Sunday Night Open Thread

Donald Trump had an unscheduled doctor's visit today.

Barack Obama warns the Democrats against going too far left in their choice of nominee for President.

What's new in your world? This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Impeachment Hearings Continue | Saturday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Walter Reed visit (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 07:17:55 PM EST
    ...was for a hysteria-ectomy.

    It failed.

    It was an (none / 0) (#21)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 01:12:45 PM EST
    attempted heart attack.  According to Republicans, it does not count unless it successfully goes to completion.

    That is also why they are so sure there (none / 0) (#104)
    by ruffian on Sat Nov 23, 2019 at 03:37:04 PM EST
    are no s*x tapes of T**

    This guy can't be the Democratic nominee. (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 07:56:38 AM EST
    Joe Biden says marijuana is a 'gateway' drug.. Old Joe needs to stop queuing up "Reefer Madness" on Netflix. Joe, it's not a documentary.

    The gateway drug theory has been debunked time and again. Exactly what gateway are all the 50 and 60 year olds I know that smoke weed waiting for to open?

    This is the 1990s drug warrior mentality that brought about the crime bill that Joe enthusiastically supported.

    We have already have an out of touch senior citizen doddering around the White House. We don't need to replace him with another one.

    The number one 'gateway' (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 11:26:51 AM EST
    drug in America is alcohol. Always has been. I had a beer long before I even know what marijuana was. I took LSD cause I wanted to take LSD (it was freaking amazing! FSM bless purple microdot), not because I smoked pot.

    It can't be (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 08:11:52 AM EST
    And I don't think it will be.

    I wish I had your confidence (none / 0) (#12)
    by CST on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 10:19:40 AM EST
    But if I were a betting person I would put my money on Biden.

    I am a betting person (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 10:47:13 AM EST
    And I don't think it will be Biden.  But I'm probably not now prepared to bet on it.

    Well, (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 11:28:36 AM EST
    he appears to be going down in polling. I seriously think losing Iowa could really ding his chances at the nomination. Nate Silver says there is only 10% hardcore Bernie and Biden voters and the other 80% is fluid. I guess we'll see. We've had poll leaders at this point that did end up the nominee and poll leaders who did not.

    Iowa really doesn't matter for Biden (none / 0) (#28)
    by CST on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 03:30:11 PM EST
    Because no one expects him to win there.

    As long as he maintains his lock on black Democrats with all the candidates splitting white Democrats, I don't really see who else takes it.  I definitely don't see Pete winning them over, especially considering his recent fiasco on the 400 "supporters", and Warren doesn't seem to be making the inroads she needs either and IMO has made some missteps lately in that regard.  Harris seems to have stalled and Bernie has a ceiling.  I don't really see Deval Patrick or anyone else taking off at this point.     I hope I'm wrong.


    A lot of it depends (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 07:55:38 PM EST
    on whether Biden losing IA affects his whole narrative about being the candidate to "take on Trump". Except for Pete rocketing to the top in Iowa things have been stagnant for the most part. Something may shake loose but it won't be until after Christmas.

    Pete rocketing (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 07:44:57 AM EST
    to the top suggests that there is a lot of room for a moderate, and that Bernie and Elizabeth Warren have reached their ceiling.

    If not Biden, then maybe Harris or Amy....But if Biden can withstand losses in Iowa and New Hampshire, especially if it is Pete who wins Iowa, then he can win the nomination.


    Well, (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 04:01:04 PM EST
    Bernie and Elizabeth are basically fighting for the same voters and cancel each other out. There's a lot of flux going on right now. Silver says there's only 20% that is truly committed to a candidate.

    I dunno about that (none / 0) (#97)
    by smott on Fri Nov 22, 2019 at 02:02:55 PM EST
    Losing Iowa (and he now may finish 4th) will puncture a good bit of the Electability argument.
    I'm not at all sure Biden can recover from poor showings in Iowa and NH.

    I agree (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 22, 2019 at 05:16:18 PM EST
    Ask Howard Dean and Hillary about front runners.

    As Zerlina Maxwell (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 09:49:40 AM EST
    said this is great for a presidential campaign in 1996.

    ... but not before then. Clearly, the guy is a 20th century politician in a 21st century world. That said, our real problem is that the current president is an oligarchical vestige of the Gilded Age.

    Oh, look! From the Washington Post, ... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 06:33:42 PM EST
    ... "Patrick and Bloomberg could be exactly what Democrats need" by Rahm Emanuel.

    BWAH-HA-HA-HA-ha-ha-ha ...!!


    Biden does change (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 07:47:11 AM EST
    He was ahead of Obama in publicly supporting marriage equality.  He can still be moved into changing his positions.

    I won't dispute that. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 01:14:12 PM EST
    But given what Biden's saying on the campaign trail, one would be forgiven for thinking that he was running against Bob Dole and Ross Perot in 1996.

    I guess (none / 0) (#40)
    by Natal on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 12:06:50 AM EST
    we in Canada made a mistake.  It's been over a year and I've no idea where to go to buy the stuff. In fact I think I've only seen one person smoking it in public and I live in large city, Calgary.

    Trump "might" testify in the hearings (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 10:53:51 AM EST
    And monkeys "might" fly out of my butt.

    Marie Yovanovich goes to a jazz club... (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by desertswine on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 02:18:37 PM EST
    What I would give (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 04:10:42 PM EST
    To have participated in the brain storming session that produced this motto

    METH!!  WE'RE ON IT!

    (Not the Onion)

    They've obviously left no turn unstoned. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 06:07:00 PM EST

    Half a million (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 06:13:22 PM EST
    for the stupidest ad in history and one million for actual treatment.

    I'd expect nothing less from the party of fiscal responsibility.


    Ron Johnson is a disgrace (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 06:53:23 AM EST
    this letter he sent to the Ringmaster and Barker

    Is just a disgrace.  It's really almost unbelievable.

    There is an election coming and in every race where it's possible IMO they should nationalize it.  Make it clear the local democrat is not just running against, and voters should not just vote against, the local republican but they are running against the entire republican crime syndicate.  Every democrat should run against allowing Johnson, Nunes, Jordon, Graham, McConnell, Gomert, etc al access to a single lever of government.

    Every ad should include the whole f'ing clown car.

    I seeing a great ad about how many republicans can dance on the head of a mushroom.

    The truly sad part for Lt. Col. Vindman ... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 12:53:51 PM EST
    ... is that by coming forward to tell the truth, he may have foreclosed upon any furtherance of his own military career. A promotion in the U.S. Army, Marine Corps and Air Force to the rank of colonel and above, and in the Navy and Coast Guard to the rank of Captain and above, requires an official White House approval. Well, fat chance he's going to get that sign-off now from this particular administration.

    Lt. Col. Vindman's awareness of the potential risk he was incurring by reporting the president's misconduct is what makes his own subsequent actions even more compelling. In the future, we may realize it likely rises to the level of heroic.



    A disgrace (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 08:03:16 AM EST
    From TPM's Josh Marshall: (none / 0) (#59)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 01:11:30 PM EST
    "Alexander Vindman's occasionally halting delivery, slightly nerdy appearance underscores an impression of an essentially guileless individual. He's an almost unrealistically novelistic player in this drama."

    "Vindman's appearance is a not terribly subtle reminder that the US often needs a continuing flow of immigrants committed to American values to counter balance native born Americans who are eager to betray them."



    ... has pleaded for compassion at sentencing on behalf of defendant Patrick Carlineo Jr., the 55-year-old white male who recently pleaded guilty in federal court to threatening the congresswoman's life:

    "We must ask: who are we as a nation if we respond to acts of political retribution with retribution ourselves?

    "The answer to hate is not more hate; it is compassion. Punishing the defendant with a lengthy prison sentence or a burdensome financial fine would not rehabilitate him. It would not repair the harm he has caused. It would only increase his anger and resentment.


    "Threats of political violence and hate speech are not unique to Mr. Carlineo. They are an increasing feature in our public sphere. We will not defeat it with anger and exclusion. We will defeat it with compassion.

    "As Nelson Mandela said, 'People must learn to hate, and if they can be taught to hate, they can be taught to love.'

    "We must teach the defendant love.

    "For this reason, I do not believe the defendant would be served by a severe prison sentence or substantial financial fine and ask you to show compassion in your sentencing."

    Rep. Omar's letter to U.S. District Judge Frank Geraci Jr. can be read here: Page 1 and Page 2


    ."We gotta keep punching" (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Nov 21, 2019 at 07:13:09 AM EST
    to stop domestic violence. Puhleeeze Joe, just stop. I repeat, Joe Biden cannot be the Democratic nominee.

    At least he did not say (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 21, 2019 at 07:25:48 AM EST
    We have to sniff it out



    This should excite the young'uns! (none / 0) (#71)
    by vml68 on Thu Nov 21, 2019 at 08:14:28 AM EST
    Real newspaper (none / 0) (#72)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 21, 2019 at 09:24:14 AM EST
    I actually googled to see if this was from a site like the Onion. The Gazette is a real newspaper in Iowa.

