home

Monday Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 01:42:46 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Thread.

< Democrats Debate | The State of the Democratic Race: You Be the Media >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Monday Open Thread | 219 comments (219 topical)
    With a day off, I got to spend most of (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 04:07:36 PM EST
    the day with my daughter and my 3-week old grandson, which was great fun and just what I needed.  He's growing so fast, staying awake longer, so I love these chances to get to bond.

    On this bitterly cold day, it was perfect getting to snuggle that little bundle!  Much better for the soul than politics, I can assure you of that!

    Awesome! (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 04:11:59 PM EST
    Love that you got to spend time with your grand!

    Parent
    If I could make the numbers work, I'd (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 04:20:57 PM EST
    retire tomorrow, and help my kids with their day care needs; when my older daughter goes back to work in 2 months, their monthly day care cost will be about $1,600 - that's a mortgage payment!  I know my younger daughter and her husband also want another child, but it's just so freakin' expensive.  

    Parent
    Day care (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 04:58:10 PM EST
    is so expensive. My kids are 8 years apart so I never had daycare for two at the same time. There's a reason why some women quit work when the 2nd child comes. They just can't afford daycare.

    I know it can be a lose/lose proposition for so many people. When my oldest started kindergarten oh, my it was wonderful to not to have to pay all that daycare.

    Parent

    I wish you luck... (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 09:01:48 AM EST
    crunching those retirement numbers Anne.

    I am happy to report that after years of my nagging, my moms is finally going to retire...Yip F*ckin' Yeah!  She was surprised to hear from her bank that her house is now paid in full, 6 months sooner than she expected.  Once she gets her Medicaid all squared and uses some vacation time she is putting in her two weeks notice.  

    I'm so so happy...moms ain't gonna work on Maggie's Farm no mo'.  She's a full time doting Nana now b*tches!!!

    Parent

    Say what you will (none / 0) (#20)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 05:18:04 PM EST
    about Hillary but she has no equal when it comes fighting for kids. link

    Parent
    What is Weird to Me... (none / 0) (#28)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 06:01:14 PM EST
    ...and something I never though of, once the 8 weeks or whatever, is done, the baby is cared for by someone else during the day.

    My friend just had a kid, well like 2 months ago, and he was telling me about the options, daycare or a nanny.  I was like WTF, a brand new baby and someone else if going to take care of it ?

    I just never really thought about it, my brother is a stay at home dad and I don't know anyone else with kids.

    Parent

    Our three were in day care, all day, (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 07:30:49 PM EST
    from age 3 or 4 months until kindergarten. All 3 are terrific young women today, who love each other and their parents (and vice versa) They all developed terrific social, psychological and intellectual skills, in part, from the stimulation of the day care environment. And it never occurred to me to say they were "raised" or even "cared for" by anyone other than their parents.

    Parent
    As someone who went to daycare (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 10:03:47 AM EST
    at an early age, and then pre-school and kindergarten...  I too feel as though I was raised by my parents.

    Honestly, when you consider the early years, sure they are "formative", but it's not like you really remember then.  And you learn a lot of social skills in daycare as well.  Not to mention, you get all kinds of germs that later protect you from cancer and whatnot.

    One weird thing in my family - every single female member of my extended family (aunts, cousins, etc...) makes more than their husband.  Stay at home mom was never on the table, although there have been a few stay at home dads in this generation - because daycare is too expensive.  Everyone would be in daycare if it were affordable though.

    Parent

    Like women working (none / 0) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 11:39:06 AM EST
    away from the home daycare dates back to WWII. The difference is that the caregiver was more likely to be a grandmother or other elderly member of the family. My mother and all my aunts worked in the local defense plant while the grandmothers, paternal and maternal, kept the children.

    After the war this was continued to a fair degree.  In rural farm families it was the oldest child who had responsibility for the younger ones while both parents worked in the field and barn. As the oldest child became old enough to be productive in the field s/he was replaced by the next in line. In many cases, where sharecroppers were on larger farms, the elderly grandmothers were again caregivers. Especially in the many cases were the grandfathers had died in their 50's and 60's.

    As manufacturing spread out from the large cities many mothers went to "public work" and the children became "latch key" kids because the father was either in the fields or working two jobs; factory from 7 to 3; farm from before dawn to factory and factory to after dark. Or more simply, "From can to can't."

    As millions fled the rural areas for jobs in "Detroit City" or "Chi Town" this was repeated with the only difference being that it was another factory or store that provided the second job for one or both parents.

