewitty
    Did you even read the margin of error on this @b_schaffner?

    Third person in this thread going after the (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 10:12:04 PM EST
    messengers. Peter Daou is this, Shaffer is that. Yes it was a tweet. With lots of supporting evidence. One of many in a long thread. No, not peer reviewed, but still publicly available for scrutiny and counter evidence.

    I never discussed millennials. Yes, he does claim

    a certain percentage of people who voted in the primary for senator sanders later voted for donald trump.

    We can use the information to pinpoint reliable allies vs those seemingly less likely to be.


    What may be of interest is to read both (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 06:14:12 AM EST
    the Daou piece AND the Vox piece and compare their conclusions.

    I didn't realize, at first, that the Vox article/interview was discussing the same data as Daou opined on.

    I suppose the difference is that Daou brought his own perspective as an ardent Clinton supporter to his analysis, while the Vox piece gave the analysis of the person who authored the study.

    Proving, I guess, that people can extract from data the conclusions they want or need to reach.


    where? how! (none / 0) (#75)
    by linea on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 10:24:22 PM EST
    by vicndabx
    With lots of supporting evidence. One of many in a long thread. No, not peer reviewed, but still publicly available for scrutiny and counter evidence.

    when asked for details and methodology...
    he writes, "Haven't written anything up yet, but I will soon."


    The source was NOT a tweet (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 07:23:38 AM EST
    The source was linked in the tweet.  But complaining that the study had not been peer reviewed and it's methodology fully cited while trying to discredit it with tweets is seriously funny.

    There (3.50 / 2) (#40)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 10:16:06 AM EST
    is no "I" in team, politics is nothing if it is not a team sport. It's people like you who get offended when the game plan does not conform exactly to your wishes and then pick up your ball and go home that helps blow the game for everyone.



    Oh, no - that's just not gonna fly, sorry. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 11:18:06 AM EST
    This is not the fault of "people like me," many of whom - like me - have been voting for Democrats for decades, being team players and voting "better than the other guy," "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good," "the only thing that matters is getting the 'W,'" EVEN AS we wrote and called and e-mailed and faxed and begged to be listened to, just once.

    We were taken for granted. Laughed at: "where else were we gonna go?"

    No, you don't get to tell me that this is my fault for not being a team player; teams that don't win don't blame the players who weren't even allowed to dress for the game - they fire their coaches.  


    Pretty sure he does get to ... and did (4.25 / 4) (#48)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 12:30:20 PM EST
    Someone prevented your "players from dressing for the game"?  Who did that ... and how?

    As I stated in my response to Joe, (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 02:38:57 PM EST
    we were calling and e-mailing and faxing and writing letters to the editor - actively participating in the process, much like athletes who work out and go to practice and run the drills and watch game film, even in the off-season.  

    You ask who kept us from even dressing for the game, and how?  Well, the "who" would be those party officials who decided, I guess, that what we had to offer - other than our votes - wasn't what they had in mind, wasn't going to work.  The "how?"  By not responding.

    But it was worse than that, really.  Over and over, the DNC and the DCCC are choosing to back and fund more centrist Dems in primaries and ignoring the more progressive Dems running.

    James Thompson from Kansas is a perfect example:

    Thompson took almost 46 percent of the vote--improving on the Democratic percentage from 2016 by more than 16 points. Where Pompeo regularly won by margins of more than 30 points, Republican Ron Estes won this year by under seven points.


    An election-eve story by CNN, headlined "GOP cavalry heads to Kansas ahead of close House election," noted, "The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is not spending money on this race at all, and even the Kansas State Democratic Party rejected Thompson's requests for funding for mailers."

    The DCCC made some last-minute calls, and a lot of excuses. There were even those who suggested that the strategy was to "fly under radar"--apparently missing the fact that Republican radar detected what was happening and mobilized at precisely the point when Democrats could have and should have moved money and attention to the race.

    Jim Dean, head of Democracy for America:

    "To the Washington Democratic insiders who wrote this race off before it began, it's time to wake up and realize that the grassroots expects this resistance effort to be waged unflinchingly in every single county and every single state across the country. While Donald Trump is threatening the safety of marginalized communities, Democrats need to quit the dithering and ensure that Trump and his Congressional enablers feel politically unsafe in every corner of the country."

    And this is how they do it:

    While the DNC has repelled progressives, voters, and even the wealthy donors that new DNC Chair Tom Perez was instilled to appease, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is abandoning progressives to shift the party further to the right. The DCCC received criticism for pouring funds and resources into Georgia special election congressional candidate Jon Ossoff while ignoring Bernie Sanders-backed candidates in special elections in Montana and Kansas. Ossoff's campaign received over $23 million in campaign funds, making it the most expensive congressional election in history. His election was supposed to prove that fiscally conservative neo-liberals running in wealthy suburbs was the key to Democrats' recovery. Even though Ossoff came up short, the DCCC is doubling down on running Republican-lite candidates.

    The question you need to ask is, "why?"


    You voted for Stein (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 03:44:00 PM EST
    because no one responded to your letters and the DNC and DCCC underfunded a Bernie candidate?

    Stein voters, rather than abandon the
    Democratic Party, should just win primaries.  The National Party Platform, as mentioned above, was changed to move to the Left.  Apparently not good enough.

    The more moderate types you vilify are Democrats and voters too.

    GOP voters don't vote on issues;  they vote out of spite and grievance.  Not a place for Progressives to go.


    Stein? (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 03:46:48 PM EST
    She was the cuckoo one, no?  Really backward and definitely retro and not progressive on a number of issues....

    What a protest candidacy....that was really helpful.  

    Voting for her in a Blue State still boosted her overall.  Gave her fuel for another run perhaps.....Supporting her hurts Progressives. Period.


    You must have missed this part of Anne's earlier (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 03:52:39 PM EST

    "To my everlasting chagrin and embarrassment, I voted for the apparently-loony Jill Stein"

    That said, I agree somewhat with her points. The Democratic Party establishment has been cowardly and determined to always play it safe.


    Heh! Visit Poland right now while it fights (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 02:00:59 PM EST
    Russian influence and propaganda for the life of its Democracy, and remember Stein sitting at that table with Putin and Flynn. And remember all of her insane Russian propaganda she freely spewed herself. Not only is she out of her mind, she is dangerous as hell!

    No. I don't "need" to ask ... (4.40 / 5) (#53)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 03:51:08 PM EST
    ... any question.  I chose to ask the question I wanted to ask, but the response makes no sense.  

    The party officials didn't choose the candidate that got to play in the big game.  The party voters chose the candidate.  If the voters had chosen Sanders and the superdelegates overruled them by choosing Clinton, you would have a point, but they didn't.  Her supporters were also were also calling/faxing/emailing/writing and more of them voted for her than Sanders.  If you want your candidate in the final "game", you have to win the semi-final.

    Not even going to respond to the "Republican-lite" by//$hit.


    Silly me...I once again forgot (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 04:56:10 PM EST
    that you are less interested in actual discussion and more interested in "getting" people.

    But I digress...the party's decisions about who is going to be the recipient of their funds play a very important role in this process.

    There was an opportunity for Mike Pompeo's seat to go to a Democrat - James Thompson, who is a civil rights lawyer - but the DNC and the DCCC conceded the seat and failed to properly assess the conditions on the ground and the mood of a people who had had about enough of Sam Brownback's efforts to send Kansas into the toilet; they assumed - wrongly - that nothing had changed since Mike Pompeo's 60 percentage point win.

    As Thompson's numbers began to climb - without the help of the national party - the GOP got a little worried and began to lend its assistance.  The DCCC continued to twiddle its thumbs.

    It ended up being a 7-point race.

    Republicans proved to be savvy as the Kansas election approached. They recognized that Thompson's old-school economic-populist campaign against Trump and Trumpism (as well as against unpopular Kansas Governor Sam Brownback and the Kansas-based Koch brothers) was closing the gap, and the GOP establishment panicked. House Speaker Paul Ryan sent a last-minute fundraising plea, Vice President Mike Pence recorded phone calls on behalf of the Republican nominee, President Trump tweeted about the race, and Texas Senator Ted Cruz raced to the district on Monday to declare: "Today the eyes of the whole country are upon Kansas." Most importantly, the National Republican Congressional Committee and GOP allies poured money into media buys and mailings in the final days of the contest.

    National Democrats? Not so much. An election-eve story by CNN, headlined "GOP cavalry heads to Kansas ahead of close House election," noted, "The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is not spending money on this race at all, and even the Kansas State Democratic Party rejected Thompson's requests for funding for mailers."

    An opportunity to pick up a seat, lost.  