    How to see 4 more years of Trump... select Biden as the Democratic nominee. He no longer lives in this century. At every opportunity, he demonstrates that he is in no way up to the job.


    Slap to the forehead!! (none / 0) (#74)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Nov 21, 2019 at 12:03:55 PM EST
    Beebee charged (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 21, 2019 at 01:38:10 PM EST
    Can we (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 21, 2019 at 02:15:03 PM EST
    Borrow the Israeli Attorney General?  Just for long enough for him to charge Trump......

    So apparently the Israeli AG thinks (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Peter G on Thu Nov 21, 2019 at 02:54:21 PM EST
    that you can charge the sitting Chief Executive while in office. Glad to hear there's another point of view on that. Can't wait for the ostensible U.S. President to opine that BiBi is a "good person." Or that he "hardly knows him." Not sure which it will be.

    Bibi (none / 0) (#84)
    by FlJoe on Thu Nov 21, 2019 at 03:01:13 PM EST
    is doing a cover of tRump's "Witch hunt"  
    He has denied wrongdoing in three corruption cases, saying he is the victim of a political witch hunt.
    he will be happy unless this version gets better reviews.

    Which (none / 0) (#85)
    by jmacWA on Thu Nov 21, 2019 at 03:15:53 PM EST
    Witch hunt... there are so many to choose from

    It's a "Witch Rich" environment n/t (none / 0) (#86)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Nov 21, 2019 at 03:34:47 PM EST
    We should withhold all aid... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by desertswine on Fri Nov 22, 2019 at 11:33:19 PM EST
    because corruption.

    First documents from State (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 22, 2019 at 09:42:31 PM EST
    As a tech nerd sci fi freak (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 01:05:07 PM EST
    This probably shouldn't weird me out as much as it does but it does.

    Robot police dogs.

    the video is the stuff of nightmares

    Happy Thanksgiving (5.00 / 8) (#200)
    by fishcamp on Wed Nov 27, 2019 at 11:14:27 AM EST
    to all my friends at TalkLeft.

    Hope the hostess is not (5.00 / 6) (#201)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 29, 2019 at 11:45:24 AM EST
    Stuck in a snow bank or something.

    It's the first Thanksgiving I remember without Alices Restaurant

    Not stuck in a snowbank (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Nov 30, 2019 at 02:10:53 AM EST
    just stuck with two broken ribs and getting up from the computer is a killer.

    Yes, it's the first Thanksgiving here since 2002 without Alice's Restaurant. But, my family celebrated the holiday last Sunday, before the second rib break, and my assigned task was fruit salad an veggies, so I made  Alice's backed acorn sqash (filled with bits of brown sugar) and her ex-mmother in law Thelma's corn pudding -- both recipes are in her cookbook. I knew the corn pudding would be popular so I made two of them. (I just stopped at whole foods for the fruit salad.)

    I'm glad you thought about me, and I'm really sorry to have been gone so long without saying anything.

    Anyway, a new open thread is up.

    CNN (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 07:40:51 PM EST

    President Donald Trump's visit to Walter Reed on Saturday did not follow the protocol of a routine presidential medical exam, according to a person familiar with the matter.

    Medical staff at Walter Reed did not get a staff-wide notice about a presidential visit to the medical center in Bethesda, Maryland, ahead of Trump's arrival, according to that source.

    Trump says (none / 0) (#3)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 17, 2019 at 07:54:35 PM EST
    he does not care about being Impeached--it would actually help him, so some say.

    Nope.  He cares a lot.  And he knows he will be Impeached for tacky, corrupt bribery.  And he knows he is guilty.

    This is getting to him.


    I'm not sure he cares (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 07:07:11 AM EST
    That much about being caught doing tacky things

    That's been sort of a defining characteristic of his life.  Not even sure he cares that much about being caught.  He has been caught and exposed plenty over the years.

    I think he cracking at the thought that for the first time in his miserable life he is going to be held accountable.  

    He can't "settle".  He can't counter sue but his repeated suggestion others should be impeached not him shows his "I'm rubber and you are glue"  preference in dealing with this kind of stuff.

    And it has always worked.  His whole miserable life.

    Not this time.

    Even if he is not removed he will be branded by it.  His Brand will be branded by it.

    Plus, talk is spreading  that it's looking bad enough the senate might have to censure him at least if they want any chance of keeping the majority.


    I think we're (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 07:39:45 AM EST
    past censuring him at this point. It has gone too far. That would have been a good argument to hear from house republicans when all this broke. But now we're too deep in the weeds with Trump's corruption and every day brings forth more evidence that the senate is going to have to vote. However the fact that they are even going public with the fact that they are thinking they should censure him means that there are some serious cracks in Trump's support in the senate.

    Speaker Pelosi knows how to poke (none / 0) (#9)
    by leap on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 09:23:33 AM EST
    the Orange Menace. She calls him insecure and "an imposter in that office, 'way over his head".

    Speaker Pelosi also said "What the president did is so much worse than what even Richard Nixon did. At some point Richard Nixon cared about the country enough to recognize that this could not continue..."

    He probably cares not a whit about being worse than Nixon, but being called an insecure imposter? Bet he's on his gold toilet releasing fumes, his trigger finger on Twitter.


    ... to either go big or go home:

    Margaret Brennan, CBS News: "Do you think Democrats had a good week?"

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "Well, I think the American people have had a good week. I think truth has had a good week. I think patriotism has had a good week. And I think the Constitution has got a good week. I don't think the President has had a good week."

    Brennan: "Well, Republicans argue here--"

    Pelosi: "You know what? If-- if we could just talk about what we want to do-- I really have a real discomfort level of responding to what Republicans say because they are in denial about what has happened in the country. So if you want to ask me about where we're going on this [impeachment inquiry], I'm happy to respond to that. But I find it a waste of my time and yours to just be talking about what Republicans say."

    Brennan: "Well, I want to just let you respond, though, to the argument that's being made in messaging by Republicans here. That the grounds--"

    Pelosi: "No, but I don't want to respond--"

    Brennan: "--for the impeachment--"

    Pelosi: "--let it stand. Let their arguments stand because they're so-- in such quicksand that I don't even want to have it given any more visibility by my dignifying any of their misrepresentations of what they say. And I say that out of great respect for you because I respect you as a great journalist. And I'm honored to have this interview with you. But I say to everybody else, I'm not here to talk about what they say because they are not facing the reality of what is happening to our country. And this is about our democracy that is at risk with this President in the White House."

    Our democracy's capacity to survive this right-wing assault on its institutions now mostly rests upon the Speaker's ability to guide her caucus, as well as the rest of us, through a political minefield. Let's hope that younger Democratic politicians -- <cough!>AOC! Swalwell!</cough!> -- are taking notes, because this is what real leadership looks like.

    As for our self-absorbed but less-than-illustrious D.C. press corps, who often seem to be staring at the rest of the country from the inside of a goldfish bowl, they really need to decide whether or not the entire Constitution is worth defending, or if their concern should be strictly confined to the specific clause in its First Amendment protecting the freedom of the press.

    Because right now, given the fact that so many in the media insist upon lazily mischaracterizing this constitutional crisis as a political horse race between Democrats and Republicans, rather than rightly recognizing it as an ethical struggle between right and wrong, they're clearly doing our country a real disservice.



    Set up to fail? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Steve13209 on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 02:51:28 PM EST
    Jonathan Turley is was on CSPAN today talking about how it looks like Pelosi has set up this impeachment inquiry, one she never wanted to start, to fail by going tall and thin on the inquiry (Ukraine only) and pushing for a vote by the end of the year.

    I know she's said she hasn't made that call, but it sure seems like it. Maybe it bothers me that the whole thing is being treated as a calculated effort for the 2020 elections and not something that NEEDS to be done to clarify what is and is not acceptable from any President.

    Do you all think that sticking to one specific issue (the phone call and some adjacent subjects) is the right way to go when there is just so much else out there?


    I do (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 03:09:20 PM EST
    I would disagree it is not being treated like something needs to be done.

    I think that is exactly how it is being treated.


    At this point, (none / 0) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 03:50:46 PM EST
    it makes sense to narrow the scope and limit the focus on the Ukraine wrong doings.  The Ukraine shakedown is not only egregious, but also, representative of the serial abuse and misuse of power by the president.

     The Ukraine mess has all the elements of Trump's reign of criminality: campaign finance violations, obstruction of justice, obstruction of Congress, witness intimidation, and Russian collusion (if not, based testimony in the Roger Stone trial--the crime of conspiracy).

    The Mueller Report in both Vol I and Vol II set forth ample grounds for impeachment, but the diffident Robert Mueller fell down on the job, in my view, by presenting conclusions that were deliberately obtuse:  "If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so." Followed up with Mueller permitting Barr to lie about its contents and control its release. And, his reluctance to present his findings did not help, either.

    So, yes, sticking to one issue (not just the July 25 phone call, but the work of scoundrels and thieves surrounding that call) is the right way to go.  Frustrating, perhaps, in that it may be perceived as nailing Al Capone on income tax evasion.  But, Trump's shakedown is stated flat out in the Constitution as impeachable: treason, BRIBERY and other crimes and misdemeanors.