    "Leave It To Beaver" and "Ozzie and Harriet" did exist but nowhere near the extent TV made popular.

    Childcare away from the home expanded in the 60"s and onward for many reasons but chief among them was the fact that the family was scattered.  Grandparents were apt to be hundreds of miles away. And as housing prices started to climb both parents working became necessary. And as barriers within businesses came down more women were encouraged to leave the home.

    Was this good? Bad? Who knows. The Right tends say it has been bad. The Left that it has been good. One thing is for sure.

    It did transform our society.

    Parent

    Have you ever heard Bernie Sanders speak? (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 11:54:00 AM EST
    practically all he does is rail against the fact that economic forces have forced both parents to be away from the home longer and working longer and longer hours for less return..

    So, it's simplistic to say "the Left says it's good".

    The reality is that the Right likes to say that the Left says it's good because it fits their ongoing narrative about the Left wanting to "destroy families".

    Parent

    funny (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 12:38:58 PM EST
    last I checked it was "the left" that was interested in you know - actually doing something about parental leave.

    Seems like the right says it's bad - but doesn't want to actually do anything about it.

    The economic reality is what it is.  Most parents don't have a choice about whether or not to work.

    Parent

    My daughter's in a couple of moms' groups, (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 01:01:44 PM EST
    online, and a number of the participants are Canadian.  She was just telling me yesterday that the Canadians can't believe how soon the American moms have to go back to work, and that the maternity leave the Americans get is usually unpaid.

    A number of the Canadian moms are on leave for between 9 months and a year, at somewhere in the neighborhood of 60% of their salaries/wages.

    With her first, my daughter stayed home for a year; this time, she's going back at 12 weeks.  She loves the day care where she will send the baby - her older child is in the pre-school there, and has thrived in their program - but they can't afford for her to stay home with the baby AND send the 3-yr old to pre-school.

    We have some decidedly archaic approaches to parental leave in this country; it just makes what should be a joyful experience way more stressful than it needs to be.

    Parent

    yea (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 01:04:30 PM EST
    I have 3 nephews under 5, and both my sisters had to go back to work almost immediately every time.

    Not that they wouldn't have gone back eventually anyway, but it's not a position anyone wants to be put in.

    Parent

    1974. Southern California. (none / 0) (#142)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 12:52:01 PM EST
    Public school kindergarten. Only one mother "worked outside the home."  Mother of twins. A lawyer.

    Parent
    Same in the city... (none / 0) (#148)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 01:27:07 PM EST
    back in the 80's.  Grandma/older siblings/neighbors watched us till we started school, then we were latch-key kids. Nobody ever heard of no day care centers, but most moms worked.  

    Compared to now where my sister still calls on me to sit her kids sometimes, the youngest is 11.  I rag on my sister for it..."11 years old?  You were making meatloaf for the entire family, and taught me how to read, when you were 9 sis. I think they can handle being alone for a couple hours!"

    Parent

    One major difference today (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 01:28:49 PM EST
    Grandma is still working too.

    Parent
    My girls keep asking me, "so...when do you (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:07:17 PM EST
    think you're going to retire?"  One of them has already figured out that if she has a baby in October of 2018, she can take three months off, I can work until the end of the year - and thus, collect my 401(k) contribution from my employer - and then - voila! - I'll be ready to be day care Grammy on January 1!

    Now that, I would say, is "family planning!"

    My husband is retired and he watches the 15-month old one day a week; it's hard work chasing after and keeping a little one entertained all day - my husband is pooped at the end of his Wednesdays!  When we had the 3 yr old at Christmas when his brother was being born, I was ready for the home by the time his visit came to an end.  I loved having him, but it's mentally and physically exhausting - I don't know how grandparents raise their grandchildren on a full-time basis.

    Parent

    Too true... (none / 0) (#150)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 01:34:59 PM EST
    my sweet Grandma Vicky was a working woman too, but she was retired by the time I came around, and had this thing called a "pension"....another relic of a bygone era!  

    Parent
    My Apoligizes... (none / 0) (#136)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 12:11:33 PM EST
    ...if that was read like criticism, it was not meant to be.

    I knew kids went to day care and I knew mothers went back to work, but I never puts the dots together.  

    My brother lucked out in that he went to work in factory while he put his wife through medical school.  When she was done, they moved back home and they had kids and since his job prospects were limited it just made sense for his to stay home.  Now he's got it made in the shade that his kids are approaching their teenage years.