    No, I'm "more interested" ... (3.50 / 2) (#89)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 10:01:25 AM EST
    ... in discussing the original topic, which was your suggestion that the 2016 presidential primary was rigged and that your "team" (Bernie) was unfairly denied a chance to play.  This is not rocket science.  If you want a certain candidate,  they have to win the primary.  If they don't, you're free to take your ball and go home, but try not to get too upset when people naturally point the finger at those pushing these conspiracy theories.  Also, be careful stepping down carefully from that true prog high horse, although I guess it's not that high when in a deep blue state where the only effect of voting Jim Stein (dear Gawd) is self satisfaction.

    No, you really don't understand (none / 0) (#92)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 10:50:32 AM EST
    anything I've said, and have chosen to make what I have said mean what you want it to so that you can have the fight you want.

    I am well aware that it is votes that are the ultimate determiner of who wins and who loses.  Those votes do not exist is a vacuum, though - or do you want to contend that they do?

    Many things influence and affect the votes, among them: media coverage, the number and scheduling of debates, the weather, outside events, outside groups, overall campaign organization, grassroots participation, voter rolls problems, advertising, and the level and extent of the ratfking that has become a staple of our election process.

    The national party organization does affect the process - or have you forgotten the debacle of the 2008 Democratic primaries and the awarding of delegates?  

    I have not made an accusation of "rigging" the 2016 primary - I don't think I've ever used that word in connection with any election - but I have acknowledged that there are many factors that go into who votes and ultimately, who wins and who loses, and the DNC most definitely played a role.  For what it's worth, in my opinion, Debbie Wasserman Schultz may ultimately not have done Clinton any favors by limiting debates and scheduling them for days and times when viewership was likely to be low.

    I am the first to admit that voting Green was not so much a mistake as it was a meaningless exercise of principle, because it didn't cost me anything.  Well, except embarrassment that the candidate - Stein - turned out to be something of a loon, even if the Green Party platform was every bit as progressive as I was looking for.  

    And even though my vote - as with everyone's - is personal to me and I had no obligation to say who I voted for, it didn't seem honest for me to be offering my opinions without revealing it - even knowing that there would be people who will throw it in my face at every opportunity.

    And yes, I think you will be one of those people.

    Enjoy your weekend.


    Deservedly so (none / 0) (#99)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 01:52:29 PM EST
    And yes, you didn't use the word "rigged".  You did everything to push that smear but use that word.  You want a ""true progressive"?  Win a primary. Or take control of the DNC.  Then Democrats will get to accuse you of rigging the election ... without using that word, of course.

    Say hello to President Pence in 2020.  After all, they're also big fans of that conspiracy theory.


    I wonder if this means anything (none / 0) (#63)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 05:33:31 PM EST
    As Thompson's numbers began to climb - without the help of the national party

    Direct donation to the candidate via grassroots seemed to work well there.  Why so much focus on the DNC & DCCC that has limited funds?

    Odd that the same people that don't want to support the DNC/DCCC/DSCC, or want it to accept funds from large donors expect it provide financial support.


    What's odd is that you're either (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 07:23:22 PM EST
    trying to make me one of "the same people," which would be a stretch, or, you are seeking some kind of agreement from me as to your observation.

    Let's try this: there is a place for the DNC, the DCCC and the DSCC - I never said there wasn't.  What I do think is that these organizations/groups seem to be lagging behind what's happening out in the world beyond the beltway.  They are too invested in maintaining the status quo.

    You were the one who said we needed to get back the majority if we were to be able to shift the balance of power.  Here was an opportunity, in a special election, that was lost because the candidate running got no support from the DNC/DCCC.  

    And this just one example of why people like me began to refuse to give them our money. It's why donations are down.  If they aren't going to use our donations to help win an election and gain a badly-needed seat, what's the point?

    Maybe this article will help with what I've been trying to express, and perhaps pay particular attention to what the author himself experienced running for Congress.  Here's a small part:

    Democrats should be thinking broadly instead of narrowly. Successful political organizations are entrepreneurial and opportunistic, especially when they are 60 seats in the minority. But despite the dismal record it's racked up in recent years, the DCCC has become insular and myopic. Candidates and consultants can't reach high-ranking staffers. Reaching ranking members is unthinkable. The circle of people influencing the political strategists rarely reaches outside of the beltway, which means the strategists--like so much of Washington--have lost touch with the people whose votes they need to attract. They rely on polling and focus groups to give them an understanding of the challenges facing families today. Those tools would be greatly enhanced if the people using them had regular contact with the people they are trying to reach.


    It's not only the training that's taken a hit. Despite their 60-seat deficit heading into 2016, the Democrats didn't appear to do much candidate recruiting except in the most competitive districts. In Texas, Hillary Clinton won in a congressional district where Democrats didn't even field a challenger. Numbers, not potential, guided the DCCC efforts. Instead of looking for possibilities, or trying to create them, the committee only paid attention to the districts that looked viable on spreadsheets.

    The DCCC and other campaign committees ought to retool their campaign operations looking back to the 1980s and 1990s. Back then, they introduced research and polling to campaigns. Now, they should be teaching campaigns how to use social media and online operations to reach voters early and build low-dollar fundraising operations.

    Just (none / 0) (#65)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 06:04:21 PM EST
    a guess, but I suspect that taking some of that "dirty Pelosi Money"might have hurt more than helped. The GOP used that line to slam Ossoff in GA and it would have tarnished his populist cred to some degree if not destroyed him.

    Oh I know (none / 0) (#66)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 06:32:42 PM EST
    Just trying to flesh out when D party money can be used. You highlight the dilemma that was faced in KS - a hard red state.

    "Why?" (none / 0) (#55)
    by NYShooter on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 04:05:28 PM EST
    George Carlin said it best: "You see, the owners of this country know the truth. It's called the American dream, cause ya have to be asleep to believe it. It's a big club and you ain't in it"

    Carlin at his best   3:15 mins.


    The better question is (none / 0) (#57)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 04:22:57 PM EST
    what type of rep would come out of a conservative Kansas district regardless of how much funding they got. Would you be OK with another blue dog?

    You (none / 0) (#60)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 04:47:59 PM EST
    do have a point, I am no fan of the various committees (fun fact: Bernie both accepted  and raised money for the DSCC). I often question their decisions, but I mostly ascribe the why of it more to ignorance than ideology.

    Did they blow a chance in KS and MT? Perhaps, but it was logical to write those seats off from day one. I'm pretty sure the polling was pretty sparse and the relative success came to everyone's surprise. The was DCC clueless and slow to react as usual, but it's hardly the ideological shunning
    it's being made out to be.

    Besides, GA-6 is all so sexy and KS is well Kansas
    (did I mention ignorance).


    MT was (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 06:00:26 PM EST
    a test case to see the appeal of left wing "populism" vs. right wing "populism" and an attempt to show that Bernie could convince those people to vote for a D. That did not work out. It would have been interesting to see what happened in GA 6 had not that guy shot Scalise.

    i did (none / 0) (#39)
    by linea on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 09:45:42 AM EST
    Do you actually read the links I post? (#34)
    by vicndabx

    i read the article and i read the article that article referenced with the 'overwhelming evidence,' and then i read the actual study which doesn't make any of the assertions the two authors are claiming. the actual study certainly does not make the specious claim that "young progressives voted trump."

    here is the actual harvard study:
    Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election

    to yet another 'i blame bernie' post:
    my millenial response


    I'm not blaming Bernie specifically (4.25 / 4) (#43)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 10:51:29 AM EST
    I'm blaming a mindset that it's OK to $hit on your own side and then expect a positive outcome.

    I have serious (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 08:53:55 AM EST
    doubts myself that there is widespread support for socialized medicine because when it came up in Vermont and CO it failed. The truth seems to be that while many people might support the idea once the costs come into play it seems support for it collapses.

    RoseAnn Deomoro is an idiot who said Trump was going to bring single payer to America.


    Well, okay then... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 09:16:47 AM EST
    I guess we'll just ignore pretty much the rest of the civilized world that is successfully functioning with some form of single-payer/universal health - I mean, don't those people know that they are supposed to be unhappy about it?

    The fact that the Third Way guy chooses to use the term "socialized" medicine - as do you - is also revealing, because what is being proposed is not "socialized medicine:"

    By accepted definition, socialized medicine is a healthcare system in which the government owns and operates healthcare facilities, employs healthcare professionals, and also pays for healthcare services. Examples include the British National Health Service and national health systems in countries such as Finland and Spain. There are escape valves for those few who wish to pay for private care.

    In the United States, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is a true example of "socialized medicine." We, among many others, have described a giant gap between the practices--even the culture--of the VHA over the past 50 years and what might be envisioned as "ideal" by many American physicians. Thus, it is not surprising that the hundreds of thousands of American physicians who received much of their training in Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals are so dead-set against any American national healthcare system.