    Maybe (none / 0) (#30)
    by FlJoe on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 04:10:04 PM EST
    yes maybe no.

    Sure there is plenty out there and IMO they should try to get him on everything under he sun.

    However most Americans  do not have the attention span to process more then a tiny slice.

    This Ukrainian thing has more of a discrete crime story to it, there are plenty of credible witnesses and plenty of obvious lies  to expose.  

    So far the Democrats have been steadily building a compelling narrative and enough "court room drama" to keep the audience entertained.


    House attorneys have just argued ... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 06:04:04 PM EST
    Steve13209: "Do you all think that sticking to one specific issue (the phone call and some adjacent subjects) is the right way to go when there is just so much else out there?"

    ... in federal court in their effort to compel the Justice Dept. to release the grand jury material from the Special Counsel's investigation that Trump's written deposition to Robert Mueller, in which Trump allegedly lied to federal prosecutors, is now subject to the impeachment inquiry.

    So it's pretty clear that House leadership is keeping an open mind, and House investigators are likely following the evidence where it leads them.



    I don't think they have to explicitly (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 06:16:01 PM EST
    Include Russia/Mueller in the actual articles because the whole thing is acting as a frame and backdrop for the impeachment show.

    He was essentially caught trying to do exactly the same thing he basically got away with before.  It makes it even easier to believe the evidence that piling up.

    This is going to be a helluva week.

    Sondland is really looking pivotal.

    He should show up to testify in a T-shirt that says



    LOL! The new 'Let's Make a Deal!' (none / 0) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 06:44:32 PM EST
    "And that's not all! Look behind Door No. 2 to see what else you got for your million dollars! It's a -- two congressional subpoenas, exorbitant legal bills and a potential perjury rap!"

    Schiff (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 10:17:32 AM EST
    Recently talked about sending him back to his golden throne

    This story about the radio host (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 08:16:32 AM EST
    Who was fired in the middle of his show for criticizing Trump is good.  But I just heard him speak.  I had no idea who he was but watch the linked video and see if you agree with me that the very first thing I thought when I heard his voice was

    THIS guy has a voice for RADIO.


    If you close your eyes.. (none / 0) (#16)
    by desertswine on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 11:00:07 AM EST
    he could be a cartoon.

    I' sat on a jury for a big case... (none / 0) (#24)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 02:04:45 PM EST
    that he was prosecuting. Let me tell you that voice gets really annoying real quick. One of the reasons I couldn't wait for that trial to be over.

    I remembered him from the days of my (none / 0) (#108)
    by ruffian on Sat Nov 23, 2019 at 03:57:04 PM EST
    first stint in Denver. He was a frequent radio legal commentator on The Peter Boyle radio show during the Jon Bonet Ramsey era.  Haven't checked to see if old Peter is still around.  My brother actually was a brief guest on his show once as a commenter on political media which is his doctorate. He was a visiting prof at U of Denver at the time.

    I don't recall finding him particularly conservative at the time, certainly not a Limbaugh clone.


    I mean Chuck Rosenberg, not Boyle (none / 0) (#109)
    by ruffian on Sat Nov 23, 2019 at 04:00:40 PM EST
    or my brother!

    It has been weird and fun being here again and hearing all these names from the past again that I never thought about once since leaving Denver in '05. Good to know I still have a friend in the diamond business.


    Barack Obama (none / 0) (#13)
    by CST on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 10:25:41 AM EST
    Also warned people against not pushing hard enough and resting on the accomplishments of his administration.

    Funny how none of the headlines reflect that part of his statement though.

    Also Funny (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 24, 2019 at 02:17:57 PM EST
    It is also funny how Obama and the establishment Dems never warn against going too far to the middle in appeasing rich donors and corporations.

    At this (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 11:30:55 AM EST
    point I just think we need to realize Obama has insight as a party elder much like Hillary, Bill and others and just take what he says in that context and move on.

    When ACA (none / 0) (#22)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 01:45:28 PM EST
    was developed it was designed to include a public option along with efforts to reduce drug pricing.  But, it was said that to include these components it would not be bipartisan, and maybe it would not pass. A compromise was necessary.  It was a good start and improvements could be made later--a very reasonable position.

    Now, it seems, that going farther is too socialistic and it will result in the loss of all that good private insurance. The voters will be scared to consider any changes, say some.  Maybe, just restoration of all the hits ACA has taken from Trump will do. Or maybe, let's think small and be ready to compromise.  A little tinkering is radical enough.

    With Medicare for All set forth as an aspirational goal, dipping the American toe in warmer waters in a transitional manner makes sense.  Health care coverage remains a political winner.

    Indeed, among factors in the re-election of Governor Edwards, in the red state of Louisiana (Trump was ahead of Secretary Clinton by about 20 points in 2016), was Edwards expansion of Medicaid. Kentucky Gov-elect Beshar plans, in keeping with his campaign, to rescind the Trump work requirements for Medicaid. A major factor in the defeat of Bevin who dismantled Kynect.

    Meanwhile, hospitals, previously reluctant, are now filing reams of lawsuits to privately insured patients for unpaid bills for deductibles and co-payments. Even employees of hospitals have been subject to suits, deducting unpaid balances from paychecks, leaving, essentially, pennies.


    A "little tinkering" (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 05:48:54 PM EST
    A "little tinkering" leaves people without health care or makes it  too expensive for people to use even when they have insurance.

    Ask for the bare minimum and you will end up with even less. I will believe a "viable" government option when I see it. Any, even most modest proposals, will receive the same level of bipartisan support as ACA received. Zero,Zilch, Nada same as before. Anyone who is promoting the narrative that they can pass bipartisan healthcare is not being truthful.

    People were not happy with the status quo in 2016. The status quo and the litany that the Dem believed that only tiny changes were possible did not motivate enough people in 2016 and I firmly that a small ball approach will not be a winning strategy for 2020.

    Establishment Dems visibly coming out against the left of the party is not a winning strategy. The party needs the enthusiasm and hard work of this element of the party and does not need to go out of their way to demotivate them.


    Profile in willful ignorance: (none / 0) (#39)
    by NoSides on Mon Nov 18, 2019 at 09:38:27 PM EST
    Joe Biden said Saturday he will not federally legalize marijuana if he becomes president because there isn't "enough evidence" against it being a "gateway drug."

    "The truth of the matter is, there's not nearly been enough evidence that has been acquired as to whether or not it is a gateway drug," Mr. Biden said during a Las Vegas town hall, according to Business Insider.

    "It's a debate, and I want a lot more before I legalize it nationally. I want to make sure we know a lot more about the science behind it," he said.

    Meet Disco the talking parakeet. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 12:14:02 AM EST
    Disco knows more words (none / 0) (#42)
    by desertswine on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 12:43:58 AM EST
    than trump.

    And there is this (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 07:27:48 AM EST
    And this (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 09:45:58 AM EST
    Honestly (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 10:01:22 AM EST

    Is my personal fav


    Great footwork. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by desertswine on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 10:47:07 AM EST
    Does Joe understand (none / 0) (#65)
    by smott on Wed Nov 20, 2019 at 03:11:56 PM EST
    How evidence works?
    There's no evidence that I am not, for example, the reincarnation of Queen Victoria.

    I'm not a lawyer (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 08:24:24 AM EST
    And don't play one on tv

    But Vindmans opening statement, all by itself, is a bulletproof to the head of the Republican bullshi+

    It's a remarkable story

    Um (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 08:25:04 AM EST
    A BULLET to the head

    OH my (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 09:43:48 AM EST
    Charged, or expected to be charged (none / 0) (#53)
    by Peter G on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 10:10:02 AM EST
    But I would be very surprised if the (ex-)guards were actually "arrested" rather than summoned to court to face charges and be released on bond.

    What (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 10:11:03 AM EST

    It wasn't you that used the term (none / 0) (#56)
    by Peter G on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 11:48:47 AM EST
    "arrest" where I suspect it doesn't apply. It's my pet peeve against journalists who can't be bothered to learn the meaning of basic (not really technical) vocabulary that applies to the subject they are covering.

    ... would you please explain to us the difference between "indictment" and "arraignment"?

    I've noticed that our local media here in Hawaii often seem to use the terms interchangeably when reporting on the ongoing scandal that's presently ensnared the leadership of Honolulu's law enforcement community, and they have obvious trouble distinguishing the two. I'm sure this happens elsewhere, too.



    Sure, no problem. Easy. (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Peter G on Tue Nov 19, 2019 at 04:55:09 PM EST
    An indictment is a document. An arraignment is a court proceeding. Specifically, an indictment is a formal written statement of criminal charges, as approved by a grand jury. An arraignment is the initial court proceeding at which the charges (which may be contained in an indictment, but in other situations may be set forth in a "complaint" or in an "information") are read to the accused (or handed to them, and the formal reading waived) and the accused is then called upon to plead, either guilty or not guilty. At that early stage of the proceedings, by the way, "not guilty" does not mean, "I didn't do it." It only means, "I do not wish to waive my rights to the procedural steps of a criminal proceeding which may lead up to a trial, or at least not just yet."

