Wednesday Open Thread

Here's a new open thread, all topics welcome.

< Dems Move On to Nevada and South Carolina | Trump Grants Clemency to Rod Blagojevich, Pardons Bernie Kerik >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    In other news, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), ... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 05:50:03 PM EST
    ... the Central Valley's resident Russian stooge, phony dairy farmer and conservative rabbit hole diver who's self-inoculated against the prospect of public embarrassment, is angry that House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff isn't biting on the GOP's latest baseless conspiracy theory.

    FISA abuse is a conspiracy theory? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Feb 15, 2020 at 11:20:08 AM EST
    Who knew!  The IG report seemed to settle the fact that the Carter Page warrant was fraudulently obtained.  

    Here's something a little different... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by desertswine on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 09:04:08 PM EST
    the world's largest firework.  Congrats Colorado.

    Saw an article about that (none / 0) (#23)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 10:20:33 PM EST
    I can't find now that said they plan to break the record next year.  Might have to take a road trip if I remember.

    With the current Roger Stone debacle (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 12:16:06 PM EST
    it is now quite clear that not only can orange jesus shoot someone on 5th ave in NYC and get away with it, but so can his cronies. This country is now officially being run by mobsters. Nuff said.

    Trump has even (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 05:07:53 PM EST
    criticized the citizen who served as Jury Foreman. Now, the juror will be subject to Trumpian thugs.
    And, the resulting intimidation and intended breakdown of another institution.

    (Captain, hope your procedure was unremarkable.)

    It was (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 05:11:08 PM EST
    Thanks for asking

    Trump was not the only one (none / 0) (#43)
    by ragebot on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 05:47:27 PM EST
    who criticized the foreperson.  She was a hard core dem who had posted anti Trump comments on FB during the trial.

    On the basis of this Stone's lawyers are asking for a mistrial.  I have seen a couple of talking heads agree that a mistrial is a possibility.

    Hard to disagree that posting anti Trump comments on FB during jury deliberations is not a smart thing to do; especially for someone with a law degree.


    The foreperson (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 08:00:50 PM EST
    disclosed her prior activity as a Democratic activist in a pre trial juror questionnaire.  

    Stone's lawyers knew she was a Democratic activist.   They should have used a peremptory challenge on her, or challenged her for cause.

    Moreover, most people hate Trump.  And were not Stone's convictions pretty far afield from Trump?


    If she disclosed her background (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 08:13:16 PM EST
    on her questionnaire and did not lie in answering any of the lawyers' follow-up questions during the jury selection process, I do not see how this is going to upset the verdicts. As for posting to social media during deliberations, I had a high-publicity case where a member of the jury tweeted during jury deliberations, in a kind of weird and cryptic way, but did not disclose any secret contents of the deliberations or state that he had pre-judged anything. The judge concluded that the defendant had not suffered any unfair harm (even though the juror's conduct violated the judge's rules and admonitions) and dismissed our motion for a new trial.

    Juror 1261 (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by ragebot on Sun Feb 16, 2020 at 11:46:57 PM EST
    is discussed in this blurb

    Questions 34 and 35 specifically ask about her prior knowledge or opinions of the Stone case, which she referenced on social media. It is hard to believe that she disclosed these public statements in her answer and was not questioned about them.
    If this information was withheld by Hart, it raises a question about the veracity of her testimony and, more importantly, the fairness of the trial.
    It certainly seems Hart had no place on the Stone jury. The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that the "minimal standards of due process" demand "a panel of impartial, indifferent jurors." Hart's record suggests little that is impartial or indifferent.

    I read the transcript of her answers and am not sure if they crossed the line; but at best she was evasive and denied she knew much of anything about Stone after she had dissed him on social media.  The fact that she was a lawyer makes it look even worse.


    Trump is (none / 0) (#48)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 07:20:48 PM EST
    the one that matters in this judicial terrorism.  It is not unexpected that Stone's defense attorneys will---act to defend him.  A good face-saver, too, since the defense attorneys, like the prosecutors, had opportunity to reject potential jurors that they sensed would not be able be a fair juror.

    No charges to be filed (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 11:27:15 AM EST
    against Andrew McCabe.

    Well that is good news (none / 0) (#73)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 07:38:48 PM EST
    I'm not going to read anything more positive than just good news for him into it. But it is nice to have one injustice put aside. Wish he could get his pension back.

    Aloha, Florence Puana (1919-2020). (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 01:28:29 PM EST
    The victim of a financial fraud perpetrated by her own granddaughter, now-former Honolulu Dep. Prosecuting Attorney Katherine Kealoha, and her granddaughter's husband, now-former Honolulu Police Chief Louis Kealoha, which was at the center of the biggest public corruption scandal in Hawaii history, was 100 years old.

    To be honest, her final years were not happy ones. But thanks to the dogged efforts of Peter G's old friend, U.S. public defender Alexander Silvert of Honolulu, she's left this life knowing that her truth was ultimately allowed to prevail publicly in a court of law, and that she and her son Gerald were finally and fully vindicated.

    May Auntie Flo rest in peace always.

    Hope people are listening (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 17, 2020 at 12:31:02 PM EST
    And I'm pretty sure they are

    Stacey Abrams "absolutely" intends to run for president sometime in the future, but she told "The View" that she would be willing to be running mate for this year's Democratic nominee.

    The former Georgia gubernatorial candidate had previously said she wasn't interested in being vice president, but now that she's ruled out a 2020 presidential run she "would be honored" to accept the No. 2 job.

    "It would be doing a disservice to every woman of color, every woman of ambition, every child who wants to think beyond their known space for me to say no or to pretend, `Oh, no, I don't want it,'" she added. "Of course I want it. Of course I want to serve America. Of course I want to be a patriot and do this work."

    I just came on here to post after reading that. (none / 0) (#109)
    by vml68 on Mon Feb 17, 2020 at 12:54:19 PM EST
    altruistic (none / 0) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 17, 2020 at 01:10:29 PM EST
    Gets hard to define new when you have 60 billion dollars.

    I'm not naive enough to think he did not have a long range plan but I think when someone gives lots and lots of money to lots of things you care about it's safe to think you have some shared idea of what is good and bad.

    In this, what I'm perfectly ready to accept is a long range, plan he has donated 100s of millions to her and planned parenthood and climate science gun control and to Emilys List and organizations to help elect minorities and on and on.

    And best of all he says he will do this even if he is not the nominee.

    You know what?  I'll take it.

    But I agree.  Picking her would be brilliant and more importantly be a winner.  I really think it would.


    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 17, 2020 at 07:17:31 PM EST
    Federal Judges Group Calls Emergency Meeting

    February 17, 2020 at 7:11 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 77 Comments

    A national association of federal judges has called an emergency meeting Tuesday to address growing concerns about the intervention of Justice Department officials and President Trump in politically sensitive cases, USA Today reports

    The president of this group, who called (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 17, 2020 at 09:13:44 PM EST
    the emergency meeting, is one of our favorite federal judges here in Philadelphia. A Bush appointee, btw.

    Is this as unusual (none / 0) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 17, 2020 at 09:16:04 PM EST
    As it sounds?

    Yes (none / 0) (#120)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 17, 2020 at 09:41:42 PM EST
    it seems to me.

    The Perfect Man weds ... (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by desertswine on Tue Feb 18, 2020 at 09:50:45 PM EST
    The most perfect day, the most perfect man surrounded with more love than we both could have ever dreamed.  

    Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Miller

    My heart is going all goose-steppy.

    LOL! You slay me. (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 08:18:55 AM EST
    Now that was funny! Good start to the a.m.

    I'm sure that (none / 0) (#127)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 09:57:53 AM EST
    Joseph and Magda Goebbels would have been proud.
    They were there in spirit.

    Swastika onesies (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 09:59:31 AM EST
    Before you know it

    The thought of (none / 0) (#129)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 10:53:04 AM EST
    Those two breeding makes my skin crawl.  I feel sorry for any offspring.

    There really is no bottom (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 05:03:27 PM EST
    The New York Times broke the story Thursday that Russia is supporting President Donald Trump and is already hacking the 2016 election to help his reelection.

    It was something NBC reporter Ken Delanian called a "bombshell."

    "It is the worst nightmare of many of my sources in the intelligence world," he said. "It's bad enough to learn that there is classified intelligence that Russia is interfering again and trying to elect Donald Trump. We should be careful about that because it is not clear what it means. Does it mean disinformation on social media, does it mean intercepts that suggest people in the Kremlin are discussing the campaign? That is bad enough, but then the notion that because a briefing of that information was delivered to a bipartisan group of lawmakers, that cost Joe Maguire the job? That is a bombshell."