    "Universal healthcare," such as has long existed in almost the entire civilized world (except the United States), is not necessarily socialized medicine. Instead, each of the various developed countries has its own way to provide basic care to all of its people, control cost escalation, ensure quality and safety, and appropriately compensate the workers. And they do all of that more effectively and more efficiently than the United States, with proven better outcomes at much lower costs.

    Countries with such universal healthcare include Australia, Austria, Canada, Ireland, The Netherlands, France, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Taiwan, Singapore, and Japan. There are many others--even Moldova and Portugal.

    They are not smarter than we are. They do not work harder than we do. They are not richer nations than ours. They don't have more or better education than we do. They don't have better equipment and supplies than we do.

    Their health systems are simply framed by a different set of values. The primary purpose of their healthcare system approach is to provide decent medical care for all of their inhabitants. In contrast, our current American healthcare system is organized to transfer money from the many to the few. As W. Edward Deming described, "every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets." How true.

    I don't disagree that DeMoro was wrong to believe that Trump was going to bring us single payer, but the comment she made in the article wasn't in reference to health care, but to Democrats who don't seem to want to adjust their strategy in the face of electoral losses.

    I don't think Medicare would have worked if it had had to be done state-by-state; it worked because it covered everyone 65 and over, across the nation.  


    Well, (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 09:27:46 AM EST
    I'm all for "universal healthcare" but there are more ways to get to it than "Medicare for All". My concern that has never been answered is how do you reconcile Mike Pence running women's healthcare in this country? Personally I think the Bismark plan is probably the best plan. It's more decentralized. We've also seen what happens when you get conservatives running things and they have been hacking away at any type of care.

    One of the problems that single payer is not going to solve is the cost problem of medicine here in the US. The way we practice medicine is going to have to change before we get any kind of cost savings.


    Then, how do you explain (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by NYShooter on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 03:41:47 PM EST
    the overwhelming success of Medicare?

    There are two main reasons for the great cost inflation in our health care system over the past decades.

    One, is that all costs have to pass through the insurance company gauntlet. They serve no beneficial purpose today. Their only goal is to maximize their stock price and return ungodly profits to their CEO's & shareholders. They want their 30% cut of all payments, very much like the NYC Mafia demanded a "cut" from all merchants operating there. The Mob, also, called it "insurance," insurance that their windows wouldn't get smashed by "those very dangerous hoodlums lurking all over the city." You don't have to be a CPA to understand, the less health care they approve, the more profits they rake in.

    The insurance companies are very much like the appendix in your body. WebMD calls it "just a useless remnant from our evolutionary past." And, "Surgical removal of the appendix causes no observable health problems."

    The other reason for increasing health care costs is that providers have no idea what they will actually receive after being forced to go through the insurance company "chop shop" scam. So, they charge as much as possible, hoping to get some fraction of that amount in the end. With Medicare they know exactly what they'll get, and, costs naturally settle down at a sustainable level.

    The thing to remember is, your elected officials don't work for you. Like everyone else, they work for those who pay them (guess who that is.) And, BTW, one reason I know there's no God is because, if there was, every time you saw a politician yelling at you through the TV screen, "I want to go to Washington to fight for you," God would have made their nose grow two feet long.


    This is conspiracy theory stuff (none / 0) (#56)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 04:07:17 PM EST
    Costs=Doctors fees, hospital facility charges, lab fees, radiology tech salary, receptionist salary, etc. that have nothing to do with insurers. They don't tell providers what they should charge. Providers know exactly what they will get paid. Rates are negotiated, fee schedules posted, usual and customary is known. I went to the dentist a few weeks back for a crown and the dentist knew exactly what to charge me. Same amount on my EOB a few weeks later.

    I think he nailed it. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 07:23:19 PM EST
    That's exactly how our healthcare system works.

    I would also add (none / 0) (#58)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 04:29:03 PM EST
    why is this the only issue people ever talk about? There are so many other issues that impact broad swaths of Democratic Party voters.

    Are you advocating (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 04:42:01 PM EST
    for a plan that many doctors will not take? The GOP has been hacking on Medicare and now a lot of doctors won't take any new Medicare patients. Medicare does not pay for things like birth control that affect younger women and not older women. Do you want an 80/20 plan like Medicare and everybody buys a supplemental insurance policy? Still haven't answered the question as to what about Mike Pence running women's healthcare?

    As far as medicine in this country you are off base. It goes back to the medical schools and hospitals. In most of those other countries doctors are on a salary and don't charge by treatment like they do here. There's no guarantee that doctors would sign onto a single player plan. You could eliminate the overhead in insurance companies but simply making them nonprofits.


    In continuation (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Nemi on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 06:50:46 AM EST
    of the article in Verrit -- founded by Leela Daou btw -- the following article in Medium touches on many of the reasons why I for one  -- and probably many others -- never bought what Bernie Sanders was selling. I'm still baffled, that so many did and still do, even to the point where he's seen as the front runner in the D primary 2020: Ten Reasons Why Bernie Sanders Must Be Stopped. A small excerpt

    When the convention did actually roll around, the world witnessed the astonishingly vulgar spectacle of his supporters shouting down speakers with profane anti-Clinton and anti-Democrat slogans and encouraging Democrats to leave the party. The Sanders campaign made a half-baked attempt to tamp down the chaos, to little avail. If he actually cared, he wouldn't have spent the last two months stoking the flames. Ultimately, though, all the destruction and chaos was worth it to him, because he got to use it to blackmail the party.

    polls (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by linea on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 08:43:14 AM EST
    done by actual reasearch organizations is the reason.

    Public Policy Polling, August 23, 2017

    Trump continues to trail both Bernie Sanders (51/38) and Joe Biden (51/39) by double digits in possible 2020 match ups. PPP never found Hillary Clinton up by more than 7 points on Trump in 2016. Sanders and Biden each win over 12-14% of the folks who voted for Trump last year. Also leading Trump in hypothetical contests at this point are Elizabeth Warren (45/40), Mark Cuban (42/38), and Cory Booker and Trump Twitter Target Richard Blumenthal (42/39). Trump ties Kamala Harris at 39% each and John Delaney at 38% each.

    this entire thread is nothing more than certain people blame-shifting while screaming 'bitter berners' and drooling pea-soup on themselves.

    ... in my opinion.


    Sorry, but your friend Peter Daou (4.00 / 3) (#41)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 10:30:49 AM EST
    is fos, and or, living in a some parallel universe if he really thinks Sanders "did more damage to Clinton's reputation in three months than the Republicans did in thirty years."

    The Right has been waging a relentless rhetorical and in-print marketing jihad against HRC since the early nineties.

    Daou sounds less like any kind of recognizable Democrat here, and more a like a Romney Republican out to smear and marginalize progressives at all costs.


    If that's your take (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 10:57:16 AM EST
    you are of course entitled to it.

    Although I would argue his point is more about identifying unreliable allies.


    Personally, I think Peter Daou ... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 08:19:09 PM EST
    ... is grievously overstating the case against Sanders supporters. As I stated in a prior thread, the vast majority of those with whom I interacted by virtue of my own position in the Democratic Party were entirely supportive of the Clinton-Kaine ticket. And personally, I don't see any more point to Daou's penchant for re-litigating the 2016 primaries, than I do with regard to the same from that loud little handful of unrepentant Berniebots.

    For those who found voting for the Green Party's human blowtorch, Dr. Jill Stein, preferable to casting a ballot for Hillary Clinton, well, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. Whether or not Stein actually has any concrete ties with the Kremlin herself has recently been the subject of lots of online conjecture, most of it thus far baseless.

    But that said, it's pretty clear that those on the left who voted for Stein really weren't nearly as well-informed about their protest candidate as they might have otherwise initially thought. But unlike so many others who've merely doubled down, at least Anne is adult enough to forthrightly express her own personal regret for that particular choice.

    As for hearing from Mrs. Clinton herself on the matter of her unexpected loss last November, I concur with Charles Pierce's opinion:

    "I can't tell you how thrilled I am that the various institutions my profession that went around the bend on the Clintons during the 1990s now have a new book from Hillary Rodham Clinton to chew over. Maureen Dowd must be blowing the dust off her well-thumbed volume of Cheap Shots For Dummies. Her newspaper, The New York Times, which has been deranged on the subject of these uppity Arkansans for 25 years now, can dispatch its legions again to justify how putting a bustling bouquet of stories on James Comey's 11th hour letter about E-MAIIIIIIIILLLLLZZZZ! on the front page was perfectly reasonable news judgment. [...] Chris Cillizza is going to need to buy a new abacus to total up everything he's going to have to say and write about this latest appearance of somebody he already has dismissed. Oh, the kids are going to have fun playing down at the old familiar mudhole again.