    Squid pro quo (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 20, 2019 at 05:18:36 PM EST
    Watchmen has been amazing in how "ripped from the headlines" the whole thing has been.

    But this week was a topper.

    Watchmen Offers Us a Squid Pro Quo

     I went back and tried to see if it looked like it might have been in the writing phase when the nation was gripped by quid pro quo.  I don't see how it could have been.

    Which it could only be a Thermodynamic Miracle

    The title comes from a Jules Verne quote (none / 0) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 20, 2019 at 05:22:42 PM EST

    "If there were no thunder, men would have little fear of lightning."

    ― Jules Verne,

    To be clear (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 20, 2019 at 06:30:31 PM EST
    It's not just there was a giant squid.

    The line "squid pro quo" was delivered deadpan.


    My son and I have been watching the series (none / 0) (#75)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 21, 2019 at 12:04:35 PM EST
    he describes it as a black female Batman. We really like it. We're about 4 episodes in.

    Good (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 21, 2019 at 12:08:28 PM EST
    It mentions several things (none / 0) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 21, 2019 at 12:35:29 PM EST
    I missed.

    Like that construction toy Topher was playing with was a replica of Viedts estate.  Which was also the structure Manhattan was demolishing no on Mars.


    Thanks for that. (none / 0) (#82)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 21, 2019 at 02:54:10 PM EST
    I didn't actually end up reading it (yet) because I realized that we're only on Ep 3, and I didn't want to read any spoilers. I did then find some Ep 1 & 2 recaps, which shed a lot of light on questions I had. It's a complicated show.

    It is very (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 21, 2019 at 03:41:59 PM EST
    Dense.  You can watch it multiple times and still find new stuff.

    Also you may have missed (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 21, 2019 at 03:56:45 PM EST

    Can't remember if you have met Petey yet but he is a FBI agent obsessed with Watchmen history.

    It's a great resource that has info you won't find anywhere else.

    No spoilers


    Wow, gonna have to dig into that! (none / 0) (#90)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 21, 2019 at 04:08:53 PM EST
    Whenever I try to watch it my HBO Now craps out (none / 0) (#107)
    by ruffian on Sat Nov 23, 2019 at 03:50:36 PM EST
    on me. Making me mad. I'll try it again tomorrow and call the help line if I have to....the things I do for my tv fix.

    I turned to The Crown instead. Love the structure of it, with every episode being a story in itself. And the Performances are stellar, as expected. Liked the actor from 'The Durrells in Corfu' as Charles in his first whole episode in Wales.


    So (none / 0) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Nov 23, 2019 at 04:04:13 PM EST
    No Dark Materials either?

    Got caught up on Watchmen yesterday. (none / 0) (#136)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 07:54:43 AM EST
    I feel like I have to watch it all over again to catch everything- which I won't mind at all since it really is amazing.  I wish I had watched one episode a week to absorb it better. I'll read the links you shared too.

    Dark Materials next - is it worth a big chunk of the holiday weekend?


    If you have not seen the 2009 film (none / 0) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 08:03:40 AM EST
    You should.  It's very good, amazing soundtrack, and also helps it make a lot more sense.  It is very close to the source material.  Except the ending.

    Last nights episode was mind blowing.

    And yes, one watching will leave you with many things to catch later.


    DM (none / 0) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 08:05:00 AM EST
    Is very good.  Not Watchmen but totally worth the time.  

    Democratic debate, (none / 0) (#73)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 21, 2019 at 11:27:25 AM EST
    my take.   All of the candidates, save for Tulsi, had their 15 seconds of fame.  That fame may have manifested itself as quick wit (Yang) to the articulation of complex policy (Warren).  Kamala Harris came across very strongly, although more in presence than content.  Pete did well, as usual, but his challenge to Tulsi, while warranted, missed the mark without context.  He needs to hone his attack skills. Amy seemed to have physical issues with tremors, but did present her positions well.  Booker tried hard but perhaps too hard. He was very intense.  Bernie was vigorous in demeanor and static in positions.  Steyer needs to reconsider.  His best contribution would be to fund candidates for the senate.  Biden did just OK, only a few cringe worthy comments.  It may be that voters will see him as "comfort food" despite what I view as a candidate past his sell-by date.

    Holy Sheet (none / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2019 at 12:31:32 PM EST
    J and Peter,

    Would you not agree that the GOP cross of Fiona Hill is a complete disaster?   They have elicited answers that: Sonland was on a "domestic political errand."

    And, it was just brutal, brutal, brutal.  

    She was so smart in her answers (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by ruffian on Sat Nov 23, 2019 at 03:46:27 PM EST
    She'd start out like she was giving them something and then flip it around on them and make the opposite point.

    Working today, not watching or listening (none / 0) (#81)
    by Peter G on Thu Nov 21, 2019 at 02:51:59 PM EST
    Will have to catch up later.

    David Holmes and Bill Irwin (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 21, 2019 at 03:52:50 PM EST
    FBI and the Whistleblower (none / 0) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 21, 2019 at 04:49:16 PM EST

    FBI seeks interview with CIA whistleblower

    no further action was warranted

    But that decision, a Justice Department official said, was limited only to the question of potential campaign finance law violations and not to any other issues raised in the whistleblower complaint. "It was a very narrow issue," the official said.

    Some officials within the FBI, which received its own copy of the whistleblower's complaint in early September, chafed at a Justice Department move they believed was aimed at shutting down any inquiry at all, especially into potential counterintelligence issues raised by the allegations, according to a former senior U.S intelligence official who has discussed the matter with current FBI counterintelligence agents.  

    There were "guys who wanted to run with it," said the former senior official. "People were pissed off."

    Others in the FBI were wary and "didn't want to touch [the whistleblower complaint] with a 10-foot pole because of the Russia investigation," said this former senior official.

    FBI counterintelligence officials were particularly concerned about the claims -- detailed in the whistleblower's complaint -- that the president's lawyer Rudy Giuliani and two of his associates may have been manipulated by Russian interests, said the former senior official

    Sounds (none / 0) (#92)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 21, 2019 at 06:00:37 PM EST
    like a Barr trap.   My advice: stay clear.

    Not sure (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 22, 2019 at 10:42:59 AM EST
    The optimist in me wants to believe.

    Been on a classic movie kick for a few weeks (none / 0) (#93)
    by McBain on Thu Nov 21, 2019 at 10:08:34 PM EST
    Watched Dr. Zhivago for the first time.  Enjoyed it but thought the film was a bit overrated and hasn't aged well.  It looked great but there wasn't much chemistry between Omar Sharif and Julie Christie and I thought the Alec Guinness scenes were the worst part.

    Got to see Reds for the second time.  I liked this Russian Revolution epic more than Zhivago. Those two films make the political issues we're facing today seem trivial.  

    The Conversation (per Donald's suggestion) for the first time was a very good viewing. There's a great scene where Gene Hackman is hanging out with other surveillance experts, taking about how they pulled off different jobs.  It's amazing how many great films Francis Ford Coppola made during the 70s.  

    The Cincinnati Kid for the first time.  Nothing special but still fun to see Steve McQueen and a young Ann-Margret.  

    Gone with the Wind is going to be playing the Stanford Theater in Palo Alto in early January.  I've never seen the entire film and the old fashioned Stanford Theater is the perfect place.  I hope I can find time for this.... it's a 4 hour film!  

    Anyone have other suggestions?  I've got Chinatown and Rosemary's Baby in my queue.  Haven't seen those in years.  

    Look out. (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Nov 22, 2019 at 10:18:59 AM EST
    There is some salty language in GWTW. (Rhett Butler says 'damn').

    My father said his mother would not let him see GWTW when he was a kid when it came out because of that line.


    I had the role (none / 0) (#96)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Nov 22, 2019 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    of "Captain Corcoran" in the 1958 summer school production of HMS Pinafore.

    One of my lines, which shocks the rest of the cast at the denouement was, "Damn me, that's too bad."

    An ethical dilemma for my schoolboy self.


    ... you should seek out some the following films, which I consider to be some -- but certainly not all -- of the best from that period:

    "Once Upon a Time in the West" (1968, Dir: Sergio Leone) - This is the only film in Henry Fonda's long and distinguished career in which he played the bad guy, and he certainly made the most of his opportunity, establishing himself in the film's opening scene as one of the most cold-blooded and loathsome screen villains in cinema history.

    "Woodstock" (1970, Dir: Michael Wadleigh) - This is the quintessential rock'n'roll documentary of the legendary three-day concert festival that took place in upstate New York in August 1969, with memorable live concert footage of Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Joe Cocker, Country Joe McDonald, Carlos Santana and The Who.

    "M*A*S*H" (1970, Dir: Robert Altmann) - This comedy / satire, set in the Korean War, is an exercise in inspired mayhem and is one of the great anti-war films of all time. It is also, as most people know, the cinematic forerunner for one of television's most beloved sitcoms of all time.