    Really. Listen to (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by leap on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 08:15:22 PM EST
    Al Franken talk with Malcom Nance. Nance knows we are fü¢ked by Trump and Putin, having worked in intelligence for decades. In July, before the 2016 election, Nance publicized and warned about Russia hacking our election. Nance was our spy. Trump and Putin and Russia go back decades. Trump is a Russian asset. Nance said if we lose in November, that's all she wrote. Scary $h1†.

    Malcom has been a personal (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 08:30:22 PM EST
    Favorite of mine for a long time.

    Then (none / 0) (#147)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 05:37:09 PM EST
    he appoints a complete toady to the job
    Even in an acting role, Grenell's lack of intelligence-related experience is likely to unsettle the US intelligence community, which has endured repeated attacks from the President since his 2016 election win over the Russia investigation and later the whistleblower complaint that gave way to the Ukraine impeachment inquiry, which made Trump just the third president in American history to be impeached.
    But it does not appear that Trump is looking for someone with deep intelligence experience in the role -- a former senior White House official described Trump's decision as "filling the gaps" following the impeachment acquittal, sensing disloyalty in Maguire, and filling that position with somebody he sees as sufficiently loyal. Trump is "looking for a 'political' who will have his back," the former official said.
    However, the move is raising concerns even among Trump allies who have been quick to point out that Grenell's primary qualification appears to be his loyalty to the President.

    forgot (none / 0) (#148)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 05:38:15 PM EST
    That's bad but expected (none / 0) (#149)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 05:44:41 PM EST
    The idea that the intelligence people are literally afraid to tell Trump the truth for fear of losing their job, which is exactly what happened, is truly terrifying.

    And as a bonus they report the usual Republican suspects were attacking the briefer as it was happening for suggesting Russia might do a bad thing.

    We are is some deep serious shi+.


    Face (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 05:57:28 PM EST
    it we are living in a banana republic, this is not a drill.

    Bad (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 21, 2020 at 07:40:29 PM EST
    always get worse with this crowd
    President Donald Trump's new acting intelligence director, Richard Grenell, used to do consulting work on behalf of an Eastern European oligarch who is now a fugitive and was recently barred from entering the U.S. under anti-corruption sanctions imposed last month by the State Department.

    In 2016, Grenell wrote several articles defending the oligarch, a Moldovan politician named Vladimir Plahotniuc, but did not disclose that he was being paid, according to records and interviews.

    Fake News (none / 0) (#174)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 21, 2020 at 08:01:27 PM EST
    Once again.

    This was brought up during his confirmation and thoroughly debunked.

    The DNC strategy, what is left of it, is to recycle old and tired and debunked conspiracy theories.


    Better Call Saul! (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 06:39:44 PM EST
    New season starts tomorrow

    Darwin Award nominee (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 23, 2020 at 05:33:04 PM EST
    "Mad" Mike Hughes, 64, crash-landed his steam-powered rocket shortly after take-off near Barstow on Saturday.
    A video on social media shows a rocket being fired into the sky before plummeting to the ground nearby.
    Hughes was well-known for his belief that the Earth was flat. He hoped to prove his theory by going to space.

    The rocket that guy (none / 0) (#199)
    by desertswine on Mon Feb 24, 2020 at 12:48:22 PM EST
    was in just came straight down, nose first into the ground.  No one could have survived that.  Why didn't this guy just go up in an airplane to look around.

    Everybody knows (none / 0) (#200)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 24, 2020 at 01:15:15 PM EST
    Them airplane people project them curvy images outside the windows to fool ya.

    This is interesting (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 02:38:36 PM EST
    I am 4 hours into colonoscopy prep.  8:15 tomorrow.
    Everything seems to be coming out fine.

    Here's the thing.  My brother is driving me.  So I have been texting him and talking with him a lot the last couple of days.

    This is my evangelical Trump loving brother.  We were just talking and he brought up Bloomberg.

    What do you know about this guy.  What do you think.  We actually discuss politics in my family quite a lot.  

    He's an interesting guy.  He said.  

    Bloomberg is leading in at least some polls in my state.

    We vote Super Tuesday.

    Bloomberg (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 09:49:27 AM EST
    is on my ballot here in California.

    California, for the first time, mails a mail-in ballot to ever voter automatically, and in person voting will be allowed for three weeks.

    I have had my ballot for about a week now. I will hold it until the Universe moves me to know who to vote for.


    Ditto. I haven't peeked to (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 04:12:54 PM EST
    see if Bloomberg is on the ballot.

    Just peeked at my Colorado ballot (none / 0) (#78)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 07:56:43 PM EST
    (YAY! I have a Colorado ballot!!!)

    and there are still 17 people on there, Bloomberg included. So if it does not look close I can throw a vote to someone I like better than Bernie or Bloomberg. If it matters I think I have to go with Bernie. The 'buying an election' thing really bothers me. I'm ok with it if it knocks out Bernie before I vote though. I have no principles.


    "No principles" (none / 0) (#81)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 08:29:13 PM EST
    I laughed at that one--at first.

    But how much would we give up by backing Bloomberg to get rid of Trump?  Bloomberg as winning candidate is different than four years of Bloomberg as President.

    But, light me on fire if you insist, I could well vote for Bloomberg.   This current rampage of Cheeto in using the DOJ for personal purposes is just way too much....


    I think the crazier things get (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 15, 2020 at 06:21:06 AM EST
    The more it helps Bloomberg.  And I don't think we are even close to the bottom yet.

    If there even is a bottom.


    In my case (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 08:52:20 PM EST
    I would have to look at the senate opportunities. We have 2 seats up for grabs in November. And since it's likely that Bernie would drag down our candidates and Bloomberg has gotten endorsements from people that know the landscape here in GA I would have to go with Bloomberg.

    I'm not sure if he knows (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 02:48:36 PM EST
    About Bloomberg and guns.  We will find out tomorrow.

    Good luck with your colonoscopy.. (none / 0) (#3)
    by desertswine on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 02:48:37 PM EST
    the worst part is drinking all of that disgutbusting joy juice.

    You know (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 02:52:53 PM EST
    This is not my first rodeo and these guys are doing it differently.  No disgusting whateverthehellthatis

    4 dulcolax and then massive doses of miralax (which is pretty inoffensive) in whatever you want.  I'm doing strawberry lemonade poweraid

    Also I asked her if I could include vodka in my clear liquids.  She said she recommends it.  So I'm good.  Heading for a early bedtime.


    FWIW (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 05:35:13 PM EST
    This apparently  did not work that well.  Unsurprising since it was so easy.  Relatively speaking.  In the notes I got it recommended more severe prep next time.



    The best part (none / 0) (#5)
    by jmacWA on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 02:56:07 PM EST
    is the anesthetic... I always ask to see if I can take some home :-0

    I have a standard instruction (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 03:00:45 PM EST
    That usually gets a laugh

    I have a much higher tolerance for drugs than I do for pain.


    My last colonoscopy was performed.. (none / 0) (#13)
    by desertswine on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 05:38:55 PM EST
    by Ming the Merciless.

    Then you have not had one recently (none / 0) (#20)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 09:33:42 PM EST
    Do your future health a favor and go back and get another. The prep is annoying, for sure. But the anaesthesia is so good now that you have no idea it is even happening.

    Off into twighlight (none / 0) (#31)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 01:40:57 PM EST
    I was told I started asking who was who standing over me, and who was over in the corner, etc., and that I said you always "need to know who the players are."

    Worse than the taste is the results (none / 0) (#92)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Feb 15, 2020 at 04:35:47 PM EST

    The jet propelled power pooping is so bad you need a seatbelt on the commode to keep from flying off.

    Polls (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 04:36:31 PM EST
    I did not know this until my brother told me




    I see this (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 05:03:38 PM EST
    as a consequence of Biden's 2017 trash Hillary tour.

    That and 3 glossy (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 05:06:12 PM EST
    Bloomberg per hour for the last couple of months

    As I have posted many times (none / 0) (#10)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 05:12:49 PM EST
    RCP is my go to site.  For some time it has been Biden/Sanders or Sanders/Biden in most states including CA which is the big prize.  A single poll showing BLoomberg jumping to a lead could be a sign of things to come; or it could be an outlier.  The trends at RPC show both Sanders and Biden losing support while Bloomberg is gaining.  But both Sanders and Biden were more than double Bloomberg's support so that is a huge jump.