    "Paul Waldman has the right of it here. No politician in my lifetime has faced so many constant demands that he or she apologize simply for being there. HRC ran a very average campaign. You know who ran a bad campaign? Michael Dukakis in 1988, and so did Richard Nixon in 1960. More to the point, in 1972, George McGovern ran a bad general election campaign, but you'd have to be a complete ignoramus not to place considerable importance while making that judgment on the fact that McGovern was being ratfcked from inside the West Wing of the White House.

    "HRC ran a campaign that was good enough to get three million more votes than her opponent. That is not a 'bad' campaign. It was a decent, if flawed, campaign that had more than its share of the bumps in the road customary to such enterprises. However, just as you'd have to be stupid not to mention prominently the role of, say, Gordon Liddy in the defeat of McGovern, you simply have to give pride of place in what went wrong last November to the bizarre involvement of the FBI's New York office, the flea-on-a-griddle performance of James Comey, the meddling of Russian cyberwarriors, and, yes, the persistent grudge that has warped the elite political media's approach to the Clintons right from the Times's misbegotten first Whitewater story.

    "Yes, she probably should have gone to Wisconsin.

    "But the ghoul in the White House shouldn't have stalked her, and neither should have The New York Times.

    "She gets to write a book. She gets to have a say. Deal with it."



    Further to the analysis of the (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 09:02:57 PM EST
    Sanders-to-Trump voters, here is a pretty interesting discussion on Vox:

    The Bernie voters who defected to Trump, explained by a political scientist

    Here's a bit from it:

    Jeff Stein

    I've seen some people who are using your new finding to trumpet that "Bernie Would Have Won," because the number of Bernie-Trump voters is greater than the margin of difference between Clinton and Trump. And then there are others who say that this poll proves that Bernie voters cost Hillary the election, because his supporters stubbornly flipped to Trump in the end.

    And it seems like for one claim to be correct, so does the other one.

    Brian Schaffner

    One piece of this that's important to keep in context is that you always see this kind of defection between a primary and a general election. In 2008, you saw a lot of Hillary Clinton voters who ended up backing John McCain -- so it's not abnormal to see this kind of thing. And more of them did so in 2008 than this time. [15 percent of Clinton's 2008 voters in the primary supported McCain in that year's general election.] Although given the candidates this time versus in 2008, it may have been surprising to see even this rate of defection.

    The thing that really stood out to me is that a lot of these people who voted for Sanders -- and then Trump -- don't look like modern day Democrats. So you saw a lot fewer of them actually identify as Democrats than your normal Sanders voter; and, even more striking, they seem to have views on racial issues that are far more conservative than your typical Democrat.

    It's not clear to me this necessarily if this is a Hillary Clinton problem specifically, or if this was Bernie Sanders having a special appeal to bring people into Democratic Party primaries, who would otherwise be inclined to be Republicans.


    I also looked at how the Bernie-Trump voters identify themselves on the ideological scale, and very few say that they're liberal. Only about 17 to 18 percent say that they're liberal, in any kind of way, shape, or form, though they voted for Sanders.

    By contrast, about 45 percent of these Bernie-Trump voters say they're `middle of the road' -- basically, a lot of them see themselves as "moderates." Meanwhile, another 35 percent of them are claiming to be either somewhat conservative or very conservative.

    I think what this starts to suggest to me is that these are old holdovers from the Democratic Party that are conservative on race issues. And while Bernie wasn't campaigning on that kind of thing, Clinton was much more forthright about courting the votes of minorities -- and maybe that offended them, and then eventually pushed them out and toward Trump.

    That's an interesting take. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 09:37:21 PM EST
    But as I noted, my own experience -- admittedly anecdotal -- leads me to believe that Mr. Daou is significantly overstating the number of Democratic defections from the ticket last November.

    Just in terms of raw numbers, Hillary Clinton received the second highest nationwide tally of votes of any Democrat in history, surpassed only by the turnout for Barack Obama in 2008.

    For all of our sakes, I just wish everyone would stop the sniping at both Hillary and Bernie over a primary campaign that's long since done. We really do need to move on and deal with the hear and now, rather than continuing to re-litigate the there and then. And in that regard, I consider everyone's voice in the resistance to be important.



    You ignore the Electiral College (4.25 / 4) (#76)
    by Towanda on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 10:48:48 PM EST
    and, above, you extrapolate from your state -- atypical -- to all states.  I am in one of the three states that tipped the EC, and I can attest that local analysts also have shown the evidence that Sanders voters here switched in sufficient numbers to put that large orange lout in the White House,  

    And Daou is not making up numbers; he is using data from studies, especially of the three states.  If you look at those numbers, as well as the very narrow margins that won them for the large orange lout, the conclusion is clear.

    Or you could listen to one of the smartest Dems there is, Barney Frank, who didn't need the data to see and say the same thing, many months ago: Sanders cost us the White House, just based on his conduct (and that of his wife and his campaign manager and his supporters).

    We can learn from that, or we can let it tear us apart again in 2020.


    I worked with four states - HI, CA, NV & OH. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 04:35:20 AM EST
    I also noted that my experience was admittedly anecdotal. That said, and speaking as someone who supported Hillary Clinton from the outset, what does the Electoral College have to do with my plea for Democrats to cease forming these circular firing squads? The 2016 race is long over.

    As far as I'm concerned at this point, blaming Bernie Sanders for what happened to Mrs. Clinton is entirely counterproductive to the immediate task at hand, which is our own active organization of ourselves in resistance mode. The same thing applies to those Berniebots who still insist upon belittling Mrs. Clinton, now well after the fact and at regular intervals, for no other earthly reason than to assuage one's own petty ego.

    Look, people made their choices in the general election, and if some of them now have buyer's remorse because their own self-induced bitterness blinded them to the danger posed by Trump, then they will simply have to live with it. Sometimes the lessons we need to learn are both painful and humbling.

    But as a party, we Democrats simply have to disengage from this now-obsolete yet still self-destructive point of internecine contention, and instead seek to move forward together in common purpose. Otherwise, we'll be lost in the face of an opposition that almost never fails to rally together and fall in line at crunch time.



    I (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by FlJoe on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 06:19:38 AM EST
    don't think you can blame Bernie, nor any single factor in Hillary's defeat. She faced an unprecedented array of powerful forces. Russians and Congress, wide swaths of the press and rouge FBI agents, rural rubes and Berniebots, racism and misogamy, I could go on. Hurricane force headwinds if you ask me

    That being said, this whole conservation is a microcosm of the main problem with the Democrats. We just witnessed the right dutifully show up and vote  for an unqualified, p-grabbing, bigoted buffoon, meanwhile many on the left stayed home, voted for their vanity candidate or even tRump, just because of mumble mumble both-sides or some other CDS BS.

    I am sick of tired of being lectured by people who just preformed a textbook act of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good, they own  piece of tRump whether they like it or not. They are complicit.


    I think it was so close, 70,000 votes (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by ruffian on Sat Aug 26, 2017 at 06:51:56 PM EST
    over 3 states was the difference, that you can say that any of the single factors swung it. Comey, Sanders defectors, Clinton making too few trips to  the rust belt, Clinton making too many trips to the rest belt while being a woman...any one of these things.

    I don't see any evidence of a huge error in strategy as to what voters to target. Reaching out more to the left would have lost some in the center. In particular reaching out to the part of the left that thinks there is too much emphasis on'identity politics', ignoring the real base of the party which is POC.

    Seems to me Clinton had a pretty finely tuned strategy that went afoul in the last week or so - so I tend to place most emphasis on the Comey factor, which even had me going 'oh ffs, Hillary'.


    Exactly (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by FlJoe on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 07:05:42 AM EST
    there is no such thing as a perfect campaign, of course when you lose every decision is picked apart.

    Essentially Hillary's campaign used the standard playbook and as in sports if it works you're a genius if it fails you're a goat.

    Everyone is asking the wrong question, it's not why Hillary lost, it should be why tRump won. IMO tRump ran a trainwreck of a campaign, there was no playbook and he committed flagrant political fouls on a daily basis and never seemed to be penalized for it. Meanwhile Hillary was penalized on a daily basis by the right, the left and the media from any and all political missteps over a quarter century. Not exactly a level playing field.

    The real question is WTF is wrong with this country?


    there is a major media role here (none / 0) (#149)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 07:15:21 AM EST
    i was listening to a conversation recently on this subject.  the excuses were, 'we felt the needed to talk about her emails for "balance" when reporting on Trump'.  and 'we all thought she was going to win so , even more so'
    im not defending any of this nonsense.  im just reporting what they said.

    also it might be healthy in a political sense to admit that Trumps "train wreck of a campaign" with "no playbook and political fouls daily" got him elected president.

    so if you want to talk about who ran the best campaign i think it might be necessary in a honesy discussion to look at who actually won.