    "The Music Lovers" (1970, Dir: Ken Russell) - A historical epic about the great Russian composer Pyotr Tchaikovsky (Richard Chamberlain), this was one of the first modern films to deal maturely with the subjects of homosexuality and the attendant homophobia of the dominant heterosexual culture. The magnificent Glenda Jackson is splendid as Antonia, Tchaikovsky's spurned wife whose sexual yearning and unrequited love for her oh-so-gay but terribly closeted husband makes you want to first hug her and then tell her, "Honey, you need to get a clue."

    "The French Connection" (1971, Dir: William Friedkin) - Actor Gene Hackman scored a well-deserved Best Actor Oscar with his take-no-prisoners portrait of NYPD Detective Popeye Doyle, who is a crusading a$$hole on a mission, and one of the most unlikable good guys I've ever seen onscreen. This low-budget crime thriller, which also won the Oscar Best Picture, has a protracted car chase that simply has to be seen to be believed.

    "The Last Picture Show" (1971, Dir: Peter Bogdanovich) - This black-and-white masterpiece follows a group of 1950s-era high school kids in a culturally and economically deprived Texas town where nothing ever changes. It's notable for its breakout performances by young actors Jeff Bridges and Cybil Shepherd, and heartrending Oscar-winning turns by veteran actors Ben Johnson and Cloris Leachman.

    "McCabe and Mrs. Miller" (1971, Dir: Robert Altmann) - Traditional film critics had trouble with this western starring Warren Beatty and Julie Christie, and were disturbed by the fact that its characters were, as Rex Reed called them, "nothing but ne'er do wells, cheap wh0res and drifters." But speaking as an historian, those were actually the first people to venture into the frontier of the American West in the 19th century. The families and preachers arrived much later.

    "Sounder" (1972, Dir: Martin Ritt) - Ritt delivers what is probably one of the most bluntly honest takes about the lives of Southern black families in the Jim Crow era and the fine line that they had to walk in order to just get by. It includes a towering performance by the great Cicely Tyson as a mother who's trying to hold everyone together while her husband's in prison.

    "Lady Sings the Blues" (1972, Dir: Sidney J. Furie) - This honest and often painful biography of legendary singer Billie Holliday is a brutal portrait of her ultimately hopeless battle with heroin addiction, which ultimately killed her at age 44. R&B diva Diana Ross absolutely slays as the title character, for which she received an Oscar nomination as Best Actress. It's too bad she didn't make more than a handful of films in her career.

    "The Way We Were" (1972, Dir: Sydney Pollack) - The sheer star power of 1970s box office titans Barbra Streisand and Robert Redford carries this 1950-era melodrama, in which they play a loving but mismatched married couple whose turbulent relationship eventually runs aground on the sharp rocks of McCarthyist witch hunt politics. Streisand showed some serious dramatic chops here in a non-musical role -- though the producers still insisted that she sing the title song in the closing credits, which of course became a huge hit for her -- and she earned a Best Actress Oscar nomination for her effort.

    "American Graffiti" (1973, Dir: George Lucas) - Before he became enveloped by his own dust cloud that's the "Star Wars" franchise, Lucas directed this low-key and still underrated coming-of-age gem that's set in 1962 Santa Rosa, CA. Suzanne Somers has arguably the best cameo appearance ever in a film, as the blonde in the T-Bird who suddenly becomes the singular obsession of a young Richard Dreyfuss, with other breakout performances by Ron Howard, Cindy Williams, Paul LeMat, MacKenzie Phillips, Harrison Ford, Charles Martin Smith and Candy Clark.

    "The Exorcist" (1973, Dir: William Friedkin) - Forget that godawful 1978 sequel with a half-soused Richard Burton and every other cheap and schlocky knockoff. 46 years later, the sheer power of "The Exorcist" to shock and haunt viewers renders it the scariest horror movie ever made. And in my opinion, one of the true miscarriages of justice in Academy Award history occurred when voters passed over Friedkin's masterpiece for Best Picture in favor of a good but still-inferior "The Sting."

    "A Woman Under the Influence" (1974, Dir: John Cassavetes) - Much like his contemporary Clint Eastwood, Cassavetes was a handsome and popular Hollywood actor who ultimately showed far more interest in being behind the camera as a director than he ever did as a performer in front of it. And like Eastwood, he used his box-office clout to leverage the studios to finance the films that he wanted to make. This searing domestic drama is certainly one of his very best, and was also one of the first major films to tackle the then-taboo subject of mental illness, with moving performances by Gene Rowlands (Cassavetes' real-life wife) and Peter Falk.

    "Nashville" (1975, Dir: Robert Altmann) - This is arguably the director's best film in my estimation, a smarmy American parable about the equally smarmy Nashville music scene with a really great ensemble cast. Two of the standout performances were then-recent alumni of the old NBC comedy show "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-in," Lily Tomlin (who received an Oscar nomination) and Henry Gibson.

    "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" (1975, Dir: Milos Forman) - This is one of only three films in Academy Award history to win Oscars in all the major categories of Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Screenplay. The other two are "It Happened One Night" (1934, Dir: Frank Capra) and "Silence of the Lambs" (1991, Dir: Jonathan Demme). The film really belongs to Jack Nicholson's delightfully subversive Randall Patrick McMurphy, but Louise Fletcher's menacing Nurse Mildred Ratched is recognized by AFI as one of the great screen villains in movie history.

    "Seven Beauties" (1975, Dir: Lina Wertmüller) - Ms. Wertmüller became the first female director to ever be nominated for an Academy Award in that category with this film, which is set in the Second World War-era Fascist Italy, and it's easy to see why. She first lays bare the inherent fragility of the male ego, and then proceeds to grind it into dust. The great actor Giancarlo Giannini also scored a Best Actor nomination under her confident direction.

    "Shampoo" (1975, Dir: Hal Ashby) - I hated this period piece, set in in November 1968, when I first saw it. It simply screams 1960s. But I've since come to appreciate it as a rather scathing take on the self-absorbed frivolity that was Beverly Hills culture during that era. Warren Beatty plays a promiscuous hairdresser who beds his clients without a second thought, until he's compelled to confront the aimlessness of his ultimately empty existence.

    "Taxi Driver" (1976, Dir: Martin Scorsese) - Scorsese's homage to the grimy underbelly of 1970s New York City, with a staggering performance by Robert De Niro as the anti-social Travis Bickle, who has to be one of cinema's great lowlife characters.

    "All the President's Men" (1976, Dir: Alan J. Pakula) - This political drama about the Washington Post's coverage of the early days of the Watergate scandal is certainly timely, and plays like a very effective crime thriller even though most knowledgeable people already know how the story ends. After 43 years, it still holds up well.

    "Annie Hall" (1977, Dir: Woody Allen) - Most romantic comedies tend to be frivolous, frothy and ultimately forgettable. Allen's thinly-veiled semi-autobiographical take on his real-life relationship with Diane Keaton was both  extremely funny and ultimately heartbreaking. Casting his former lover Keaton in the title role was brilliant.

    "The Last Waltz" (1978, Dir: Martin Scorsese) - If "Woodstock" is the best rock'n'roll documentary ever made, Scorsese's work in chronicling The Band's November 1976 farewell concert in San Francisco has been hailed by Rolling Stone magazine as the best rock concert film ever made. I don't disagree.

    "Apocalypse Now!" (1979, Dir: Francis Ford Coppola) - In my opinion, this is the best war movie ever made, at once visceral, haunting and contemplative in its dark and manic portrait of the madness that was the Vietnam War. "Someday," laments Robert Duvall's crazy Col. Kilgore, "this war's going to end."



    Never seen McCabe and Mrs. Miller (none / 0) (#102)
    by McBain on Sat Nov 23, 2019 at 10:04:18 AM EST
    I'm a fan of Altman's work so I should check that one out.  Nashville was fun.  I couldn't get into MASH, maybe because I had seen the TV show first.  

    Never seen Shampoo either.

    I'll probably watch the original Exorcist again at some point.  Never saw the first sequel but Exorcist III was actually pretty good. It was directed by Exorcist author William Peter Blatty.  It's become somewhat of a cult classic.

    I probably should see Annie Hall and the original version of Apocalypse Now again.

    Taxi Driver is great but you have to be in the right mood for that one.

    Thanks for the suggestions...


    Do take the time for GWTW on the big screen (none / 0) (#105)
    by ruffian on Sat Nov 23, 2019 at 03:43:59 PM EST
    I know it is "problematic" as are many of the classics, but as a cinematic experience I don't think many match it.  I see it again on the big screen whenever I can.

    I agree about Zhivago. I saw it for the first time a couple of years ago and was underwhelmed. Talk about long...it does not move along like GWTW.

    Have you seen Three Days of the Condor? That is another one from that era that holds up well IMO.


    My daughter and I (none / 0) (#111)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 23, 2019 at 04:22:15 PM EST
    once rewound and watched over about ten times a scene in which it looks very much like Prissy mouths "f*ck you" behind Scarlett's back after being brow-beaten.