    While I don't think Biden will be able to match Sanders total I doubt he will get out before the convention which means he will take away a few delegates from all the other middle of the roaders.

    Sanders is the only candidate I see who will not mount a big 'stay in your own lane, bro' add blitz.


    Smolett (none / 0) (#11)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 05:20:36 PM EST
    indicted on six counts by grand jury.

    In other news Avenatti's trial goes to the jury; he could be facing 42 years behind bars.

    Adding up all the theoretically available (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 09:30:38 PM EST
    maximum sentences and then saying that the defendant "faces" that much time is just misleading nonsense. It is not a plausible prediction of the actual sentence in the case, as you know from our discussions of the Stone case over the last day or two.

    And Roger Stone (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 05:26:50 PM EST

    What a country


    Judge Jackson has discretion re sentencing (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 06:05:31 PM EST
    Barr recommends.  Defense counters. She decides.

    Roger Stone has not walked (none / 0) (#19)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 09:31:23 PM EST
    and is not going to walk.

    I thought the (none / 0) (#24)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 10:21:50 PM EST
    Capt was talking about Stone walking as a result of a pardon of commutation from Trump.

    or (none / 0) (#25)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 10:22:56 PM EST
    commutation; not of.

    I was (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 05:47:54 AM EST
    Yes, Stone probably will walk. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 01:27:55 PM EST
    I appreciate your continued optimism in the system's self-correcting capacity but as adults, we tend to rationalize in the face of ominous situations and this time's no different.

    The blunt truth of the matter is that Donald Trump's and Bill Barr's pudgy little thumbs are definitely on the scales here, and congressional Republicans are cheering them on. Sadly, we're now watching our democratic institutions finally begin to buckle under the weight of prolonged and sustained attacks from the far-right.

    These institutions do not have built-in self-defense mechanisms in place. Rather, they depend entire upon the goodwill of a majority of citizens to uphold the rule of law and stand up for them in times like these.

    If the GOP-controlled U.S. Senate showed us anything last week, it's that we can't keep looking to others to stand in our stead and defend democracy for us while we watch "The Price is Right" and "Wheel of Fortune." The citizenry is now the last line of defense here.

    There's no way that Trump's going to let Stone go to prison, because that's the best way to keep the full story about Russian collusion from coming out. Same thing with Mike Flynn. So, the question now posed to us by Trump and Barr is this:

    "So, what the f*ck are you going to do about it?"



    I have seen (none / 0) (#21)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 09:55:08 PM EST
    ...so much hysterical conservative reaction to Smollett's misdemeanor that I must be missing something about it.

    He committed a crime in which he was the only person injured. It's a false police report, an offense which doesn't usually include prison time.

    This is like the time Wynona Ryder got caught shoplifting. A stupid minor crime by a person with name recognition. Why does anyone outside his immediate family even care?


    As the (none / 0) (#22)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 10:18:49 PM EST
    link explains there were six counts; every time LEOs question you and lie it is a different count.

    The reason people care is it cost over $US200,000 to investigate the case.  After the city sued Smollett and got a judgement for that he counter sued and has not paid.


    So I was right? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 11:50:42 AM EST
    Not much to it.

    He owes the city and he has the money to pay. He's the only one injured. A half dozen misdemeanors do not amount to prison time.

    What makes this a cause celebre?

    Why does ANYBODY care about this fool?


    Are you part of the 1% (3.50 / 2) (#44)
    by ragebot on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 05:50:13 PM EST
    Anyone who thinks there is not much to a $US200,000 fine sure has a lot more money than most of us.

    To be fair (none / 0) (#32)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 02:05:03 PM EST
    you seem to be the most agitated by the whole Smollett affair of anyone here on TL.

    Just the opposite (none / 0) (#45)
    by ragebot on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 05:51:57 PM EST
    I am not agitated at all; but the reactions to the news seems to agitate a lot of other posters.

    No argument at all (none / 0) (#46)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 05:57:44 PM EST
    my comment was to Repack.

    The Michael Avenatti verdict is in. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 02:55:33 PM EST
    "Your Honor, we the jury find the defendant incredibly guilty."

    (Sigh!) LOL. What a hot mess he turned out to be.


    Very sad, if you ask me (none / 0) (#72)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 05:18:58 PM EST
    Avenatti showed uncharacteristically good judgment in choosing his counsel for this case. A really terrific defense attorney. Very smart, and a heck of a nice guy, too.

    Query: logout functions on my iPhone. (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 06:15:47 PM EST
    But is touchy on iPad.  Why?

    Watched Parasite last night (none / 0) (#29)
    by McBain on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 12:39:32 PM EST
    Am I the only one here who didn't care for it that much?  I wasn't really interested in any of the characters.  The plot twist was OK but, for the most part, I was bored.

    I have been enjoying a couple documentary series...
    The Pharmacist on Netflix about the opioid problem
    McMillions on HBO about the McDonald's/Monopoly scam.  

    You're likely in the minority. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 02:25:00 PM EST
    Which is perfectly fine, because I can appreciate that not everyone is going to like "Parasite." I felt much the same way about last year's Best Picture winner, "Green Book," which I found to be both painfully cliché-riddled in its presentation and paint-by-numbers predictable in its outcome, whereas others simply fell head-over-heels in love with the film. There's really no accounting for personal tastes when it comes to movies.

    Speaking for myself only, I believe "Parasite" challenges our traditionally two-dimensional views of social class distinctions and struggles. There are those of us for whom this is clearly an uncomfortable topic for public discussion. Director and screenplay co-author Bong Joon-Ho further compounds that by introducing the often-unsettling concept of nuance to that particular issue.

    For those whose minds are pretty much fixed and rigid on the subject of class struggle, regardless of whether they're to the left or right of the political spectrum, it doesn't surprise me at all that "Parasite" can be a rather difficult film for them to watch.

    One of my friends who's quite conservative found it very hard to contemplate the film's premise, a misanthropic and nihilist world where social boundaries are pretty much impenetrable rather than permeable and fluid, and where the idea of upward social mobility is but a grand illusion for an overwhelming majority of people. Another friend of mine whose politics are firmly leftist dismissed the film outright as nothing more than socio-economic revisionism, for what she ultimately saw as its ham-handed attempt to engender sympathy for the wealthy.

    And that's because it's left to us as the audience to determine for ourselves which family is parasitic and which is host, the hardscrabble Kims or the wealthy Parks. Or perhaps, Mr. Bong asks, we might consider the probability that we can all be a little of both, and that perhaps we're all ultimately the victims of a soul-corrupting capitalist system that all too often casts people as its winners or losers by the sole virtue of one's own pedigree and birthright.



    It should not have won best picture (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 04:47:37 PM EST

    Neither should have "Green Book." (none / 0) (#56)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 12:41:09 PM EST
    But they both did, with the obvious difference being that of the two, "Parasite" was actually good.

    Almost embarrassed to admit (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 01:18:08 PM EST
    I have not seen Greenbook.  It's on my DVR and thanks.  Maybe today.  But I really do love both main actors.  Love.

    I also absolutely agree with the academy that The Shape of Water deserved to win.  I'm in a minority there it seems.


    Win some lose some


    I really liked "The Shape of Water." (none / 0) (#65)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 02:31:48 PM EST
    I don't know if it necessarily deserved to win an Oscar for Best Picture, but I certainly didn't have a problem when it did. It's a very good movie.

    Personally, I believe Oscar nominations are actually a much better measure of worthiness for movies, actors and other affiliated professionals, than are the actual Academy Awards themselves.

    There's no shortage of otherwise acclaimed films, performances and accomplishments that have been slighted on Oscar night. (See "Citizen Kane," "Dr. Strangelove," "Chinatown," "Brokeback Mountain," &etc.) But if one looks to the nominations themselves, I think one tends to have a much better indication of what people really thought about certain films.



    I'm even more embarrassed I have not seen (none / 0) (#75)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 07:42:00 PM EST
    either of those two yet. One of these days.

    What would you have picked? I was (none / 0) (#74)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 07:41:15 PM EST
    pulling for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. But I loved Parasite and was not mad that it won. To me the best thing about both films int heir own way was their originality. I had no idea what was going to happen.

    I loved the craftsmanship of Little Women too, but it is not like there were any surprises in store.


    I was rooting for Joker (none / 0) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 15, 2020 at 06:18:09 AM EST
    Minority I know

    But I expected OUATIHW to win.  Or maybe 1917.  But the buzz started to be undeniable there at the end for Parasite.  