    The (5.00 / 6) (#151)
    by FlJoe on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 08:59:01 AM EST
    question is not who played the better "game". It's what the hell game are we playing anyway?

    Politics 101 say's you don't attack war heroes and gold star families, you don't attack entire subsections of the population, you don't personally attack judges and journalists, you don't praise Russian oligarchs and assorted tin pot dictators while besmirching our generals.

    tRump did all that and more, he broke all the rules and still won,  meanwhile Hillary lost votes for using the phrase super predators once 2O some years ago or voted the wrong way on the Iraq war 15 years ago.

    To keep with the football analogy, 2016 was like watching a game where one side was allowed to run the ball backwards and be awarded first downs until they scored the winning TD in their own endzone.

    It's impossible to make any kind of analysis of strategy and tactics when the whole rule book has been obliterated.

    It's hardly reasonable to blame Hillary and the Democrats when the exact same thing happened to the Republicans and the media.  


    i believe (none / 0) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 09:56:50 AM EST
    you have successfully isolated our problem.

    To repeat something Yman said, (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 06:24:25 AM EST
    or to put what he said in the form of a question: why wasn't it the voters' fault?  

    I think if you look at the Vox article, you might see that those who switched from Sanders to Trump didn't fit the typical Democratic voter profile, were much more conservative on matters of race and were, overall, decidedly less liberal.

    Further, they switched in numbers lower than in 2008, when more Clinton primary voters moved over to McCain in the general than Sanders voters moved to Trump in 2016.

    As for Sanders' behavior, I suppose it's convenient to have a whipping boy for Clinton's loss, but I think it's foolish to assume that had she had the field to herself, she'd have sailed to victory.


    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by FlJoe on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 10:23:40 AM EST
    why not blame the voters? In the end they bought the bluster and bigotry, they lined up and drank the snake oil the tRump was selling. It's hard to fight that.

    IMO Bernie did contribute to the defeat(although he certainly was not the main reason). He seemed to run an increasingly bitter campaign strongly implying that Hillary was a corrupt tool, at the very least prepping the ground for tRump's crooked Hillary attacks. Bernie also did not do enough to reign in some of his most bitter followers after his defeat and through the convention and general election.

    Hillary made plenty of mistakes, but collectively as a nation we made one gigantic mistake and it's not unreasonable to castigate Bernie's for his part in the mess.


    We've got much much bigger problems here (none / 0) (#101)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 02:54:34 PM EST
    than Bernie using embittered progressive sorcery to bend people's minds to his nefarious, misogynistic designs.

    However Bernie deigned to vilely besmirch the name of Our Lady with his polluted mouth, there's still no minimally logical explanation for
    the tens of millions of people Staggeringly Stupid, and, or, Masochistic enough to vote for someone like Donald effing Trump for President for Any reason.


    I (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by FlJoe on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 04:03:11 PM EST
    guess, but that's sort of my point, when Republicans lose they attack Democrats, when Democrats lose they attack each other.

    Litigating the primary again is pointless, sure a kinder gentler campaign would have been nice and IMO Bernie dragged it down a bit, but whatever.

    Intentional or not, Bernie cost Hillary some votes ,as Hillary cost Obama as  Rubio, Cruz and Bush et al cost tRump (alas not enough , see Craven Cruz eating crow and Rubio selling his soul to keep his cush NS job). That's just politics.

    Still the point is, Republicans are always willing to play good soldier and pull the lever for the any POS their party throws up, the Dems and their fellow travelers often do not, mostly over relatively minor issues.

    IMO anyone on the left who did not play good soldier this cycle is complicit in the ugliness that now resides in the oval office.


    THIS IS THE POINT (none / 0) (#86)
    by linea on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 08:07:41 AM EST
    everything you wrote was a complete waste of time. the analysis by a real political scientist that you presented was a complete waste of time. the facts that you pointed out were a complete waste of time.

    this is the point:

    I suppose it's convenient to have a whipping boy for Clinton's loss.

    Linea that's not the point (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by vicndabx on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 09:39:20 AM EST
    please stop trying to say it is.  It's not.

    No. That's YOUR point. (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 07:12:58 AM EST
    Every hear the expression "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"?

    Same thing applies to victimhood.


    Btw, Daou already proved (none / 0) (#45)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 10:57:40 AM EST
    he has, at best, a marriage-of-convenience relationship with the truth, when he posted on the net that Tad Levine was a Monsanto lobbyist.

    He seems like another mercenary temporary Democrat of the Mark Penn-Dick Morris stripe that the Clintons draw into their orbit when they need an unprincipaled attack dog.



    Peculiar ad hominem (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Nemi on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 07:02:04 AM EST
    In 2008 Peter Daou worked on Hillary Clinton's campaign. He has remained 100% loyal to her, but has had nothing to do with neither her 2016 campaign or her since. Nothing wrong with loyalty ... and being true to yourself.

    A story about the 10 missing sailors (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 11:15:56 AM EST
    on my local news noon report made me realize something grossly missing from Cheeto's speech in Phoenix. And further proof that there is something not right mentally about this guy. Everything is about him. He gave a speech accusing the press of treason, whining about his response to Charlottesville. Yet not one word about the 10 dead sailors from the John S. McCain. Not one. Everything has to be about him. He is unfit to be the leader of anything. He is disgusting. He needs to be removed.

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 09:22:21 PM EST
    ...contribution on Lawrence O'Donnell about pardons by Watergate figure Jill Wine-Banks.  

    First, Trump can pardon anyone, even pre-emptively.

    Second, by accepting a pardon, a subject admits guilt.

    Third, by accepting a pardon, a subject surrenders any Fifth Amendment protection that might keep him from talking about crimes committed by his father in law.

    One disagreement (none / 0) (#94)
    by Peter G on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 12:50:38 PM EST
    While a pardon, in theory, may imply guilt (otherwise, what is there to be pardoned?), it does not actually require an admission of guilt. And in fact, pardons on the ground of late-discovered innocence, where the regular appeals process for some procedural reason offers no remedy, are a traditional category of cases for which pardons are sometimes given.

    Scumbag pardons Arpaio (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 07:10:04 PM EST

    But sanctions Venezuela for (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 07:11:58 PM EST
    Lack of observing rule of law

    I have no words

    This President believes everyone should enjoy being urinated on


    And (none / 0) (#112)
    by FlJoe on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 07:21:20 PM EST
    Gorkas gone, busy day.

    At least it's not all bad news (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Peter G on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 07:34:34 PM EST
    Goodbye fascist-in-residence Gorka.

    And, his partner, (none / 0) (#128)
    by KeysDan on Sat Aug 26, 2017 at 12:01:30 PM EST
    in life and fascism, Katharine Gorka, needs to follow.  Mrs. Gorka (nee, Cornell of a Pennsylvania Iron works family) was involved in the Trump transition and is housed somewhere in the Department of Homeland Security.  

    And the statement issued by the WH (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 07:12:14 PM EST
    might make you lose your dinner:

    Today, President Donald J. Trump granted a Presidential pardon to Joe Arpaio, former Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona. Arpaio's life and career, which began at the age of 18 when he enlisted in the military after the outbreak of the Korean War, exemplify selfless public service. After serving in the Army, Arpaio became a police officer in Washington, D.C. and Las Vegas, NV and later served as a Special Agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), formerly the Bureau of Narcotics. After 25 years of admirable service, Arpaio went on to lead the DEA's branch in Arizona.

    In 1992, the problems facing his community pulled Arpaio out of retirement to return to law enforcement. He ran and won a campaign to become Sheriff of Maricopa County. Throughout his time as Sheriff, Arpaio continued his life's work of protecting the public from the scourges of crime and illegal immigration. Sheriff Joe Arpaio is now eighty-five years old, and after more than fifty years of admirable service to our Nation, he is worthy candidate for a Presidential pardon.



    I have had about half a dozen clients (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Peter G on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 07:25:47 PM EST
    in their 80s go to prison for federal criminal convictions, after a lifetime of good works and service, often as doctors. Bleah. Worst of all, this appears to be the first grant of clemency of any kind in this Administration.

    He spits in the face of the judiciary (none / 0) (#118)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 07:34:35 PM EST
    over and over. When are they going to say "enough"?