    I have Three Days of The Condor in my Amazon (none / 0) (#112)
    by McBain on Sat Nov 23, 2019 at 08:37:15 PM EST
    Prime Watchlist.  My preference is for 60s or 70s films that have been remastered/restored well.  I just found out they finally put out a 4K HD/Blu Ray version of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Will be seeing that one before too long.

    I heard the latest version of Woodstock the Donald recommends looks great. When an old film looks new, it can be the best of both worlds... more traditional storytelling where the actors look like real people, not grainy/blurry icons.  


    Three Days of Condor (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 23, 2019 at 09:39:41 PM EST
    is a great movie.....

    What MKS said. (none / 0) (#151)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 03:54:55 PM EST
    "Three Days of the Condor" is an outstanding film.

    Another very '70s thriller from that period, which I just saw again for the first time in over 30 years, is director Alan J. Pakula's "The Parallax View" (1974) starring Warren Beatty, the great Hume Cronyn, William Daniels and Paula Prentiss.

    Filmed in Washington state, its opening scene is a political assassination atop Seattle's Space Needle, and things just roll on from there. While the story's premise is admittedly rather far-fetched, credit director Pakula and screenwriters David Giler and Lorenzo Semple, Jr. for never forgetting that their mission is to entertain an audience, not explain things to them. And on that level, "The Parallax View" works very well.



    One of my favorites (none / 0) (#103)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 23, 2019 at 02:25:56 PM EST
    from that era that slips under a lot of people's radar, is Who'll Stop The Rain.

    Marathon Man is also great, and I still think Mean Streets could be Scorcese's best film.

    I forgot about that one. (none / 0) (#158)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 05:38:18 PM EST
    Thank you for mentioning director Karel Reisz's "Who'll Stop the Rain." It's a totally awesome film, and that was the first time many movie critics really stood up and took notice of Nick Nolte as a serious actor. In fact, the entire cast was great in it, and I really liked longtime character actor Anthony Zerbe's performance as the corrupt double-dealing DEA agent who makes everyone's lives miserable.

    My only real issue with "Who'll Stop the Rain" has nothing to do with the film itself but rather its title, because the film is based on Robert Stone's excellent 1974 novel "Dog Soldiers." When it opened at the 1978 Cannes Film Festival, where it competed for the prestigious Palm D'Or prize and was very favorably received by audiences, the film was also titled "Dog Soldiers."

    But for some unfathomable reason, United Artists subsequently decided to re-title the production after the Creedence Clearwater Revival song of the same name for the U.S. theatrical release five months later. It was an ill-advised move which many believe may have inadvertently hurt the film both at the box office and with Oscar voters because hardly anybody recognized it as the acclaimed Cannes entry, only under another name.

    Then UA further compounded the error internationally, releasing the film in France under the title "Guerriers de L'Enfel" ("Warriors of Hell") and in Spain as "Nieve Que Quema" ("Burning Snow"). In Britain, they marketed the film under its original name "Dog Soldiers," but with a ludicrous movie poster which pairs an artist / cartoonist's rendering of a ridiculously musclebound Nick Nolte (who really looked nothing like that 40 years ago) with the cheesy tag line "Try to rip him off and he'll rip you apart!"

    Small wonder then that "Who'll Stop the Rain / Dog Soldiers / Warriors of Hell / Burning Snow" initially struggled to find an audience in movie theatres. This under-appreciated gem of a film finally found its footing with audiences amid the growing popularity of video rentals in the early 1980s. It's also a likely decent case study in marketing mismanagement, one in which United Artists executives tripped over their own d*cks and got in the way of audience eyeballs.



    Robert Stone (none / 0) (#195)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 09:22:03 PM EST
    I believe got the National Book Award for Dog Soldiers. You would think they would've stuck with the original title for that reason alone.

    A bit of trivia: Nolte's character in the book and movie was inspired in part by Stone's and Jack Kerouac's legendary fellow traveler Neal Cassady.

    As a footnote, when my wife and first got together, one night I went into the resteraunt where she waited tables to tell her something and she was just then waiting on Anthony Zerbe, who btw, she didn't know from Adam.


    Bloomberg spends his lunch money (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 24, 2019 at 07:30:46 AM EST
    Bloomberg to spend more than $37 million in historic ad buy

    I am not a Bloomberg fan but if it comes down to Biden or Bloomberg ........

    His deep pockets alone could be reason enough.  Apart from Biden's malarkey he is running out of money.

    Trump is going to have all the money in the world.  Except Bloomberg's

    And yes (none / 0) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 24, 2019 at 10:44:10 AM EST
    He has enough money to bring the dreaded "brokered convention"

    Whatever it f'ing takes.  No Biden.


    Yeah, (none / 0) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 24, 2019 at 11:22:13 AM EST
    I see where you are coming from on this. Bloomberg's mind at least doesn't seem to be slipping.

    If he (none / 0) (#124)
    by KeysDan on Sun Nov 24, 2019 at 12:52:50 PM EST
    spends $1 billion, he will be down to $57 billion.  

    Why is He Running? (none / 0) (#125)
    by RickyJim on Sun Nov 24, 2019 at 02:11:03 PM EST
    I'm running for president to defeat Donald Trump and rebuild America.

    We cannot afford four more years of President Trump's reckless and unethical actions. He represents an existential threat to our country and our values. If he wins another term in office, we may never recover from the damage.

    That is how the explanation on his website starts.  In other words, he thinks he is more likely to beat Trump than the others.  I think there is some merit to this assertion because a not insignificant number of people who voted for Trump did so because they believed he was a "successful businessman" and certainly Bloomberg has been much more successful.

    Why is he running. (none / 0) (#127)
    by KeysDan on Sun Nov 24, 2019 at 03:36:36 PM EST
    Perhaps, the arrogance of a successful businessman.  And, Bloomberg is among the most successful.  When Bloomberg discarded a NYC norm by seeking and obtaining the green light for a third mayoral term (51 member City Council, vote 29/22) a justification was that  he must continue since he would be best to navigate the great financial crisis.  

    Rudy tried to extend his term earlier but backed off after backlash.  Bloomberg's ploy was not all that popular either, but  it worked for him.  In my view, not the most reassuring harbinger for a restorative presidency.  Otherwise, his ideas set forth in his website are encouraging consistent with other Democratic candidates.  I would suggest, though, that descriptions of Trump's actions as cited (reckless, unethical) should include anti-Democratic, criminal, misogynistic, racist,  .........in keeping with space available.


    According to him (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 24, 2019 at 04:30:05 PM EST
    He is the only one who can do it. Sounds familiar. IIRC that was the mantra of the orange egomaniac in the WH.

    IMO the country would be better served if he spent his money to GOTV and support the presidential nominee and Dem candidates for the House and Senste.


    Sure (none / 0) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 24, 2019 at 05:28:46 PM EST
    But if it comes down to Bloomberg and Biden.  I'm probably Bloomberg.

    Just saw my first on air (none / 0) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 07:15:57 AM EST
    Bloomberg commercial.  It was pretty good.  As I said, not a supporter but I believe he is going to turn this race into a whole new thing.

    I can see my neighbors who voted for Trump taking him very seriously.  He is everything Trump said he was and clearly is not.  I think the fact he really is financing himself, another big Trump lie, is going to appeal to people.

    I think he is going to quickly own the electability thing.

    The other thing is I just don't really see any of the current crop of dem candidates beating him.

    One other thing.  Tv ads
    I think it's true tv ads are probably not the best or most efficient way to reach people in the new now-a-go go internet world.  That said, if you have money to burn I absolutely think they can work.  They worked for Obama on Romney.

    I have been thinking for months that if someone would do it there could be great damage done to not just Trump but the whole Republican Party with a smart sustained ad campaign aimed at their corruption and fealty to Russia

    Buckle up.


    Just saw my second (none / 0) (#131)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 07:29:12 AM EST
    I (none / 0) (#132)
    by FlJoe on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 07:43:53 AM EST
    also was rather impressed with the ad I saw, at least production-wise, the messaging was more or less boiler-plate.

    His money alone will probably make him a force through the middle part of the campaign and will probably damage if not totally destroy Biden's chances.

    Call me crazy but I am starting to envision a less than zero chance of a brokered convention.

    With Warren and Sanders splitting the progressive wing and Biden/Bloomberg/Buttigieg/ some possible wild card splitting the centrist wing.

    If I am not mistaken there are no winner take all contests and anyone who gets 15% in any state gets delegates.

    As things stand now the top four are likely to get that in many states and probably Bloomberg can buy himself enough in the biggest states to make it five.

    Bottom line: There is no clear path for anyone at the moment.  


    Yes, exactly (none / 0) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 07:45:45 AM EST
    I think a brokered convention is is goal.  And quite likely.

    Was reading (none / 0) (#135)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 07:53:17 AM EST
    He has hired some of the best democratic consultants.  Some with experience and skills in the delegate behind the scenes stuff needed in a brokered convention situation.

    Seriously (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 10:37:42 AM EST
    An f'ing mythical BROKERED CONVENTION.

    SuperBowl shi+


    when is the last (none / 0) (#149)
    by leap on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 02:36:24 PM EST
    time that happened? A "brokered convention."