    My friend above, he claims he wants be like my brother, he married a doctor as well, but he is well educated and on the fast track at work, so while he claims the wife put the kibosh on it, I think neither wants to give up his salary.

    For me personally, I think both my brother and I would agree that my stay at home mom was the worst of all options.  Without getting it all of it, we both to this put a lot of energy into avoiding her while trying to spend time with a very good father.

    Parent

    Glenn Frye of the Eagles died today. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by magster on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 04:19:00 PM EST
    Just saw on twitter. Sorry Jeralyn.

    Oh no (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 04:21:00 PM EST
    Glen Frey Dead at 67

    combination of complications from rheumatoid arthritis, acute ulcerative colitis, and pneumonia.

    A favorite of mine from way back. Take it easy Glen.

    Too many (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by sj on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 04:50:28 PM EST
    and too young.

    RIP

    Parent

    No kidding. And now Dale Griffin as well, (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 05:10:33 PM EST
    drummer and founding member of Mott the Hoople. And so soon after Bowie, who wrote and sang on "All the Young Dudes" with them.

    Parent
    I was just playing (none / 0) (#19)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 05:17:27 PM EST
    All The Way From Memphis for my daughter the other night..

    What a great song.

    Parent

    Love that song (none / 0) (#24)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 05:36:16 PM EST


    Parent
    Did not know Buffin (none / 0) (#87)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 08:12:36 AM EST
    had died. Thanks for posting that. Big Mott the Hoople fan.

    Parent
    (Sigh!) I'm really starting to feel old, ... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 06:20:35 PM EST
    ... now that the artists who provided the soundtrack of my youth are passing from the scene.

    I've always been a big fan of The Eagles, who were a real mainstay of the L.A. music scene in the mid-'70s. If I had to pick one song that might sum them up, it would have to be "The Last Resort," the melancholy closing track from "Hotel California," which laments man's tendency to defile the very places he finds most beautiful.

    Aloha to Glenn Frey.

    Parent

    Soundtrack of your youth, you say (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 07:41:34 PM EST
    Yet many of those who provided the soundtrack of my youth appear to be living forever. Many others not, of course.

    Parent
    Country Joe! I have not (none / 0) (#43)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 07:48:12 PM EST
    listened to his music or even thought about Joe or the Fish, in quite some time. I still know the lyrics, though.

    Parent
    You know what that statement means, Peter? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 08:00:25 PM EST
    It means you and I are turning into our fathers and grandfathers, despite our youthful declarations that we'd do no such thing. And it won't be too long before:

    • Our daughters turn into their mothers and grandmothers; and

    • We start reading the obituaries to see if there's anyone listed that day whom we know -- or knew, as the case would be.

    ;-D

    Parent
    In most ways, I'd be proud (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 08:13:46 PM EST
    to be told I had turned into my father, or either of my grandfathers, or my grandmothers for that matter. And my daughters could do a lot worse than turn into their mother (my life partner for over 42 years, and wife for almost 40)!

    Parent
    "May you build a ladder to the stars (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 09:53:26 AM EST
    and climb on on every rung, and may you stay forever young"

    Parent
    I won't disagree with you, Peter. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 01:41:28 AM EST
    But that's also a viewpoint which generally comes only with the benefit of hindsight, thanks to the cumulative effects of age, wisdom and experience.

    Very few if any young people are going to make a conscious admission to their peers that they want to emulate Mom and Dad, especially when they're still in their teens and twenties and their whole adult life is still ahead of them.

    And that's the point here, Peter. We're getting old, and we've reached a point in our lives where our grandparents have passed from the scene and only a dwindling remnant of our parents' generation remains with us. And now, our contemporaries are starting to take their leave of us in numbers greater than we likely care to admit.

    In so many respects, this is our time. But right now, I'm also very cognizant of the fact our own respective period of generational hegemony is likely just as fleeting as those once experienced and enjoyed by our forebears.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    The Last Reaort is a personal favorite of mine too (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 09:18:56 PM EST
    The Eagles were my soundtrack - I was only a kid in the 60s so my relationship with the Beatles and the Stones is kind of once removed - they were my big brother's soundtrack. But the Eagles albums were the ones I listened to on my first little stereo with my first headphones. Those harmonies were glorious. I spent way too much time trying to figure out which voice went with which Eagle.