    Joker might be the one that holds up (none / 0) (#87)
    by McBain on Sat Feb 15, 2020 at 09:51:30 AM EST
    Hard to say at this point.  Out of all the films nominated, OUATIH is the only one I'm planning on seeing a second time.  

    If Dr. Sleep had a better ending it would have been one of my favorites of 2019.  


    Director Greta Gerwig did a marvelous job ... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 16, 2020 at 05:20:10 PM EST
    ... at presenting an often-told 150-year-old literary classic in a fresh light. "Little Women" didn't win any Oscars, but it certainly deserved its many nominations and is well worth seeing.

    Another film I thought was sadly overlooked this year is Roman Polanski's "J'Accuse" (aka "An Officer and a Spy"), which was first released in Europe late last summer and recently received 12 Cesar nominations in France, including for best picture and director.

    Now, I fully realize that the 86-year-old Polanski is persona non grata in many quarters for obvious reasons which need not be repeated and rehashed here, and that U.S. studios have sought to avoid fostering controversy in our country by not bidding on the film's distribution rights.

    Further, the director's recent unfortunate comments regarding the matter, in which he intemperately analogized his latest film with his own present-day circumstances, are no doubt making it next to impossible for some people to separate the man from his art.

    Nevertheless, I'd argue that Polanski arguably remains a great filmmaker who can still tell a powerful story. And for that reason, I believe "J'Accuse", the director's timely and compelling recounting of France's now-infamous L'Affaire Dreyfus (1894-1906) -- a major military scandal and political crisis which ultimately became a public referendum in that country on injustice, anti-Semitism and moral standing -- deserves a fair viewing, because it serves as a cautionary tale for our current times.



    Let's not airbrush Polanski. (none / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 16, 2020 at 08:36:59 PM EST
    The BS is getting so deep (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 04:51:09 PM EST
    Save the watch.  The wallet is gone.  I really don't know what to think about this

    Is Lindsey Graham worried Donald Trump is about to fire Bill Barr?

    On Thursday, during an interview with ABC News, Attorney General William Barr stunned observers by seeming to criticize President Donald Trump, saying that he should stop tweeting about ongoing criminal cases.

    It's (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 05:22:32 PM EST
    all kabuki. Just like the Mueller report Barr is trying to set up a BS narrative that he is totally independent.

    He will point to this to insist that he wasn't influenced in any way by the WH in any matter, no matter what the evidence shows.


    My first response too (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 05:32:12 PM EST
    But I wonder if it was cleared with the Shi+gibbon?

    It sounds an awful lot like blasphemy

    You almost wonder if Barr is beginning to look at his "legacy" with some alarm.

    That said, why he would decide this now is unclear.  That ship, you could say, has sailed.


    Exactly. Bill Barr's a behind-the-scenes guy. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 12:48:32 PM EST
    But thanks to Trump's irrepressible tweets, he's once again looking like Paul and Linda McCartney on the cover of their "Band on the Run" album. That's really what this is all about.

    Ix-nay on the itter- tway (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 12:54:07 PM EST
    I got this

    Barr must have gotten a lot of pushback (none / 0) (#41)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 05:38:32 PM EST
    from a lot of the career people he depends on, demanding that he take a stand against political interference in ongoing cases, particularly involving attacks on the judge (which could backfire). And threats to or retaliation against a juror are a very serious crime that no professional prosecutor would tolerate or excuse.

    Yes (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 05:42:39 PM EST
    But as far as I can tell it changes nothing about the interference and attacks and threats.

    So maybe he thinks lip service (boy has that term taken on a new meaning) is enough?


    Trump (none / 0) (#47)
    by NoSides on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 06:05:17 PM EST
    just siphoned 3.8 billion dollars from money allocated by the congress to the pentagon to the construction of his mishugina border wall.

    He had done this already, and it seems to have gone by with relatively little notice.

    In an interview on "Democracy Now" - Ralph Nader called Trump the most impeachable president in history - and mentioned this action, the unilateral diversion of funds allocated by congress for a specific purpose - as eminently impeachable - no question about it. He mentioned many other actions about which he felt there was no question - and questioned why the Democrats were going actions about which there might be some questions of fact or interpretations of facts and, at least in Alan Dershowitz's mind, were not impeachable even if proven.

    And now, it is too late.
    Trump is still in office - and the one most damaged by the inquiry into dealings with the Ukraine would appear to be Mr. Biden.

    Oh. My. Gawd. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 12:51:00 PM EST
    You mean, Ralph Nader's still alive?

    For once, in, literally, for ever, (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 12:57:44 PM EST
    you and I have had the same reaction to a comment.

    One can't help noting (none / 0) (#61)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 01:16:30 PM EST
    for a bunch of crotchety old futzers, how free and easy folks are with the ageist wisecracks around here.

    Maybe you should try putting down the Hawaiian Sensimilla for awhile and think about getting involved in a little activist work yourself, Donald. It'll you make you more regular if nothing else.


    ... which, coincidentally, is roughly the same amount of time since Ralph Nader was probably last truly relevant from a public interest standpoint.

    The difference between us is that I don't repeatedly appear on the media to call attention to myself. And I certainly didn't run for president in 2000 on the publicly-stated but egregiously wrongheaded premise that there wasn't not one iota of difference between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush.

    Nader is an egotistical blowhard who actually caused serious political damage to our country that year, which in my opinion more than negates whatever good he may have accomplished by his book "Unsafe at Any Speed," which got General Motors to pull the Chevrolet Corvair from production 53 years ago. He became a public folk hero due to GM's initially ham-handed response to his charges, which included having him tailed by a private investigator.

    And truth be told, a subsequent study by the National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration ultimately found that the Corvair was really no more unsafe than any other car back in 1965. Hell, the VW Beetle was actually more of a public hazard than the Corvair. (But then, all cars in the 1960s were unsafe by today's contemporary standards, given that federal law didn't even require auto manufacturers to install seat belts in vehicles until 1968.)

    Nader of course attacked the NHTSA's findings, but an independent panel of engineers selected by the National Academy of Sciences subsequently upheld the report as valid. So even that singular accomplishment of his, like so many other windmills in this latter-day Don Quixote's self-absorbed life, proved to be overstated.



    Which reminds me (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 04:52:18 PM EST
    a gust of hot air from the South Seas would be just what the doctor ordered these days on the shores of Blue Ontario..

    I'll note in passing though that one thing Nader doesn't do is talk and write about himself and his resume, unlike some others who seem to live to flog others with them at every opportunity. And at painful length.


    He's already long been capitalizing on his singular accomplishment for decades. And if you can't handle a fact-based retort without further invoking personal insults -- which, I would note, I had refrained from doing to you -- then I'd suggest that you shut the windows in your Midwest homestead rather than suffer any further from the chill, because the cold appears to be making you awfully cranky.

    (Incidentally and FYI, situated as we are at about 20 degrees north of the equator, Hawaii is really not "the South Seas." But I can see how you might have gotten that confused since to you, all those thousands of Polynesian islands apparently look alike, as probably do their respective indigenous peoples as well.)



    another poster for what you consider his geography blunder while simultaneously positing that upstate NY is in the Midwest...

    Had a girlfriend with a Corvair... (none / 0) (#70)
    by fishcamp on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 04:34:08 PM EST
    Very cool car.

    Of course you did! :-) (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 07:43:11 PM EST
    Unsafe at any speed, no doubt! (none / 0) (#77)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 07:45:40 PM EST
    And likely photo evidence. (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 16, 2020 at 08:39:13 PM EST
    I briefly had a boyfriend (none / 0) (#96)
    by Zorba on Sun Feb 16, 2020 at 04:51:42 PM EST
    With a Jaguar- an older one.  It was cool looking.  

    I won my future wife's heart with (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 17, 2020 at 09:05:39 AM EST
    a six-year old 1967 Volvo 122S. (Somehow, I never knew that in Europe this model was called the "Amazon." Quite appropriate, in that it required that I have a girlfriend with upper body strength (along with brains and beauty) who could help push-start it while I popped the clutch.) A big step up from my first car, a 1963 Dodge Polara (with push-button transmission on the dash) that my grandfather passed down to me.

    The wall (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 07:41:37 PM EST
    that the wind blew over. ROTFLMAO. The wall is now up there with Carnival Barker Clown as defining phrases for Trump.

    True, but they (none / 0) (#50)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 07:47:46 PM EST
    are tearing up Apache lands....beautiful desert....