    1952 (none / 0) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 04:04:09 PM EST
    One other thing (none / 0) (#133)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 07:44:31 AM EST
    I think the way the democratic debates are being run, admitting I did not watch one minute of the last one, with a gaggle of nobodies who everyone knows is not going to be the nominee forget the president could help Bloomberg.  And intentionally avoiding them by refusing to take campaign donations disqualifying himself sets him apart from what has I'm sorry to say has become a bit of a clown show.

    Wang and Tulsi and a few others should have disappeared long ago.  I think it's has been a big mistake to keep doing this group therapy over and over.


    I just want it to be over. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 01:28:09 PM EST
    I'm already weary of this. None of the Democratic candidates particularly excites. I just know who I don't want to see in the race. Not who I do. And that's depressing. I want to be excited about someone. A leader. I just don't get that from this crop.

    I supported (none / 0) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 06:32:17 PM EST
    Perez over Ellison for DNC but I'll be the first to say that he really should be axed when this is all over. My first choice ironically back then was Buttigeig.

    I'm not really blaming anyone (none / 0) (#162)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 06:59:14 PM EST
    I understand the idea was to be fair.  I don't have a better plan to do that.  I just think the way it's turned out could benefit Bloomberg.

    I also think if there was a stand out candidate they would probably stand out.  What we have is a group of qualified people  that are a bit boring.  With some hangers on.


    Perez (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 05:47:04 AM EST
    and this is not only him but some candidates too completely misread 2016 and immediately started pandering to the Bernie voters. That has led to a lot of problems because those voters are around 1/3 of the party while ignoring the other 2/3 of the party.

    And we'd replace him with - who, exactly? (none / 0) (#193)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 08:06:38 PM EST
    I understand fully and share your concern with Tom Perez. He wasn't my first choice, either. But before we talk about replacing him, we really ought to first seek out a replacement and have him or her waiting in the wings before we hustle the chairman out the door.

    It's also important to realize / remember that the DNC is actually a standing committee of senior state party officers from across the country. Therefore, what I DON'T want to see in that post is another sitting member of Congress, because that poses a potentially serious conflict of interest. What's in the best interest of the caucuses on Capitol Hill may not necessarily be in the best interest of the Democratic Party as a whole, and vice versa.

    When the congresscritters held control of the DNC during the Obama administration, thanks to Obama's CoC Rahm Emanuel, Tim Kaine and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Democrats lost over 1,000 state legislative seats nationwide because minimal resources were devoted to that effort. Everything was myopically focused on Congress.

    Personally, I also think a revolving door of leadership tends to result more often than not in organizational instability, which can subsequently render it quite difficult to recruit and attract genuine talent.

    I once worked as a consultant with an organization that chewed up and spit out three board chairs and three executive directors in less than 20 months. After the third change, I served notice to the board that our firm was terminating our contract. Accomplishing anything positive in that volatile environment became problematic.



    I feel I gotta keep saying (none / 0) (#185)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 06:21:51 PM EST
    I'm not a Bloomberger.
    But a couple of things.  First, the universal vapors of the left on the news of his candidacy could help him with moderate voters.
    I mean if you oppose the guy your argument will work better without the hysterics
    Another thing.  The idea he is trying to "buy the election" which has resulted in a dangerous shortage of fainting couches strikes me as odd.
    Obama spent more that a billion.  Hillary spent 3/4 of a billion and lost.  Every president in our life times has "bought" the office.  Just with money from other people and corporations.
    Bloomberg is accused buying it with his own money.

    IMO this is not an argument that will get much traction outside our bubble.


    I have a friend (none / 0) (#188)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 06:55:23 PM EST
    who is a Warren supporter who was freaked out by Bloomberg running. Other than we have 85 million candidates already running, I didn't get it. It's not like any Warren supporters are going to vote for him. The Bernie supporters he is freaking out must think Bernie's only appeal is being an old white guy. As far as the money, I guess the people who are freaked out about a self funding candidate are afraid that their candidate will never be able to raise enough money.

    I just hear arguments (none / 0) (#190)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 07:38:31 PM EST
    From very smart folks who I think  are having a forest/trees problem

    For example

    Just now on Chris Hayes he and Michelle Goldberg, both of whom I respect, were just talking about how insane the Bloomberg thing is.  As an example to make the point they played Bloomberg endorsing and supporting W at the 2004 convention and chuckling at the absurdity of the very idea.

    Yeah, ok, I get it.  Iraq war, torture, rendition.  I get it.  I was there.  But the point I think they are missing is that virtually all former Bush people are never Trumpers.  And the truth is even to many liberals Bush just doesn't look so bad now.

    I guess this will s the price we may pay for teaming up with never Trump republicans.  


    FOX lead story (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 24, 2019 at 08:42:55 AM EST
    Is the IG report that will say the investigation of Trump campaign was warranted and there is no evidence of political bias.

    Somehow (none / 0) (#116)
    by jmacWA on Sun Nov 24, 2019 at 09:40:14 AM EST
    I doubt that this is how they will spin it.  But the good news is, it's not likely to change any minds of Fox viewers... for many reasons

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 24, 2019 at 09:48:40 AM EST
    But it was in fact the lead story

    And Wallace didn't spin it at all.  The point was this flys in the face of what he has been saying all these years.

    Trump now considered FOX news his enemy.  Also DRUDGE.  Google that.  DURDGE coverage has done almost a180.   Trumps right wings friends are beginning to imagine life after Trump.  The "base"is shrinking.  That is both a cause and a symptom.


    Trump has Hannity (none / 0) (#118)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 24, 2019 at 09:59:31 AM EST
    Inghram, the morning crew (sort of, some of their responses in that bonkers hour long thing were...interesting) and a few others.  But Chris Wallace is FOX.  Shep Smith just gave a speech, his first unemployed, talking about garbage masquerading as news.  Wallace and Judge Napolitano are going to be important voices in coming months.

    The ground is shifting.  IMO


    Random observation (none / 0) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 24, 2019 at 10:20:03 AM EST
    IMO there is and could never probably be a better political wind sock/weathervane than Matt Drudge

    Drudge (none / 0) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 24, 2019 at 10:24:39 AM EST
    Drudge (none / 0) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 24, 2019 at 11:24:40 AM EST
    realizes the jig is up but the jig really has been up for him for a long time. He's just now realizing that it is adapt or die.

    Adnan Syed denied a new trial (none / 0) (#139)
    by McBain on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 09:48:45 AM EST
    The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that it will not consider an appeal filed by convicted killer Adnan Syed, the main subject of the Serial podcast, leaving in place a state appeals court decision keeping him in prison for life.

    Syed's case was also the focus of the HBO Documentary, The Case Against Adnan Syed.
    More from the linked article...
    Syed's lawyer, Justin Brown, said he was "extremely disappointed" by the Supreme Court's decision.

    "Two courts have said he deserves a new trial, and then Maryland's highest court reversed that. We think it's appalling," Brown said. "We think this is a grave injustice. The way this has played out is sickening."

    However, Brown said Syed's legal fight isn't over -- that his client was a juvenile sentenced to life in prison without a "meaningful opportunity for parole."

    "That can be litigated in state court," Brown said. "We won't give up."

    I didn't listen to much of the podcast but I did watch the HBO documentary.  I hope he gets a new trial.

    Trump and Christian Theology (none / 0) (#141)
    by RickyJim on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 11:13:31 AM EST
    Rick Perry:
    "You know, Barack Obama doesn't get to be the President of the United Sates without being ordained by God. Neither did Donald Trump."
    Perry went on to say that being God's instrument on Earth doesn't mean that Trump is a perfect person. Echoing the argument of other white evangelical Christians, the Texas Republican went on to cite several biblical figures, including King David, whose private lives didn't always align with biblical standards.

    Sarah Sanders:
    In February, former White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said that God "wanted Donald Trump to become president and that's why he's there."

    Mike Pompeo:
    A month later, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo joined the chorus, saying it's possible God raised Donald Trump to be President in order to protect Israel from Iran.

    Oy! (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 01:12:33 PM EST
    God (or Yahweh, or Allah, or Rama, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or whoever) did not ordain anyone to be President.

    And anyone who truly believes that god did should get some help.


    Personally (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 01:25:06 PM EST
    I think it was the work of the devil. :)

    You and I are old enough to remember when Ronald Reagan was president, and saber-rattling Republicans repeatedly touted themselves as the Kremlin's worst nightmare.

    Today, they're apparently more than happy and willing to be the Kremlin's loyal lapdogs.



    I'm really confused by this (none / 0) (#178)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 03:46:09 PM EST
    Seriously.  Does their internal polling say their batshi+ supporters are Russia boosters?  Pucker Carlson said last night he was rooting for Russia against Ukraine.

    It's really disturbing.  Forget mutually assured destruction when you have mutually assured Facebook

    IMO it's one of the most disturbing and inexplicable things about whatever crazy parallel universe we are living in.