    And when my mom got a station wagon with an FM stereo, and sent me out to the grocery store or something,  I'd drive around the block if I was approaching the house when Lyin' Eyes or The Last Resort came on. And those are loong songs!

    Anyway those are stronger Eagles memories than the times I saw them in concert. Honestly, not a great concert band....but I'm glad I saw them.

    Parent

    Don Henley (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 07:35:10 PM EST
    "We are all in a state of shock, disbelief and profound sorrow. We brought our two-year `History of the Eagles Tour' to a triumphant close at the end of July and now he is gone. I'm not sure I believe in fate, but I know that crossing paths with Glenn Lewis Frey in 1970 changed my life forever, and it eventually had an impact on the lives of millions of other people all over the planet. It will be very strange going forward in a world without him in it. But, I will be grateful, every day, that he was in my life.

    "Rest in peace, my brother. You did what you set out to do, and then some."



    Parent
    If you have a chance, find the (none / 0) (#12)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 04:25:21 PM EST
    'History of the Eagles' showtime doc from a couple of years ago. All of the guys are very open, charming, and funny about the good times and the bad - Frey above all.  They came away with a real affection and respect for one another.

    Parent
    I did see that documentary (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 06:16:10 PM EST
    it showed Frey is less than a flattering light...imo...

    Parent
    Certainly no saint (none / 0) (#53)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 09:00:26 PM EST
    Everything, all the time, as the song goes.

    I appreciated the honestly, or at least what seemed honest to me. Probably not the whole story.

    Parent

    Those guys came up at a time (none / 0) (#112)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 09:57:12 AM EST
    when the music industry could be very hazardous to your health and psyche.

    White powder flying all over the place. And not the kind you find on the slopes of Aspen.

    Parent

    Jondee, lots of that white powder (none / 0) (#123)
    by fishcamp on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 10:39:23 AM EST
    got spilled from chairlifts to blend in with the skiing snow.  That guy with the orange skin that got murdered in the Aspen Club parking lot, was allegedly moving up to 40 kilos a month through Aspen and on to other locations.  He and I didn't do blow or smoke pot when skiing, so we wound up skiing together many times.  However the aprez ski cocktails were often not just drinks.  The music and Hollywood stars often started their aprez ski activities just after lunch.  They were  a nervous group that felt they were missing something better somewhere else.

    Parent
    lol Yeah, I remember hearing about Jack's (none / 0) (#124)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 10:51:36 AM EST
    "crack of noon" club up there in Aspen..

    And some wonder what the Eagles based Life in the Fast Lane on..

    Parent

    I believe the Eagles are the #1 selling US band (none / 0) (#26)
    by McBain on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 05:48:27 PM EST
    of all time. Not counting individual artists like Elvis, Madonna.

    They were an incredible mix of talent and and Frey was the founder.  There's a great documentary on Netflix...History of The Eagles.

    Parent

    Ask not for whom (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 07:30:19 PM EST
    the bell tolls.

    Music means different things to different people. This came along at a difficult period in my life and I can never hear it without remembering that you can come in.

    Parent

    Try this one (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 07:34:44 PM EST
    Desperado

    Parent
    The klansman commenters over at Breitbart (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 06:42:00 PM EST
    are in all their loathsome glory today on MLK day..

    A conservative spokesman like Dineesh "The End of Racism" D'Souza should be forced to read those comments over the airwaves, so that the rest of the country could have a clearer notion of how so many of the Right think and speak these days under the cover of anonymity..

    Did you (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 07:06:09 PM EST
    expect anything different? And I have to say how on earth did you have the stomach to wander through that cesspool?

    I have to tell you lately we've gotten some of your NY apples down here in GA and they are awesome!

    Parent

    Abbey Wambach's folks have an apple (none / 0) (#115)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 10:04:42 AM EST
    orchard not too far from here..

    Yep, the apples here, especially in late October, are to die for..

    My wife makes an apple pie from scratch that's better than I remember sex being..;-)

    Parent

    Go Broncos! (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 07:22:06 PM EST


    Go Pats! (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 08:33:48 PM EST


    Parent
    If the Broncos can't play any better (none / 0) (#49)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 08:35:37 PM EST
    than they did against the Steelers, Brady might as well start packing his bags for the Super Bowl.