    Well, (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 08:18:24 PM EST
    if it was up to me they wouldn't be there at all. However it's kind of a defining moment for the Trump presidency that his glorious wall is blown over by wind. And unfortunately with Trump there's always a ton of collateral damage. Look no further than kids in cages.

    Democratic Senators (none / 0) (#67)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 03:09:26 PM EST
    call on Roy Cohn knockoff, William Barr, to resign as Attorney General.  Since Barr indicated that Trump's tweets made doing his job "impossible", it would seem to follow that he would resign on his own.

    Two of the nine Democratic Senators are presidential primary candidates-- Senator Warren and Senator Sanders.  The other Senators are Blumenthal, Markey, Murray, Merkley, Van Holden, Wyden, and Hirono.  Unsurprisingly, Senator Klobuchar was not among those calling for Barr's resignation.

    Surprisingly, Fox's Lou Dobbs lost it over Barr's criticism of Trump, suggesting that Barr is a part of the "Deep State". Obviously, Lou did not get the memo.

    Why is it unsurprising (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 04:17:12 PM EST
    Sen.Klobucher did not join?

    My view of (none / 0) (#91)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 15, 2020 at 03:32:24 PM EST
    Senator Klobuchar is that she is cautious to a fault. Not bold, rather dependent on focus groups and polls to tell her what to think.

    Moreover, her "surge" has occurred without much vetting, more out of an unexamined search for a viable candidate in the middle lane in view of Biden's fading prospects.

    Biden, when presenting his ability to work with Republicans, was considered out-of-touch. Senator Klobuchar who boasts of her ability to work and win with Republicans, is considered bipartisan.

    Unlike Senator Kamala Harris, her prosecutorial background is not often considered nor is her AA support. Senator Klobuchar's record on approving Trump's young right wing judges should be looked at as well.  And, her earlier support of Trump's border wall, or a fence, may now have changed but that is unclear.  Senator Klobuchar's boost came, largely, from her New Hampshire debate--effective but, for me, rekindled stories of her temperament. And, that Midwest/grandfather in the coal mines story is wearing thin. She is a graduate of Yale University and the University of Chicago Law which she does not often add to her biography.


    Does anyone else love Schitt's Creek? (none / 0) (#79)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 08:12:03 PM EST
    If the only great thing about it was Catherine O'Hara doing This it would still be a great show. Don't let the silly title and off brand cable channel (PoPTV) throw you off like I did for years. Go to Netflix and catch up. This is the final season airing now.

    Both Eugene and his son Daniel are amazing. His daughter is in it too playing a waitress. Annie Murphy who plays Daniel's sister is so funny and adorable. They have adopted a lot of the same mannerisms and play off each other perfectly.

    Eugene and Daniel Levy I mean (none / 0) (#80)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 08:12:55 PM EST
    I love (none / 0) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 08:38:34 PM EST
    that show. Don't ask me why but I do. I watched all that was on Netflix and then I had to wait for the next season to come out. The whole crow episode was hysterical.

    It is just so crazy and heartfelt at the same time (none / 0) (#84)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 09:40:47 PM EST
    Love the characters and performances. And Alexis's wardrobe and Moira's wig collection.

    War of the Worlds (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 15, 2020 at 11:37:49 AM EST
    this starts tomorrow on EPIX

    It looks very good

    Hottest January evah... (none / 0) (#90)
    by desertswine on Sat Feb 15, 2020 at 03:10:14 PM EST
    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said on Thursday that January 2020 has been the hottest ever recorded in 141 years of climate records.
    The NOAA report showed that January 2020 marked the 44th consecutive January and the 421st consecutive month with nominal temperatures above the 20th-Century average.
    The Earth's global land and ocean surface temperatures were the highest on record at 2.05 degrees above the 20th-Century average, surpassing the record previously set in January 2016, NOAA said.

    Debate over airline seat etiquette (none / 0) (#93)
    by McBain on Sun Feb 16, 2020 at 09:55:42 AM EST
    The debate about whether it's a jerk move to recline your economy airline seat has begun raging all over again following a recent incident on a Jan. 31 American Eagle flight in which a fed-up passenger punched the seat of the woman in front of him to get her to put her seat back in the upright position.

    No one has ever asked me if they could recline their seat in front of me.  I had one person complain when I did it, which I thought was odd but maybe I don't know the unwritten rules since I don't fly very often? If it is inappropriate to recline your seat, then why is it an option to begin with?  

    Because the airlines (none / 0) (#98)
    by Zorba on Sun Feb 16, 2020 at 04:58:30 PM EST
    Obviously want people punching, screaming, and fighting on board.  ;-)

    That's because most airline seats ... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 16, 2020 at 06:20:56 PM EST
    ... have been manufactured to recline, whereas the amount of space between those seats is entirely an airline's discretion.

    Hawaiian Airlines has recently solved that problem on its interisland flights by outfitting all of its Boeing 717 jet aircraft, which the carrier uses exclusively on those routes, with non-reclining seats.

    Since the time we're actually airborne on interisland flights in Hawaii runs from 20-25 minutes (between Honolulu and Maui or Kauai, or between Maui and Kona or Hilo) to 35-45 minutes in length (between Honolulu and Kona or Hilo, or between Kauai and Maui or Kona), it's really not much if any of an imposition on passengers.



    Cats (none / 0) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 16, 2020 at 01:46:35 PM EST
    Just curious if anyone saw this .  It's not something I would pay to see.  It always sounded like the worst idea ever.  I can't believe it was made.  I expect careers ended.

    The movie musical "Cats" has officially ended its theatrical run and the numbers are rather dire.

    The film has closed out with just a $27.1 million gross at the North American box-office over its eight-week run. In addition, it earned a further $46 million overseas - pushing its global total to $73.5 million.

    With a production budget of $95 million, the movie would've needed to make at least $250 million to break even and cover its costs, P&A spend and exhibitor cuts. How much the whole endeavour will cost Universal is unclear at the moment.

    After I saw the trailer (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Zorba on Sun Feb 16, 2020 at 04:56:54 PM EST
    when it first came out, I thought it looked creepy and awful.  So did everyone else I talked to.    Nobody was planning on going to see it.
    No wonder it lost money.

    Almost certainly not (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 16, 2020 at 03:29:38 PM EST
    The careers of those responsible for it.

    I remember (none / 0) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 16, 2020 at 05:26:58 PM EST
    when it was a hit on Broadway. I never had any desire to see it. One of the ladies I worked with went to see it and described it as just a bunch of people dressed as cats singing. Any clips of the play I have seen did not make me sad that I missed it either.

    My wife and I saw 'Cats' in New York. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 16, 2020 at 06:24:21 PM EST
    Having found it exceptionally tedious and long, I'd agree with your co-worker.

    I'll be honest, I would prefer Bloomberg pick (none / 0) (#111)
    by vml68 on Mon Feb 17, 2020 at 01:41:21 PM EST
    Kamala Harris, Castro or Booker over Abrams. While Bloomberg (unlike Bernie) has not had a heart attack, at least as far as we know, he is still in his late 70s. So, I would prefer someone with a little more experience in government in the #2 slot.

    Bloomberg has given a lot of money to causes that I care about but he has also given money to and supported Republicans, so I do have mixed feelings. Against anyone but Tr*mp, he would be a non-starter for me. I just don't think we can afford to be #Never(Bernie/Biden/Bloomberg/Pete) in the general.
    Leaving the ladies out because I have not seen any, "I'll skip the top of the ticket if it is Warren/Klobuchar".
    #NeverGabbard is the only one I agree with.

    I think she probably said that (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 17, 2020 at 01:53:12 PM EST
    Because she was asked the question.  I think she was asked the question most likely because it Bloomberg's time in the barrel and the question was inevitable given the large sum of money he gave her.

    The thing is, there are plenty of reasons to give her that money other than the obvious one that she needed and deserved it that do not include getting her to be the VP

    Bloomberg knows as well as, probably better than, anyone the work he has to do in communities of color.   He has been doing it.  Every-f'ing- where.  From a training and support system fir young candidates of color that produced his flock of young black mayoral endorsements to the Greenwood Initiative .

    I have said for a long time I think it would be Kamala

    I still do


    PS (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 17, 2020 at 02:45:51 PM EST
    While I agree Kamala or one of the others might arguably be a better pick for the office of VP I think Stacy would be a knock it out of the park pick for the CANDIDATE of VP.  She is a superstar with no baggage who would instantly legitimize him the way no one else I can think of would.