    I wish I could assure you otherwise. (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 06:28:05 PM EST
    But I can't. We are truly in uncharted territory. That said, everything we're seeing happen with this administration is invariably to Russia's benefit and is inevitably leading right back to the Kremlin. It's now advanced well beyond the realm of mere coincidence. Trump is acting as an agent of Vladimir Putin.

    Personally, I am now starting to believe that the primary purpose of Trump's nonsense about CrowdStrike, Burisma, etc., was to act in concert with Russia's ongoing attempts to isolate Ukraine diplomatically from the U.S. and the West, likely as a prelude to an eventual full-scale military invasion and attempt at re-conquest.

    We live in interesting times.


    Agree. (none / 0) (#194)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 08:34:56 PM EST
    The FBI also had suspicions that Trump was a Russian agent and started a likely unprecedented counter-intelligence investigation of the President of the United States.  That investigation was apparently folded into the Mueller investigation, only later to be hived off to somewhere in the DOJ never to be heard about.   So far.  

    I do not think a full-scale military intervention will be necessary.  The Trump and Republican strategy to undermine Ukraine's fledging democracy with desultory American support will create an environment of disunity and vulnerability.  The Republican' s rooting for Russia and putting credence in Crowd Strike conspiracies are foundational.

    . There is the need to get Russia off the hook so that Trump can support Russia's filling the void for US support.  And, to seize control of Ukrainian assets in the way Putin and the oligarchs did after the fall of the Soviet Union.  And, as I have suggested in previous comments, It would be uncharacteristic for Tump to be shy about cashing on any deals.  The question remains which is the cake and which the icing---deals or Biden investigation.


    I (none / 0) (#179)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 03:54:28 PM EST
    think it's something, something...own the libs...something, something. Own the libs is the important part.

    I guess (none / 0) (#180)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 04:12:34 PM EST
    Like most everything else.  The thing I'm confused about is do they really think this is a politically wise thing to do.

    And are they right.

    And if so what does that even mean.


    Also (none / 0) (#181)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 04:26:22 PM EST
    Cheerleading a guy who insults and attacks an active duty Purple Heart while inviting the war criminals he has pardoned to campaign for him next year.

    This is all so wrong.  Are we just doing or defending  horrendous sickening things, like war crimes, to own the libs.

    I don't get how that really owns the libs.  I mean they are horrified but so are moderates and many on the right.

    I would be cheering the implosion and self destruction of the Republican Party if I was not afraid Putin has this all mapped out.


    It's (none / 0) (#183)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 05:32:20 PM EST
    a puzzlement to me as to why a large portion of the population can not see the wrongness of it all, just "to own the libs" makes as much sense as anything else.

    Talk about intervention (none / 0) (#144)
    by Peter G on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 01:48:38 PM EST
    by a foreign power in a United States election!

    correction: (none / 0) (#148)
    by leap on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 02:33:58 PM EST
    an imaginary power.

    These people are deranged. (none / 0) (#145)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 01:55:23 PM EST
    When listening to such yahoos, we would do well to heed the tart observation of the late suffragist Susan B. Anthony:

    "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."

    I would also note that once upon a time back in July 2015, Rick Perry was much more clear-eyed about the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency:

    "He offers a barking carnival act that can be best described as Trumpism: a toxic mix of demagoguery, mean-spiritedness and nonsense that will lead the Republican Party to perdition if pursued. Let no one be mistaken - Donald Trump's candidacy is a cancer on conservatism, and it must be clearly diagnosed, excised and discarded."



    Divide intervention (none / 0) (#146)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 02:12:30 PM EST
    In the sense that he and his administration are calamities of biblical proportion.

    Err (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 02:15:34 PM EST
    Divine.   But divide works, too.

    The Republicans have taken (none / 0) (#154)
    by desertswine on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 04:23:32 PM EST
    their third of the country back to the Dark Ages.  Hello Feudalism!

    DNC-MSM (none / 0) (#150)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 03:29:45 PM EST
    My question for all billionaire (none / 0) (#157)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 05:09:20 PM EST
    ...candidates is this:

    "What could you afford with your second (third, fourth, etc.) billion that the FIRST billion dollars didn't buy?"


    What an odd question. (none / 0) (#166)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 12:08:49 PM EST
    The first thing I thought of (none / 0) (#167)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 12:23:57 PM EST
    That the first billion won't buy is the second billion

    The future, Repack! The future! (none / 0) (#168)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 12:39:52 PM EST
    You see, Repack, most people never have to face the fact that, at the right time and the right place, they're capable of - anything.



    Otto Rank (none / 0) (#186)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 06:25:08 PM EST
    used to say that the obsession with accumulation had to do with the pursuit of artificial immortality.

    Though they say that having a street named after you after you die doesn't boost your metabolism one iota.


    Yeah, it's just not fair, is it, Abdul? (none / 0) (#169)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 12:50:24 PM EST
    I mean, why is it that Republicans have to resort to cybercrime to steal Democratic Party documents, playbooks and strategies, when they're so generously sharing their own with the opposition? How come nobody in the media is asking THAT question?



    McGhan ruling any minute (none / 0) (#153)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 04:06:43 PM EST
    Most likely

    Must appear (none / 0) (#155)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 04:33:38 PM EST
    Might not have to answer all questions

    Wow (none / 0) (#156)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 04:52:15 PM EST
    The decision apparently cites Animal Farm

    ... to DC's Circuit Court of Appeals. The only question is whether the appellate judges will issue a stay on the district court ruling while it's under appeal. I hope they don't.

    He has to testify (none / 0) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 25, 2019 at 06:28:28 PM EST
    in the impeachment inquiry.

    On Obama in POLITICO (none / 0) (#164)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 11:40:40 AM EST


    Sometimes he offers candid advice about his visitors' strengths and weaknesses. With several lesser-known candidates, according to people who have talked to him or been briefed on his meetings, he was blunt about the challenges of breaking out of a large field. His advice is not always heeded. He told Patrick earlier this year that it was likely "too late" for him to secure "money and talent" if he jumped in the race. Occasionally, he can be cutting. With one candidate, he pointed out that during his own 2008 campaign, he had an intimate bond with the electorate, especially in Iowa, that he no longer has. Then he added, "And you know who really doesn't have it? Joe Biden."

    Ha (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 11:44:19 AM EST
    Throughout 2017 the main struggle of the small staff Obama assembled in the West End was how to deal with what they viewed as a crazy president personally obsessed with Obama. After running against Obama's legacy, and then holding one awkward but collegial meeting in the White House--"He knows absolutely nothing," Obama privately told a visitor about Trump

    When I read Obama's comments (none / 0) (#171)
    by CST on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 01:06:17 PM EST
    They seemed equally critical of both "wings" of the party.  The fact that all the headlines only reflected one half of that was fairly blatant editorializing.

    I think one huge issue is that no one has quite figured out that Hillary Clinton actually won the last primary and for the 1,000,000 hot takes on angry Bernie supporters or the diner Trump voters, there have been maybe 2 in depth discussions of what her supporters actually wanted.  So they either get ignored or people make bad assumptions about motivations.


    That second paragraph (none / 0) (#172)
    by CST on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 01:07:22 PM EST
    Biden ain't it.

    He was critical of both wings (none / 0) (#174)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 02:21:07 PM EST
    But they were not both his VP/right hand man for eight years.

    I think that comment is notable because to paraphrase Joe Biden, Biden has been a noun a verb and Obama.


    I agree (none / 0) (#175)
    by CST on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 02:44:36 PM EST
    Which made it all the more ridiculous that the media ran with the "Obama criticizes the left" framing.

    President Obama (none / 0) (#197)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 10:01:06 PM EST
    can contribute best by remaining silent and neutral during the primary and then offer full-throated support of the candidate as  only he can.

    This is so true (none / 0) (#176)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 03:32:23 PM EST
    and it is something that a lot of the primary candidates seem to be missing out on.

    Rudy who? (none / 0) (#182)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 05:07:13 PM EST
    LOL (none / 0) (#184)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 05:57:34 PM EST
    Rudy better pull out that insurance policy pronto because they are going to make him take the fall for everything.

    Too (none / 0) (#189)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 07:25:57 PM EST
    bad his insurance is from Fraud Guarantee.

    He actually said (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 07:42:56 PM EST
    "You will have to ask Rudy"

    I would not be that surprised if he does have some insurance


    you know (none / 0) (#196)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 09:27:31 PM EST
    Rudy has got to have some good stuff on Trump based on all the years they have been hanging out together. I'm sure some of it is worthless because it probably incriminates Rudy too. When Rudy gets indicted maybe he will flip on Trump to save himself.

    I would advise getting it out (none / 0) (#199)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 27, 2019 at 09:17:57 AM EST
    Before he ends up committing suicide while in custody.

    Trump (none / 0) (#192)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 26, 2019 at 07:43:54 PM EST
    needs to read, or have read to him, the phone notes of his July 25 call to President Zelensky where refers Z. to Rudy and Barr.  All about that favor.

    You (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by FlJoe on Wed Nov 27, 2019 at 07:50:32 AM EST
    don't understand, he was referring to the "perfect" Giuliani, who only exists on the 'perfect call".

    The real world Rudy is on his own,