    Parent
    As a Denver person, I'd have to agree, Anne (none / 0) (#52)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 08:54:40 PM EST
    The travails of rooting for the Broncos ... you never know which Broncos will show.  The old saying (paraphrased): When they are good, they are very, very good; but, when they are bad, they are horrid. Or, maybe we could just call the Defense what it has often been ... the Offense & Defense.

    Anyway ... Go Broncos!

    Parent

    carolina -7 against pats (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 09:12:49 PM EST
    take Carolina if they are only -7.

    Parent
    You will likel be able to make that bet everywhere (none / 0) (#78)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 06:20:39 AM EST
    Should they both reach the SB, the Panthers will not be favored by 7 or more.

    But if you want to give me 7 and the Pats should they both make it, I'll take it.

    Parent

    Well .... (none / 0) (#154)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 01:48:53 PM EST
    Tick-tock ... I'm thinking (or, rather, checking with my gut.)

    Parent
    Exactly! (none / 0) (#90)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 08:29:22 AM EST
    As a Ravens house, we always root for whomever is playing the Squeelers. However, Patriots v. Squeelers would have been painful. Who do root for? Glad the Broncos pulled it out. But you are absolutely correct Anne, if the Broncos don't step it up, NE will walk all over them.

    Parent
    This New Englander (none / 0) (#119)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 10:15:30 AM EST
    lived in Pittsburgh for 4 years, and my second favorite team is the Steelers.

    No wonder I always "get into it" with Ravens fans :)

    Was hoping for the Steelers at home, and now we've got the Broncos on the road.  The Pats struggle a bit in Denver.  Here's to hoping the Broncos don't step it up!

    Parent

    Maybe the Denver sunshine will (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 01:51:35 PM EST
    confuse you guys.  

    Parent
    I'd blame the altitude (none / 0) (#157)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:02:11 PM EST
    And lack of water in the air.

    Parent
    Beating Pittsburgh twice this season (none / 0) (#125)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 10:59:20 AM EST
    made the losing season tolerable.

    Parent
    Whatsa WAZZIK?? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 09:11:51 PM EST
    Well, it only one of the things Donald Trump was called in the British Parliament today.  For the record, from the urban dictionary-

    wazzik . to describe some one you do not like or cannot stand . some one of a gormless nature

    And-

    gormless
    Brainless. Lacking in intelligence.

    Those wacky Brits even make insults interesting

    Heres 3hours on YouTube

    It's almost worth three hours

    OMG (none / 0) (#134)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 12:01:15 PM EST
    I saw that.... All I can say is labour hairstyles > conservative.

    Parent
    Jeralyn... (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 09:21:40 AM EST
    in case you haven't seen this yet - Esquire interviews Juan F. Thompson on what it was like to have Hunter as a father.

    From the Onion: (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 04:07:11 PM EST
    Spanish media company, Univision, has bought a controlling stake in The Onion.

    But it's actually not a joke.

    May you live in interesting times.

    vicndabx (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 05:12:44 PM EST
    Not jumping in with Hillary's achievement jumping in w/the idea any of the folks alleging she did something wrong by speaking somewhere have any proof of a quid pro quo. The theory being this is a question of character.

    The idea that people are giving large amounts of money to legislators/presidents without expecting anything is naive IMO, but I don't believe you are naive.  The reason they do it for influence, just because it's unspoken doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    As far as proof, well considering lobbyist write most legislation, I think the proof is right there, but since they are the ones making/writing the rules...

    But more to your point, there is no proof that Clinton got paid to keep regulators from looking under certain rocks or to help push/pull legislation. or future endeavors.  But no one is saying she committed a crime, only that is looks bad, and it does, not that it's uncommon, but this is the first chance, at least for me, where someone who isn't taking Big Money has a real shot and it's helping shine a light on a practice that for all intensive purposes, is legalized bribery.  GS Sacks doesn't pay us stooges hundreds of thousands of dollars, why them, is a peanut farmer or an actor really offering wisdom they don't have in their own staff ?

    Obama received around a half billion last campaign.  The idea that half billion dollars being 100% free of strings is misguided and I don't think anyone believes it.  Nor do most believe he committed any crimes related to that, but that doesn't make it right or ethical.

    The real question is how ethical is it to receive hundreds of millions to get a job and claim that it's not going to influences what you do in that job.  

    I forget what the gift limit is here at Corporate America, but it's under $100.  That is because they know, even without an agreement, money is influence.

    Scott (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 06:29:22 PM EST
    I'm not naïve enough to believe some lawmakers aren't influenced, you're right.  What I am saying is that without proof, to assume nefarious intent is wrong. A politician can take money and use that to move an agenda that benefits others forward.