    So yeah, it's possible.  It's just my first reaction to the donation was not as much necessarily a thing t get her to be VP as part of a larger plan.

    I've been suspicious ever since Kamala quietly slipped out the back door the same day a bunch of her high profile supporters endorsed Bloomberg.


    It Should Be Mentioned (none / 0) (#114)
    by RickyJim on Mon Feb 17, 2020 at 04:53:53 PM EST
    that the things that Bloomberg has said and done, for which is is currently being criticized, are exactly the kind of stuff that will woo Trump's base to switch from Trump to Bloomberg.

    Silly comment, show your work (none / 0) (#115)
    by ragebot on Mon Feb 17, 2020 at 05:11:24 PM EST
    Every talking head I have seen say Trump's base voted for him in spite of the womanizing and the like.  Not to mention a large portion of Trump's base are strong 2A guys and Bloomberg's position will not only turn off Trump's base but lots of rural independents and rural dems.

    While Bloomberg's stop and frisk and tough on crime positions might appeal to Trump's base the fact that Bloomberg has done a 180 on them means they are not attractive at all.


    Perhaps for different reasons (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 17, 2020 at 06:25:55 PM EST
    Yeah. Kind of a silly comment.

    As far as I know Bloomberg is not and has not been accused of assault or any kind of inappropriate touching.  
    Admittedly I have not looked that hard but as far as  the news stories I know of it's all about creating an unpleasant workplace by SAYING inappropriate things.

    A foible I am familiar with.  And have some personal experience with.

    There is little comparison with what Trump is accused of.

    As far as I know

    Second I don't actually think most of them like Trump because of the things he's accused of but in spite of them.

    They don't give a shi+.  Not really the same thing.


    So Bloomberg's (none / 0) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 18, 2020 at 06:53:26 PM EST
    campaign says that they have enough oppo on Bernie to fill Trump's empty Foxconn facility in Wisconsin.

    It is very damaging, perhaps even disqualifying they say.

    Well, if they have it they should drop it.

    Blurb from (none / 0) (#130)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 11:39:50 AM EST

    In a "State of the Race" memo to Bloomberg gurus Sheekey and Howard Wolfson, senior adviser Mitch Stewart and states director Dan Kanninen argue:
    "If Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar remain in the race despite having no path to appreciably collecting delegates on Super Tuesday (and beyond), they will propel Sanders to a seemingly insurmountable delegate lead by siphoning votes away from [Bloomberg]."

    Blurb from CNBC

    Candidates besides Warren, including Biden, have also signaled that they are thirsty for blood. While Bloomberg has been able to saturate television viewers with advertisements, his rivals argue that he has not yet had to face questions about his record.

    My bet is a lot of mud will be flying in the debate; and if a lot of it sticks to Bloomberg I have to wonder what happens after that.


    The oppo (none / 0) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 01:29:11 PM EST
    dump started today. Sorry dude. Today it's Bernie dumping nuclear waste on a poor Latino town. Tomorrow it could be him praising the USSR. Bloomberg's campaign manager is right that Bernie has a warehouse full of baggage.

    At the rate he's going it's likely Biden is the first to drop out and maybe before Super Tuesday. He's also supposedly running out of money.

    And BTW we're proving that we're better than the GOP because we're attempting to do something about Bernie. The GOP was too afraid of Trump to do anything in 2016.


    Do something about (none / 0) (#137)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 10:19:58 PM EST

    I am afraid it will be him.  And, we are screwed.

    This is a mess.


    The Ziminator strikes back (none / 0) (#125)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 09:31:14 AM EST
    The man who killed Trayvon Martin was never held accountable for his crime, but he's spent the years since his acquittal blaming other people for persistent problems in his life. The latest news on George Zimmerman is that he's suing presidential candidates Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

    According to the conservative Washington Times, Zimmerman is accusing the Democrats of "maliciously defam[ing]" him by using the killing of Martin "as a pretext to demagogue and falsely brand Zimmerman as a white supremacist and racist to their millions of Twitter followers."

    Forgot the link (none / 0) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 09:33:05 AM EST
    These Are the Tweets (none / 0) (#132)
    by RickyJim on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 03:55:43 PM EST
    "Trayvon Martin would have been 25 today. How many 25th birthdays have been stolen from us by white supremacy, gun violence, prejudice, and fear? #BlackLivesMatter,"

    "My heart goes out to @SybrinaFulton and Trayvon's family and friends. He should still be with us today. We need to end gun violence and racism. And we need to build a world where all of our children--especially young Black boys--can grow up safe and free,"

    Does Zimmerman have a case? Compared to DJT's daily defamations of people, these tweets are nothing.  I do agree with Zimmerman that they don't give the correct implication of happened between him and Martin.


    I'm much more interested in his other (none / 0) (#136)
    by McBain on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 05:37:55 PM EST
    lawsuit about the use of a fake witness. I haven't heard much about that in a while.  Would be nice if someone in the media (CNN, Fox) who covered the Zimmerman case 24/7 would take the time to look into the allegations.

    As for the Buttigeig and Warren tweets... I think they're terrible but political figures get away with saying terrible things all the time.  If anything, I find the quote from Howdy's link (Sarah K. Burris), to be even more ignorant...

    The man who killed Trayvon Martin was never held accountable for his crime...

    As has been discussed to death already, the evidence doesn't suggest Zimmerman committed any crime when he shot Martin. Evidence also suggests all of his decisions that night were reasonable based on the information he had.  

    where is Zimmerman (none / 0) (#138)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 08:52:51 AM EST
    even so much as mentioned in those tweets? I don't see how he has any case whatsoever.

    If you feed them (none / 0) (#133)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 05:22:51 PM EST
    I really feel like (none / 0) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 05:26:50 PM EST
    I'm missing the boat because I have not gotten any of this money he's spreading around to get people to say good things about him on the internets.

    It I did I would proudly disclose


    As I have posted before (none / 0) (#135)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 05:37:28 PM EST
    I am not convinced Bloomberg is targeting voters; rather carpet bombing with money.

    As the link indicated several folks made it clear they were supporting Sanders and only showed up for the free foot, beer, wine, or sangria.

    It will be interesting to see what happens in the debate tonight.  After the Trump dis of Bloomberg with the usual Trump exaggeration that Bloomberg was 5'4" Klobuchar quickly jumped in and said she had the only legit claim to being 5'4" tall.


    Point to Ponder (none / 0) (#151)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 07:01:19 PM EST
    Is there any Dem politician that has endorsed Bloomberg that has not received money from him?
    Endorsements do not count for too much, especially when the endorsed party was a Republican , Independent, and loads of video of him available.

    Hey (none / 0) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 07:04:56 PM EST
    If you find one who has been missed and got no money make sure to let us know

    We will get they a wad of money STAT.  Plenty for everybody  no need to push.


    What does that say to (none / 0) (#153)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 07:10:00 PM EST
    Lifelong Democrat voters?

    Our local politician can so easily bought off, to endorse someone of the opposite party.

    And the other thought is why? Because our party cannot produce a legitimate candidate to run against the most polarizing President ever?

    Not a good look


    Oh my (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 07:12:01 PM EST
    We have disappointed Trevor.

    How can we go on.

    Oh I know, on rolls of Benjamins!


    Well, (none / 0) (#155)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 07:44:42 PM EST
    the good news is that Bloomberg upsets our Russian troll. So Putin is not a fan apparently. We also know Putin is a fan of Bernie by his posts. Putin apparently would be fine with Bernie being the nominee or even president maybe but Putin could get get an ace in the hole with Bernie vs. Trump.

    Russian trolls. (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 21, 2020 at 10:31:19 AM EST
    Apparently, Russia is using a new model. Rather than Russians creating false American names as in the past, they are now seeding, more intensely, disinformation to right wingers, who take it up from there, lock, stock and barrel.  In 2020, unlike 2016, Russians have more fertile ground with Trumpers. Telltales are the adoption of the same words (e.g. fake, hoax, Hunter B. etc.), which makes sense, since Trump's Kool-Aid drinkers are not original thinkers.

    I got not clue (none / 0) (#156)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 07:51:32 PM EST
    What the Bloomberg Putin vibe is.  We know Putin likes money.

    Staying in the topic of this sub thread maybe some "investment" might help.

    Ok, Im half kidding.  Only half.  Read the freaking NYTimes today.  My tether is fully extended and I am on board with whateverthefuckittakes


    Yeah, (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 08:45:00 PM EST
    whatever it takes is right. All hands on deck. I don't know who the leader is but job 1 is making sure we don't nominate a socialist because a Trump win over Bernie would be easy to hide the interference since we have copious amounts of polling showing people will not vote for a socialist.