    Isn't that what judges are saying (none / 0) (#122)
    by Peter G on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 08:49:08 PM EST
    already? As in the "travel ban" decisions? Here's commentary by the leading Pardon specialist prof on his blog.

    i researched this (none / 0) (#123)
    by linea on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 09:06:01 PM EST
    today and earlier this week incuding reading, 'United States v. Maricopa County, Arizona; Maricopa County Sheriff's Office; and Joseph M. Arpaio, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona,'

    i'm perplexed more than angry. it's hard for me to get angry over a pardon for a misdemeanour. the justice department documents that arpaio was actively and repeatedly engaging in unconstitutional and unlawful actions in traffic stops, in searches and seizures, in raids of residences, in raids of work sites, in illegal detention (detaining), and in treatment of those detained.

    i don't understand why there are no criminal charges. the justice department documented actual civil rights violations, human rights violations, unconstitutional actions, and illegal activities. why are there no criminal charges? who dropped the ball here?

    ACLU: Five Reasons Racist Sheriff Joe Arpaio Should Not Receive a Presidential Pardon

    The Justice Department discovered cases where Latina detainees were "denied basic sanitary items" and were "forced to remain with sheets or pants soiled from menstruation" or were put into "solitary confinement for extended periods of time because of their inability to understand and thus follow a command given in English."

    The reason you should be upset about (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 09:23:28 PM EST
    a pardon for a misdemeanor is that it represents an attack on one of the major institutions supporting this democracy: the judiciary.

    Charlie Pierce at Esquire said this:

    A pardon of Joe Arpaio would be a punch in the gut to the Justice Department, which has tried to stand up to his misconduct for years. It would be a punch in the gut to the federal judiciary, which operates under the reasonable expectation that public officials like Arpaio, who swear an oath to the Constitution after all, will follow valid court orders. Indeed, the foundation of our entire system of laws is that public officials like Arpaio must comply with valid court orders whether they agree with them or not. Without such compliance there is no law. There is only the personal power of petty despots.

    I very much doubt that Trump pardoned Arpaio to send a message to the judiciary - I rather suspect he has little understanding of these principles and the consequences of violating them - as much as he did it to send a message to his supporters.

    And an ugly message it is.


    Most civil rights violations are not crimes (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Peter G on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 09:26:48 PM EST
    Civil rights laws are normally enforced in civil cases which seek injunctions to change practices, sometimes supplemented by money damages for individual victims. An injunctive action is decided by a judge, not a jury, and is therefore less likely to be derailed by jury nullification due to popular sympathy with local law enforcement officials and lack of sympathy for minority group victims (as we have seen in numerous recent attempts to treat cases of police brutality or excessive force as crimes). To prove a civil rights crime, the government must normally prove "willfulness," which is actual knowledge of the rights that were violated and a specific intent to violate them, under the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. The decision not to prosecute Arpaio was not, in my opinion, a case of "dropping the ball," but rather a sound strategic choice. Likewise the decision to prosecute him for contempt only as a petty offense (not even a full misdemeanor), that is, with exposure to no more than six months' imprisonment. The purpose and effect of this prosecutorial decision was to deny him a right to jury trial, thus preventing jury nullification.

    The correct verbiage would be (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 07:18:33 PM EST
    scumbag pardons scumbag. Un-effing-believable. But not.

    It shouldn't surprise us. (none / 0) (#113)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 07:22:52 PM EST
    He's been telegraphing this move for the entire past week. As Charles Pierce tells us, "This is your democracy, America. Cherish it."

    I expect (none / 0) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 07:24:08 PM EST
    the pardons to start coming for all the people involved in colluding with Russia too.

    The caution that ought to attend any (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 07:36:39 PM EST
    decision by Trump to pardon anyone involved in this Russia investigation is that once pardoned, I do not believe one's 5th Amendment rights can be invoked.  

    Which means that Mueller could compel testimony from anyone Trump pardons; not sure Trump really wants Mueller to get all those details.


    Especially since Mueller apparently has ... (none / 0) (#120)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 08:26:14 PM EST
    ... Gen. Michael "Lock Her Up!" Flynn sited squarely in his crosshairs, looking into whether he played any role in the private effort to obtain Hillary Clinton's emails from Russian hackers.

    And Paul Manafort, as well. (none / 0) (#126)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 10:01:17 PM EST
    A new batch of subpoenas went out to him today.

    I would not put (none / 0) (#129)
    by KeysDan on Sat Aug 26, 2017 at 12:22:28 PM EST
    "serial pardons" past Trump.  After the first pardon, Trump would pardon for refusing to testify.  An abuse of the pardon, and added to the list of impeachable offenses....if there should ever be such a move.

    This should (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 07:24:51 PM EST
    be a sign to Mueller that time is running short and he needs to hurry up and get this done as fast as he can.

    And Atrios had to tweet that PUMAs (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 04:50:50 PM EST
    Were deeply racist too. Not just Berniebros. Muthafucka pleeeease!!! I just......

    If only HRC had (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 11:32:50 AM EST
    knee-capped him. Definitely creepy.  

    Trump worries about Egypt's human rights violations but not his own.

    ... or the moderators (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Nemi on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 05:31:07 PM EST
    had stopped him. I always wondered why they allowed him to stalk and intimidate her like that. And of course in doing so they could have chosen a more, ehm, moderate language than what she considered. :)

    It certainly would have helped her (none / 0) (#5)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 02:18:29 PM EST
    Failing to act under pressure probably hurt her.  

    "Failing to act under pressure" (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Yman on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 03:53:02 PM EST
    If she had told him to back off, the wingers/media would've claimed she "snapped under pressure!".

    Too funny.


    That is th most astonishingly (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Towanda on Mon Aug 28, 2017 at 10:46:01 PM EST
    ignorant response on this issue that Ihave seen, and the competition is fierce.  Do you know any women?!

    Governor stays execution of Marcellus Williams (none / 0) (#6)
    by McBain on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 03:08:18 PM EST
    because of  new DNA evidence
    A spokesman for the governor said the stay will remain in place as long it's necessary for the case's review and for the governor to make a final decision.
    Greitens' decision Tuesday was praised by the Innocence Project, which assisted Williams' lawyers in asking the governor to convene the board.

    Column by (none / 0) (#13)
    by Nemi on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 05:45:10 PM EST
    Rex Huppke at Chicago Tribune, An apology to Donald Trump, from the 'fake news' media:

    ... I regret having you say the following about clean coal: "They're going to take out clean coal, meaning they're taking out coal, they're gonna clean it."

    Upon further reflection, that statement made it sound like you haven't the foggiest idea what the term "clean coal" means and are quite unintelligent. That is 100 percent my bad. Perhaps with time we can mend the damage my recklessness has done to your reputation ...

    There goes the fake media again (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 06:36:56 PM EST
    'Formenting' dissent against the guy with the best brain and all the best words.

    People (none / 0) (#145)
    by Nemi on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 06:22:57 AM EST
    in the White House whose task is to present only positive (looking) news about him to Tr*mp could probably present that article as being a mea culpa and media confessing to being both unfair and fake?

    And were Donald Tr*mp himself to read it (hardly) he'd probably take it at face value. At least I've never seen any indication that he actually gets ironi/sarcasm.


    Upon much thought I have one question.. (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 06:43:29 PM EST
    Do wight dragons breath fire or ice?

    And now we know the opening credits were the literal demonstration of the amazing Westeros teleporter! Right under our noses all these years.

    This finale will be something else. I have no idea what to expect - so don't tell me if you have seen the leaks. Speculation welcome though- will Sam or Bran break the news about Jon's parentage? I really want to see what happens when Dany realizes he has more claim to the throne than she does, because, you know, MAN!

    And what does Cersei have planned? I cannot imagine.

    Can't wait.

    PS I am ignoring the creepus in chief on purpose.

    Blue ice fire is my guess (none / 0) (#17)
    by vicndabx on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 07:19:31 PM EST
    also, why hasn't Dani trained the dragons to lookout for large spears?

    Exactly! Even Cersei's non-magic (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 07:37:45 PM EST
    arrow took one out of the sky. Much hubris in the mother of dragons.

    Why didn't (none / 0) (#25)
    by ragebot on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 11:03:08 PM EST
    Jamie die.  He falls/is knocked into the water in the middle of a battle in full armor and a hand made of gold, yet he and Bron manage to swim at least a couple of miles, with Jamie still in full armor, avoiding the Dothraki hoard.

    Then the next week Jon gets the slobber knocked out of him, falls into freezing water, in full armor, and manages to crawl out and is saved from a huge white walker army.

    I know this is fiction but at some point reality does raise it's ugly head.


    How did the water get that deep just (none / 0) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 06:00:20 AM EST
    6 ft from shore?

    How did the Dragons get there (none / 0) (#90)
    by McBain on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 10:14:18 AM EST
    to save the day so quickly?  How can anyone throw or shoot a spear accurately enough to hit a moving target in the air? Lots of silly things happening lately but I'm still enjoying it.  

    Deus ex machina (none / 0) (#93)
    by fishcamp on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 12:25:45 PM EST
    How does the Taliban hit a (none / 0) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 03:15:22 PM EST
    Chinook in the air with a plain rpg?