    Here's a bill introduced to deal with CEO pay:

    Link

    In looking thru bill she's proposed I see nothing that would benefit GS or any other financial firm. You can see bills she's proposed here.

    I feel a little bit late to the party (2.33 / 3) (#76)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 01:53:42 AM EST
    but i just got my first timeout from dailykos.com for sorta kinda trying to argue that maybe referring to "Bill's sex life" is negative and divisive.  anyway so much for online engagement with dem party stuff.

    The people (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 07:23:08 AM EST
    there are just horrible. Sorry. They should know that Reuters came out with a poll the other day saying even the GOP doesn't want to hear about it and democrats even less. All their behavior is doing is driving people away.

    Parent
    Their note to me (none / 0) (#82)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 07:47:46 AM EST
    Literally says don't get too angry with people who want to fixate on "Bill's sex life."

    PROUD to be banned for that.

    Parent

    So Here It Is Folks (1.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 01:35:53 PM EST
    The LIST of Goldman Sachs speakers all now beholden to Wall Street ... Begging the question just how much did Yao Ming get paid and what does Yao Ming have against the middle class??

    Ok... Suffice to say I'm still not a fan of Bernie's weird brand of McCarthyism...  

    Russell Simmons... (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 01:43:14 PM EST
    certainly fits w/ the Goldman Sachs way...

    "Cuz Yauch's on the upright,
    the sh*t just ain't funny.
    Got mad bass lines,
    like Russell Simmons steals money!"

    - Beastie Boys

    As does Cardinal Dolan...Catholic Church are O.G. grifters.

    Shame on John Lewis though...what would MLK say?

    Parent

    The director of SELMA (none / 0) (#153)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 01:45:45 PM EST
    Beholden to Wall Street, appalling!

    Parent
    Yes, lets pretend that film (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:09:01 PM EST
    directors and basketball players are in just as much of a position to influence policy as the president is.

    Parent
    nah doesn't work (1.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:26:13 PM EST
    The obvious point still stands.  Look at the list dude, it's all walks of life with the full spectrum of opinions....

    You can get paid to give a talk at Goldman Sachs and just as easily be a socialist ....

    I do wish the main stream media would ask the question though, what are these evil Goldman Sachs speeches that Bernie keeps referring to?  Oh, it's that photographer guy from national geographic too.

    These are Ted Talks basically I'd love to see the transcripts I have complete confidence we'd find Sec. Clinton calmly arguing for higher taxes on the rich.  And calmly explaining why thats not only good for the middle class but also good for Goldman Sachs.

    Parent

    "Goldman Sachs" is shorthand for (5.00 / 6) (#173)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:36:56 PM EST
    "has been paid millions of dollars by Wall Street firms and the financial industry."

    Goldman Sachs is on the resumes of an inordinate number of people who cycled into the administrations of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama - and not necessarily because they had the best ideas about the economy, either - and back out to cash in on the association.

    I don't know that I've encountered someone so determined to completely miss the point, but you sure have put a lot of work into doing just that.

    Parent

    I'm not missing the point (1.00 / 2) (#180)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:50:43 PM EST
    I'm considering and rejecting the point.

    I look at that list of people paid to speak at Goldman Sachs and given the great minds and ideas I see there, I'm kinda bummed they didn't ask Bernie.

    Parent

    The point stands about as well (none / 0) (#171)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:35:33 PM EST
    as Stephen Hawking.

    Unless you're conflating the political influence of all of those people as being somehow, magically equal.

    I don't know how that works..

    Parent

    All I'm saying is... (none / 0) (#175)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:42:26 PM EST
    If we're not being fearful Bernie should be on that list too to talk about Wall Street reform.

    If they asked him and offered him 50k to deliver a speech and he thought to himself "oh no if I do that I'll be beholden to them" then I think he's kinda gotten a little paranoid and too caught up in irrational ideas of what it means to be pure.

    Parent

    So did they? (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by sj on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 03:15:12 PM EST
    All I'm saying is... (none / 0) (#175)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 01:42:26 PM MDT  

    If we're not being fearful Bernie should be on that list too to talk about Wall Street reform.

    If they asked him and offered him...

    Have they offered him anything? Do you really think they would? Anne called you disingenuous, which is true.

    But now you are going over to completely and totally rhetorically dishonest.