    Ok we know I'm not a Sanders guy (none / 0) (#160)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 21, 2020 at 09:27:02 AM EST
    But this Socialist thing is bugging me.  We are in an era where every single political norm has been flushed right down the toilet

    Around this time 4 years ago there was "copious amounts of polling" that made us all totally confident Trump could never ever win.  So there is that.

    Also, this Socialist would be running against the most consistently unpopular president in history.  A president at least 50% of the country would crawl over broken glass to vote against.

    I gotta tell you, if it's Trump or a Socialist I personally think all that anti socialist stuff is close to irrelevant

    There are IMO other good reasons to think Sanders might not win.  There are also many reasons to think he could

    Against Trump

    I think the socialist will be very important to republicans.  They were not going to vote for Bernie anyway and a evidence shows they are already as motivated as they ever have been by the cult leader.

    I ain't that worried about the socialist thing.  

    If Bloomberg's money can make him acceptable it can do it for Bernie too.


    I could (none / 0) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2020 at 10:08:00 AM EST
    care less about what the GOP thinks. Yeah, socialism unites their base. What I'm concerned about is how it plays down ticket. Looking deeper into the polling the only part of any state that Bernie does well is cities. That's good enough for places like IL where the cities are big enough to overrule the rest of the state. The problem is going to be places like VA which will not vote for him and since nobody is gonna carry WI according to polling where is Bernie gonna win? We have an opportunity to take 2 senate seats here in GA. Bernie at the top of the ticket means the chance turns to zero. Our candidates are going to have to run from him and refuse to endorse him. My larger point is the same it always has been. Sanders will never be able to unite the party. We've got about 6 other candidates that can.

    I understand the concern (none / 0) (#162)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 21, 2020 at 10:14:02 AM EST
    I do.

    And I realize it's anecdotal but this

    the only part of any state that Bernie does well is cities

    I live almost literally as far from a major city as is geographically possible in the lower 48 and I personally know at least a dozen big Bernie boosters.  Some are fanatics.

    Jus sayin.


    PS (none / 0) (#163)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 21, 2020 at 10:16:53 AM EST
    I noted Bloomberg was ahead in the primary here.  He still is afaik.

    One word, commercials.

    I have personally heard no criticism of Sanders.  Only fear he can't win.  No problem supporting him.


    There are a few (none / 0) (#165)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2020 at 10:30:34 AM EST
    Bernie supporters but basically he's universally loathed in the suburbs which would be a problem in the GE. There's a reason only reps in deep blue districts have endorsed him.

    Las Vegas betting odds (none / 0) (#171)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 21, 2020 at 07:21:13 PM EST
    Betting Odds
    Sanders    52.0
    Bloomberg 21.6
    Buttigieg 13.8
    Biden    10.3
    Clinton    5.1

    Sanders +30.4

    From Real Clear Politics, this where money talks more  than pollsters


    Yeah (none / 0) (#175)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2020 at 08:47:11 PM EST
    but that was before the Russian news stories came out. There is a reason why it is called gambling.

    The House never loses (none / 0) (#176)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 21, 2020 at 08:57:40 PM EST
    And they are backing The Bern

    So Bloomberg has spent 420 million , and is at 15% in the polls

    And you think the Russians are helping Bernie?
    Bloomie has The Bloomie Army, 420 million


    Here's your (none / 0) (#177)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 21, 2020 at 09:21:15 PM EST
    motto: чувствовать ожог

    You can google it to find out it's meaning. We don't know yet the extent of the Russians helping Bernie. We only know they are. My bet would be they are donating money to him.

    The house loses a lot when it comes to gambling but not enough to lose money overall. Those poor suckers that bet on Bernie are going to eat it.

    Well, apparently Bloomberg is having a town hall in Charleston SC. Maybe you should watch it and find out. Apparently his money makes you afraid much like it has Bernie's campaign crapping in their pants.


    Actually (none / 0) (#178)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 21, 2020 at 09:31:49 PM EST
    They know nothing. When they asked the intel spokesperson at the briefing the other day for any evidence..intercepted phone calls, SIGNIT intel, she said they had nothing.

    It is the go to plan of the DNC, need to stop Trump, bring up a Russian conspiracy theory
    Need to stop the far left of their own party,
    Bring up a Russian conspiracy theory.

    Reeks of desperation


    "They know nothing" - hahahahahaha (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 09:27:23 AM EST
    No idea what "briefing" you're referring to, but the fact that you think they're going to publicly discuss clearly classified intel at a briefing - and your conclusion that they "have nothing" because she wouldn't discuss it - is HILARIOUS.

    THIS is the kind of "logic" used in wingnut land?


    If you have (none / 0) (#180)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 09:45:41 AM EST
    No idea what kind of briefing it was..

    Perhaps you shouldn't comment on it without properly educating yourself

    It was a National Intelligence briefing for select members of Congress

    When questioned regarding they have any hard evidence, intercepted calls, SIGNIT intel, she said they had none.

    And less than a day after the briefing , the Times and Post have articles out...Shifty Adam leaks again. But their initial sotires were fake news and had to be walked back, as usual. Even Jake Tapper called them on it


    If you have no link (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 10:05:17 AM EST
    ... to back up your laughable claims, perhaps you should refrain from spewing more winger nonsense.  Or I'll just conclude that your claims are just more of the usual "mischaracterization"(to be overly polite) or simply leaks from fellow wingers on the committee.  If you're simply "mischaracterizing" the tweet from Catherine Herridge that wouldn't be surprising in the least.  But the anonymous claims made to Tapper were pretty funny.  Perhaps somone complaining about "fake news" should educate themselves with actual facts and real news, rather than Redstate and the Washington Examiner.  That way, you wouldn't be too embarrassed to provide actual links to try to back up your "mischaracterizations" of them.

    Lol (none / 0) (#184)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 10:17:05 AM EST
    Says the person who has no idea of what the briefing was. Thanks, but I will pass on your advice.
    Google is there, read Tappers tweets, Herridge tweets,
    Eli Lake article in Bloomberg (OMG, he will be gone soon)
    Not too hard to find
    I wasn't looking for them, and recited them to you from memory. If you really need a link for confirmation, try looking up those three

    BTW - Herridge's actual tweet (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 10:44:30 AM EST
    Links.  Not to mention actual quotes that are accurate.  They're really easy

    It seems to me that "had none to offer" (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Peter G on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 12:26:22 PM EST
    does not mean "there are none" or even "I know of none."

    Already read them (none / 0) (#186)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 10:42:35 AM EST
    I assumed that you were discussing some other briefing, since:  1) that briefing was classified and we wouldn't have specific questions/answers from the briefing, and 2) your claim is a clear "mischaracterization" of Herridge's tweet.  I guess I shouldn't have presupposed basic honesty.

    What you claimed:  "When they asked the intel spokesperson at the briefing the other day for any evidence..intercepted phone calls, SIGNIT intel, she said they had nothing."

    What they actually asked her about was not "any evidence" according to Herridge's anonymous source, but was specifically limited only to phone calls or SIGINT:

    Source familiar w/house briefing @CBSNews says briefers pressed for evidence to back up claims Russia "trying to help POTUS in 2020."  Asked if there was signals intelligence - such as phone intercepts or "SIGINT" - to back up claims, source said briefers had none to offer #DNI.

    Of course, since everyone knows there are many other types of intelligence, that doesn't support the broader, winger lies of "No evidence!,"  Or perhaps it's just a faulty memory, ... hence the benefits of actual quotes and links.



    I am going (none / 0) (#190)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 12:18:56 PM EST
    With no evidence, if they had some, it would have been stated. William Hurd, ex CIA was questioning her. Phone calls, SIGNIT, hard evidence that is reliable,

    Not I heard that she said, or some anonymous source.
    Hurd was looking for actual evidence , not hearsay


    I couldn't care less ... (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 01:13:21 PM EST
    ... what you're "going with".  Your claim that the intel spokeswoman said they have no evidence is a baldfaced lie.  If they didn't have evidence, they wouldn't have brought their conclusions to the committee.  The fact that  Trump and his sycophants want to dismiss it until they see a particular kind of evidence is as predictable as it is ridiculous.  He/they put his interests above all else, including their own country.