    Rocket power and luck? (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by McBain on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 05:12:44 PM EST
    They learned how (none / 0) (#121)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 08:44:29 PM EST
    to do that with the Soviet helicopters.

    Noooooooo! (none / 0) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 26, 2017 at 09:53:22 AM EST
    We gave them stingers to do that. Then they had enough success shooting the Soviet copters down that they changed the dynamics of that engagement.

    When WE went into Afghanistan the remaining stingers they had had mostly aged out of being affective. And if they had not, our helicopters had the evasive technology for stingers.

    When they shoot us down with an rpg it's pure magic, spit, and dirt.


    Interesting detail (none / 0) (#157)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 12:05:59 PM EST
    But maybe they learned how to "aim" better with stingers that rubbed off on shooting rpgs?

    If it is just luck, then maybe not much to worry about going forward?



    Sometimes I feel like the odds are in our favor (none / 0) (#161)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 12:16:46 PM EST
    If we must have a presence in Afghanistan.

    Then I remember how they took out 38 members of US forces and allies in 2011. The deadliest day for SEALs but also the deadliest day for US forces in Afghanistan so far. All with a lucky rpg.

    We watched Maher on Friday. I agreed with Bill on why we are still there...Pakistan, Taliban, and nukes. We must monitor it. We must be able to respond swiftly. Spouse says we can do all that without being in Afghanistan proper.


    I just read cheeto (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 12:20:50 PM EST
    made the transgender ban official....Unbelievable.....

    What a hateful, little man.


    Yes, a hateful evil vile small man (none / 0) (#172)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 02:54:20 PM EST
    Didn't Biden (none / 0) (#163)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 12:23:19 PM EST
    talk about not having to control the entire country, but having the ability to do raids and eliminate certain concentrations of al Qaeda (or now ISIS)?

    Yes, that was Biden's Afghanistan proposal (none / 0) (#171)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 02:53:48 PM EST
    Where did the Night King (none / 0) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 03:17:43 PM EST
    Get those chains? Do they forge their own stuff?

    will Sam learn (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 05:53:43 AM EST
    he is now lord of Hearthhome?

    its weird, im sure i read at some point there was 8 episodes thi season and 6 next.

    so i feel like we are being shorted. even more.

    i think (pure speculation) the wall comes down.  perhaps with the help of Vaserion


    I know (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 06:02:28 AM EST
    Sadly in order to finish this thing they are moving swiftly. Some seasons got a little draggy on some subjects, but now we're breezing through everything.

    Several things (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 05:10:49 PM EST
    Happen on Sunday that have been a long time coming.  Two in particular I think will please almost everyone.

    Yeah I would have much preferred (none / 0) (#138)
    by ruffian on Sat Aug 26, 2017 at 06:59:54 PM EST
    one long final season to two short ones. I've hated it in every show that has done the final season this way.

    That said, as hard to believe as all the action has been, it has been wildly entertaining.  

    Sam has to find out, right? He seems to be the only one that does not travel by teleporter this season, so probably someone on the road will tell hm...still don't know where he is going - Winterfell? Yes - I predict now that Gilly will go into the crypt and see Lyanna's statue and remember what she read.

    That is the only prediction I can make - I like your idea about the dragon melting the wall though - that would be great.


    final season (none / 0) (#139)
    by linea on Sat Aug 26, 2017 at 07:47:46 PM EST
    is 2018 or more likely 2019 and later there will (reportedly) be multiple prequels... running at the same time.

    i only got a chance to see the first episode from this season. but im reading along online so i think i have the plot narative down.


    Hope you get to watch soon (none / 0) (#140)
    by ruffian on Sat Aug 26, 2017 at 07:58:04 PM EST
    The visuals are what make this show, IMO. Before I actually watched it the plot sounded ridiculous Still does, actually, not really being a fantasy buff, but it is just so fun to watch!

    to be clear (none / 0) (#170)
    by linea on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 02:34:06 PM EST
    i recently watched all the previous seasons (a friend loaned me his dvd collection) but only saw the first episode of this season as i do not have hbo.

    Oh yeah, and my earlier prediction (none / 0) (#141)
    by ruffian on Sat Aug 26, 2017 at 10:17:37 PM EST
    that Brienne dies as a result of a LIttlefinger plot still stands...no other reason to get her to King's Landing in such a contrived way.

    Just rewatched part of Season 1 - Littlefinger's first manipulation of Sansa was similar - getting her to fear The Hound.


    cant say about Brienne (none / 0) (#143)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 05:49:14 AM EST
    but Little Finger plays a role in the finale.

    i will say no more.  except the series will end in 2018.  no idea where the 2019 stuff comes from.  probably the same nether regions everything else that one says comes from.

    spinoffs are always possible.


    btw (none / 0) (#144)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 06:04:58 AM EST
    i said that bit about Viserion and the wall before i read the spoilers.

    just sayin.

    i can say, i think, there is a very interesting meeting between Sam and Bran.  and a very interesting meeting between Jon and Dany.


    sorry (none / 0) (#168)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 02:24:25 PM EST
    left out the link.  its july 30th

    HBO confirms that Game of Thrones will end in 2018


    HA (none / 0) (#169)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 02:28:46 PM EST

    that is from july 30th, 2016

    so NEVER MIND.  you were right i was wrong.  DELAYS DELAYS.

    still i dont believe they will skip a year.

    but bask in my mortifcation.


    ok (none / 0) (#146)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 06:58:22 AM EST
    found the months old rumor the series might be delayed till next year.

    it wont.
    this is a few weeks ago

    Speaking with Entertainment Weekly, Bloys noted that the showrunners had gone into the show with a plan for a certain number of seasons, and that he was abiding by their desire to end in 2018. The final two shortened seasons of the show will air in 2017 and 2018, with 13 episodes between them, although Bloys noted that they haven't yet figured out how many episodes season eight will contain.

    Bloys also noted that the network was open to the idea for another show set in Westeros. "It's something I'm not opposed to, but of course it has to make sense creatively." Given the show's popularity with audiences and critics, it seems like it would be a sure bet to continue the story in some form.

    production has already started.


    please explain (none / 0) (#164)
    by linea on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 01:09:05 PM EST
    why you found it necessary to include a personal insult directed toward me in a Game of Thrones discussion thread.

    by CaptHowdy

    no idea where the 2019 stuff comes from.  probably the same nether regions everything else that one says comes from.

    this was my source:
    ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: So as of now, the final season could air in 2018 and/or in 2019 depending on their needs?
    CASEY BLOYS: Yeah. They have to write the episodes and figure out the production schedule. We'll have a better sense of that once they get further into the writing.


    that EW interview (none / 0) (#165)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 01:50:49 PM EST
    was june 2


    what i quoted was more recent.

    you might not want to try to 'splain GoT the ruffian.  even if you did see a whole episode.


    for the record (none / 0) (#167)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 02:09:47 PM EST
    there are discussions of delays.  


    When Does 'Game Of Thrones' Season 8 Premiere? Fans Could Be In For Their Longest Wait Yet

    Helen Sloan/courtesy of HBO
    ByLINDSEY KUPFER2 hours ago

    It feels like it's been forever since the last season of Game of Thrones and now it's already over. But fans are thinking ahead to the future, and wondering what's happening with the final season of the show. Unfortunately, Game of Thrones Season 8 may not premiere until 2019. Entertainment Weekly spoke to HBO's programming president, Casey Bloys, earlier this year, who said the final GoT season could air in 2018 or 2019, because co-creators David Benioff and D.B. Weiss will be working on the season for the next year and a half. "They have to write the episodes and figure out the production schedule. We'll have a better sense of that once they get further into the writing," Bloys said. So fans may want to hope for 2018, but expect 2019, so they don't get too disappointed.

    What else do we know about Season 8 so far? It has been confirmed that the last season of the show will have a total of six episodes, but these episodes could be longer than the average episode. During the Con of Thrones convention earlier this month, sound designer Paula Fairfield told the audience that the final six episodes could be feature-length, Sherlock or Black Mirror style. It's not much to go off, but it's enough to start getting excited for the future. There are still a ton of questions fans need answered before the end.

    that verge article i linked to was probably an attempt to quash the hysteria.

    it was mid july and it did not mention 2019.

    i was going to say above the scope of the final episodes means there has to be fewer.
    but if thats true, 6 feature length episodes wouls almost be worth waiting for until 2019.  but we will not have to.
    that would be my bet.


    I'm sure I would still care in 2019 (none / 0) (#177)
    by ruffian on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 07:07:53 PM EST
    but that would be programming malpractice in my book. Not fair. They were doing 10 episodes a year until this year...surely it can't be any harder to do 7 more for next year!!!  