    Lol (none / 0) (#194)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 05:37:01 PM EST
    If they didn't have evidence, they wouldn't have brought their conclusions to the committee

    Seriously, you are going to go with that?  Then you are beyond help. Just go back the last 20 years and think about all the times they presented "conclusions" with no evidence. Hurd asked for evidence, there was none.    
    Asked if there was signals intelligence - such as phone intercepts or "SIGINT" - to back up claims, source said briefers had none to offer
     She didn't provide any evidence, which is what they were asking for, she provided a conclusion.  Meanwhile, there is this     · 2h
    National security adviser Robert O'Brien tells ABC in interview to air tomorrow that he hasn't seen any evidence of Russia seeking to help Trump. Asked whether Russia might be helping Sanders, he says reports could be credible. "That's no surprise. He honeymooned in Moscow."

    The Intelligence Community has a black mark on it, The Dossier, the use of spies to create the Dossier, Durham has spent time in Australia, Italy and the UK...tracking down malfeasance of our IC (Brennan) and FBI. All coming out by July


    I agree...mostly. (none / 0) (#167)
    by Jack E Lope on Fri Feb 21, 2020 at 03:07:58 PM EST
    In 2016, I noticed that Bernie and Donald were saying some very-similar things.  (I think Bernie means them, Donald says whatever will help him achieve his goals.)  

    I live in a rural area - Trump territory, and some Donald supporters are part of a personality cult, so they would vote Trump even if the Senate had removed him from office and barred him from holding office ever again, and Deutsche Bank, Московский кредитный банк and UniCredit all called in their loans.

    Others are becoming aware of the contrast between what Donald says and what he does, and they see that his actual policies are hurting them more than helping them - and they are interested in hearing what Bernie has to say.  They may be inclined to vote for Bernie, if available on the ballot.  (I suspect that their 2016 votes were more of a protest than a political direction.)  

    I still worry that the practices that the GOP has been using - vote-suppression strategies, disinformation campaigns to demotivate Democratic voters, etc. - are going to be at their worst and most-blatant-ever, Donald will maximize his use of mass hypnosis and Putin's minions will be multitudes.  Shaving a point here and a point there may be enough to win.

    OK - worse scenario: vote counts end up being obviously screwy in many districts, leading everyone to mistrust the results from every district.  


    Bloomberg (none / 0) (#169)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 21, 2020 at 07:16:45 PM EST
    Is in Chinas pocket, although he did have a comment stating the Russians had some right to take Crimea.
    Now, Bloombergs business is tied to the hip with China. He gives CHina editorial control over any of his media releases in China. The best was his interview with Margaret Hoover , on CBS  I believe, where he states that China is not a dictatorship. Hoover almost hit the floor, she didn't expect that answer. Bloomie is a China apologist, he is in their pocket, and to be clear, the real adversary we need to worry about is China, not Russia. Russia is a broke down former world power with nukes, their economy sucks, they survive on natural resources, which The Donald has been doing his damndest to lower the price of. Our oil and gas production has cost Russia billions, and any Dem elected President would immediately reverse those energy policies, the price of oil and gas would increase, making Putin very happy

    I hope you have (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 21, 2020 at 07:20:18 PM EST
    A prescription for something.  If not get one because your panic attacks are going to increase.

    They are very fun to watch.


    LOL! Our Party?!! (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by vml68 on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 12:28:09 PM EST
    I hate to break it to you but no one who has read more than two of your coments on here believes you belong to or care about "our party".

    Because our party cannot produce a legitimate candidate to run against the most polarizing President ever?

    Well (none / 0) (#195)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 05:41:42 PM EST
    It looks like you might have one,

    The Bern is on Fire.

    The Republicans had the Never Trumpers, the Never Berners better up their game because The Bern appears that he just might win South Carolina, and it appears he will win California as well.

    That would be a interesting election, 2 candidates chosen by the people, not the political establishment of their parties.


    Bloomberg uses his own money, (none / 0) (#164)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 21, 2020 at 10:20:12 AM EST
    Trump buys voters with tax cuts and a dollup of hate.

    Get ready (none / 0) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 09:38:16 AM EST
    It's coming

    Twitter > maggieNYT
    Maggie Haberman
    Several people close to the president saw the pardons/commutations this week as a possible prelude to commuting Stone's sentence, which comes today. Trump has talked to a number of advisers about the possibility of doing so.
    Twitter · 4 mins ago

    Twitter > AaronBlake
    Aaron Blake
    Barr asked Trump to knock it off. Now he's literally tweeting during Stone's sentencing hearing.
    Twitter · 8 mins ago

    40 months (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 11:34:39 AM EST
    Plus some probation

    here (none / 0) (#141)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 11:43:04 AM EST

        40 months on count one
        12 months on each of counts two through  
        18 months on count seven, concurrent
        24 months of supervised release
        $20,000 fine

    Works fer me (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 11:46:34 AM EST
    They are saying (none / 0) (#143)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 12:07:40 PM EST
    The Judge went pretty hard after the replacement prosecutor about how and why the DOJ did the flip flop.

    It did not sound like he had very good answers.


    Yes, very curious. (none / 0) (#144)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 12:21:27 PM EST
    DOJ  went back to the original sentencing per guidelines.  Never-mind about that second one.  

    Probably does not matter with a Trump commutation in the future.


    I almost hope he does (none / 0) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 12:25:50 PM EST
    I want republicans to defend it right up to November

    Westworld III (none / 0) (#168)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 21, 2020 at 06:23:58 PM EST
    Two new trailers



    Mar 15

    Malcolm X was asassinated 55 years ago today (none / 0) (#172)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Feb 21, 2020 at 07:31:05 PM EST
    This is my in memoriam to him. And to remind every one that Trump must be removed. "By any means necessary."

    And (none / 0) (#181)
    by NoSides on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 09:56:57 AM EST
    Louis Farrakhan, who called for Malcolm's assassination, roams free and is revered by many.

    Thanks for remembering Malcolm.

    One of the most brilliant and compassionate people of the twentieth century.


    Julian Assange's (none / 0) (#183)
    by NoSides on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 10:12:18 AM EST
    fate is being pondered by a court in London next week.

    His "crime"? Releasing classified files in 2010 about the American military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Apparently, this is information of which the American people would rather not be made aware.

    For those who revile him for his publications regarding the skullduggery of the DNC during the campaign of 2116 - know that this attempt at extradition by the government has nothing to do with any hack of the DNC.

    This is purely a matter of freedom of the press - and the right of the people to know - even facts that they would rather not know.

    One would think that the left in the USA would be supporting him wholeheartedly, but, it appears that due to the publication of information embarrassing to the democratic party, the left is content to remain quite - and even hostile. And it is willing to let Julian Assange be condemned.

    Maybe it is not the left that cares nothing for Assange. Maybe it is just the left of the Democratic Party. I don't know. To me, there is no clearer case of a publisher being persecuted for doing what he or she is supposed to do.

    ROFLMAO (none / 0) (#185)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 10:24:56 AM EST
    This is why I'm glad Bloomberg is running. He's actually pretty good at making fun of Donald and making us all laugh at Donald. He's injected humor into the primary.

    I know, right (none / 0) (#188)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 10:47:04 AM EST
    Why aren't they laughing?

    More Watchmen (none / 0) (#189)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 11:39:51 AM EST
    Hot off a big New Series win at the WGA Awards earlier this month and heading in to this weekend's NAACP Image Awards, HBO's Watchmen is taking on a new category and perhaps more seasons.

    "We discussed with the producers and felt limited series was the most accurate representation of the show and any possible future installments," the WarnerMedia owned premium cabler said in a statement today

    Ostensibly laying the foundation for awards considerations to come, HBO's statement also has ambiguity and ambition written all over it.

    In set of tea leaves, that shift from drama series to the more poignant category sure looks to open the door that the acclaimed Damon Lindelof show based on Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' iconic 1980s comic series will be back for more after its initial nine-episode run last fall.

    Harvey Weinstein found guilty (none / 0) (#198)
    by McBain on Mon Feb 24, 2020 at 12:15:29 PM EST
    on some of the charges...

    Harvey Weinstein was found guilty Monday of committing a criminal sex act in the first degree involving one woman and rape in the third degree involving another woman...

    ...A New York jury acquitted Weinstein, 67, on the more serious charges of predatory sexual assault involving the two women, Miriam Haley and Jessica Mann. In doing so, jurors indicated that they did not find beyond a reasonable doubt that Weinstein had also raped actress Annabella Sciorra, another alleged victim whose testimony prosecutors used in an attempt to establish Weinstein's predatory behavior.

    Sentencing scheduled for 3/11