    They would just be taking advantage of people to stretch it out.


    also (none / 0) (#166)
    by linea on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 02:06:48 PM EST
    it's all over the internet that Game of Thrones fans may have to wait until 2019 for final season and they are dated as recently as 26 AUGUST 2017: "...it might not reach our screens until 2019, due to the lengthy writing and production process."

    as we are on a Game of Thrones thread, you might have tried to figure how to say, "looks like 2018 is the newest estimate" without adding - yet another - belittling personal attack directed toward me.

    by CaptHowdy

    no idea where the 2019 stuff comes from.  probably the same nether regions everything else that one says comes from.

    Trouble in (none / 0) (#23)
    by ragebot on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 10:56:16 PM EST
    St. Louis.

    Still waiting for more facts but looks like LEOs were called to dispute between neighbors, found a guy with serious knife wounds (now in serious condition in hospital) who said next door neighbor did it.  LEOs went next door and found perp who brandished a "large kitchen knife", cut one of the LEOs on the arm, and the two LEOs responded by firing multiple rounds into the perp who was a transgendered black man killing him.

    At a rally later that night some protestors were hit by a slow moving car, with what seem to be only minor injuries.

    Still waiting for more details.

    ... before we start labeling people with a loaded term like "perp."

    First of all, the article clearly states at the beginning that the deceased was a transgender woman, not a man. A transgender man is someone who is transitioning from female. There's a clear difference here.

    The police said that she was dressed as a male, and that her identification listed her as male. But the article states that "the suspect's initial gender identification by the police could be revised if relatives confirm that the suspect identified as female." So it's ambiguous, at best.

    Secondly, based upon the article itself, you have no idea who actually started the fight between the neighbors. However, given a relative's contention that the deceased's neighbors were distinctly "unfriendly" toward her, perhaps due to her status as a transgender woman, there's certainly a hint as to what might have prompted it.

    Therefore, one has to grant the possibility that the neighbor might have instigated the altercation due to his own hostility and bigotry toward people who identify as LGBTQ, and that the deceased might have simply been defending herself against him.

    Finally, given the St. Louis Police Dept.'s own rather checkered history regarding its interactions with both the African-American and LGBTQ communities, I for one am not necessarily inclined to take a department spokesperson's initial account of the incident at face value. Again, the article notes that this was the sixth officer-involved fatal shooting in St. Louis since May 10.

    Now, I'm not at all saying that it didn't go down the way police contend, only that I'd want to know a lot more about what actually happened here, before I'd seek to affix primary blame for this incident on any one particular party.



    The updated article stated (none / 0) (#30)
    by ragebot on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 08:24:34 AM EST
    what seemed to be the straw that broke the camel's back was a fire earlier in the day when coals from a grill fell from the second story patio to the first floor patio damaging both units.  The fire department noted friction between the parties but did not alert LEOs till after the fact.  As for the term perp that is a LEO term, not mine.

    I am not trying to assign blame to anyone, but will note that when LEOs are called and find someone with multiple stab wounds that require medical attention and the hospital classifies the person as in serious condition it is understandable LEOs will be looking for a perp.

    Just as an aside I don't recommend brandishing a knife when LEOs approach, not to mention cutting a LEO with that knife.  

    It may be the case that the LEOs are lying about the whole thing but given what we already know it seems any transgendered information came after the fact and the LEOs were simply looking for someone who cut their next door neighbor multiple times and shot that person who they claimed attacked  first.


    But you are the one who called her that. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 05:05:55 PM EST
    ragebot: "I am not trying to assign blame to anyone, but will note that when LEOs are called and find someone with multiple stab wounds that require medical attention and the hospital classifies the person as in serious condition it is understandable LEOs will be looking for a perp."

    And as I noted above, "perp" is a loaded term because as short for "perpetrator," you're implying in this instance that the deceased was entirely at fault for the confrontation, when it's actually far too early in the investigation to arrive at that particular conclusion.

    Words do matter, ragebot. Your use of "perp" suggests a clear bias on your part in favor of the injured party and law enforcement, even if that was not your initial intention. If you instead wanted to note that St. Louis Police Dept. spokespersons themselves referenced to the deceased as a "perp," then you should have used quotations as I just did, to emphasize that this was someone else's terminology and not your own.

    (Did department spokespersons refer to the deceased as a "perp"? I certainly didn't get that from the linked article or subsequent accounts, so I am assuming that the use of such a loaded term was entirely of your own volition.)

    There are always two (or sometime more) sides to any such stories. And in this case, if family members and friends are to be believed, Kiwi Herring was a victim of an ongoing and perhaps escalating campaign of sexual harassment by her homophobic neighbor.

    Now, that sort of harassment alone certainly doesn't grant Herring carte blanche to attack her homophobic neighbor with a knife, I don't care what the provocation was. But if he was threatening her and she felt herself to be in imminent physical danger in this particular situation, then that's another matter entirely.

    But again, since we still don't know all the facts, and initial accounts in the media of such incidents often contain significant inaccuracies, it's best that we refrain from conveying those initial accounts as though they're fact, if only to preclude us from then jumping to premature conclusions on that basis.



    that an ember fell from Herring's bbq and started a fire on her apartment's back porch which then spread to her downstairs neighbor's back porch as well.

    Sometime after the FD left, Herring and live-in partner Thompson then went to the downstairs neighbor and accused him of starting the fire.

    The neighbor denied it, an altercation ensued, Thompson gave Herring a big knife, Herring stabbed the neighbor multiple times, and then Herring and Thompson went back upstairs to their apartment.

    Police then found Herring in their apartment with the knife, another altercation ensued, an officer was stabbed, and Herring was shot by the popo.

    So, yeah, Herring was the perp.


    RIP Japanese actor Hiruo Nakajuma... (none / 0) (#24)
    by desertswine on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 11:02:28 PM EST
    How about that (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 08:28:47 AM EST
    Child ISIS video.  That's pretty damn creepy

    Hey, there you are. (none / 0) (#32)
    by fishcamp on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 08:51:07 AM EST
    How was that RV trip to see the eclipse?  

    Fish (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 09:22:22 AM EST
    Fish fish

    The weekend was epic and magical.  It was great to see friends some I had not seen in 20 years at least. Also watching them meet up othergang members they had not seen in years.
    I'm still processing it.
    The eclipse itself ended up in the role of "McGuffin" in one of those "Big Chill" weekends.
    I am embarrassed to admit we did not drive north to see the aurora.  I regret that.  I do.  Personally it goes just below blowing off the invitation to go to Woodstock because I had to work.
    Still, at the time it was the correct choice.  

    I really underestimated the insanity associated.

    At noon on Monday we did not belong on any highway.  

    Still.  All that said.  It was very cool.  I think you would have been comfortable.  Maybe for the next eclipse.  FYI - seven years.

    And there is totality in my backyard.  No sh!t


    Jay Thomas passed away... (none / 0) (#77)
    by desertswine on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 01:32:20 AM EST
    I had always enjoyed his Lone Ranger story every Christmas on Letterman.

    The Trump administration sanctions Venezuela (none / 0) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 12:54:05 PM EST
    Because it cares about the people of Venezuela?

    HR claims the President is concerned (none / 0) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 12:57:10 PM EST
    About the lack of Democratic process in Venezuela?

    We used to buy diesel fuel (none / 0) (#97)
    by fishcamp on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 01:30:03 PM EST
    in Venezuela when it was thirty two cents per gallon.  Wonder what would happen if we pulled up to a dock in a nice big sport fisherman boat now?  

    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 01:40:35 PM EST
    I vacationed there once with my grandmother before I had children.  I can't say it was fully democratic then. It's incredulous to me that HR and Mnuchin can stand at a podium though and sanction a country because its government isn't observing rule of law while they serve this administration which constantly seeks to undo rule of law and violate the voting rights of Americans.

    We started watching Ozark last night (none / 0) (#154)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 10:40:14 AM EST
    On Netflix. I'm hooked. I was just told no watching it during daylight hours :(

    Justin Bateman, Laura Linney, an FBI agent with issues and a Mexican drug cartel, and two children. No pets other than vultures

    Started watching it (none / 0) (#183)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 29, 2017 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    ... on a whim and got hooked.  Good series, although the logic/consequences behind some of the plot lines seem a but stained at times.  Really liked it, though.

    Yeah, some of the (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 29, 2017 at 09:06:11 PM EST
    No law enforcement consequences get a bit out there. That was why I couldn't get into Sons of Anarchy. They'd have a shootout, and somehow law enforcement was never notified?

    Ozark nailed current middle age Americana  marriage though :) Our issues, the things that hurt us at that point in life and marriage, the issues that shut us down. I was impressed with that part of the story writing.

    Josh watched some of it today. Thinks they've nailed aspects of modern childhood and adolescence too.