    And by the way, you have (so far) personally used 25 of the 200 comments available per front page post. Heavy commenting isn't that much of a problem. But that comment count doesn't take into consideration the comments used to rebut your nonsense.

    That is putting you in the illustrious company of our very own jim.

    Parent

    I'm saying (1.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 03:21:36 PM EST
    If they did, it wouldn't be a problem for me, I'd think it was great they were hearing his ideas, and simply awesome that his ideas earned him a nice paycheck.

    As for high posting, I gotta respond, at the very least when someone misrepresents the point I'm making, but probably not every time what I'm saying is called nonsense.

    And suffice to say if Bernie wasn't attacking Clinton like this there'd be no need to comment on it at all.


    Parent

    You are without a doubt (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:37:36 PM EST
    the most disinegenuous commenter on this site. Either that or you are deliberately obtuse.

    You know very well that Lewis' speechmaking at Goldman did not net him $600,000 in one year (as it did Clinton). Neither is Lewis running for president. By the way, Yao Ming and Russell Simmons are not running for president either. They are not even politicians, and have no power over banking regulation legislation, so those inclusions on your list are silly as hell.

    If Lewis were running for president, and were painting himself as the one person that Wall Street should fear, then he might very well be asked about the speaking fees. And it would be fair for him to be asked. But--back to the real world--he's not running for president, he's not painting himself as Wall Street's biggest nightmare, and he didn't net nearly $3 million in one year giving speeches to Wall Street firms. Hillary has done all that, so it is absolutely fair that she be challenged on her presentation of herself as the candidate Wall Street should fear most.

    In addition, Bill's partial repeal of Glass Steagall is considered to be one of the main things that led to the hosing bubble and burst, and she still supports his actions on GS. That is fair game as a subject for discussion, as it does not present her as the person that bankers should fear most.

    Furthermore, you opened a Pandora's box by fudging the details of why you got banned from DKos. Let me make this very clear, I have never posted a comment there, never registered there, and I don't even like that website, for numerous reasons. However, when you started crying about how mean they were to you and how they were all screaming about "Bill's sex life" I was compelled to click on the site to find the thread and the comments you complained about. And, surprise surprise! you totally misrepresented the comment thread, the points other people were making (which is not that they care at all about Bill's sex life--they don't--but that they dread the GOP making hay of it, which in fact, Trump has already started to do), and why it is they got so frigging annoyed with you.

    You claim a lot of things, but further digging reveals the facts and the context.

    I reiterate: you are the MOST disingenuous person posting comments here. In which case, it's impossible to trust anything you say.

    Parent

    It is unsavory... (none / 0) (#156)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 01:53:25 PM EST
    but not as appalling as people tasked with serving the people & regulating the markets taking their blood money.

    Parent
    Oh man (1.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:06:34 PM EST
    Are you now or have you ever been a speaker at Goldman Sachs?

    Parent
    Not looking to try her for treason... (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:17:55 PM EST
    or blacklist her from running for office...McCarthyism it ain't.  It's a choice every voter must make...if you're ok with a president who has taken several paid speaking gigs from one of the cartels responsible for the past financial crisis (and the next financial crisis), that's your right.  

    But it ain't me babe, I'm looking for a president who welcomes their hatred, not their paychecks.  And my horse will lose, just like my horse lost in '12 (Jill Stein) and '08 (Ralph Nader).

    Parent

    It's a form of McCarthyism (2.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:29:13 PM EST
    In my opinion preying on fear.

    No it's not the literal actual McCarthyism sheesh.

    Be funny if Nader was on that list.  I wouldn't be surprised given the full spectrum I see there.

    Parent

    Fear? (none / 0) (#170)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:33:30 PM EST
    Not wanting any part of it is not the same as fearing it.

    Well, maybe a little afraid of 4-8 more years of a government by, of, and for Wall St, but that's a bigger problem than any one particular candidate/office holder.

    Parent

    Right Kdog... (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:56:21 PM EST
    ...who is playing the fear card here, the guy calling out people who took money from WS or the clown calling it McCarthyism ?

    Wanting a government free of Big Money is in no conceivable way McCarthyism not matter how you try to spin it Kmkmiller.

    FWIW. KMK Miller is a German company.

    Parent

    You need to (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by sj on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:44:34 PM EST
    take the time to learn a little something about the regular commenters here. Otherwise you end up spouting this kind of nonsense at someone like kdog.
    Oh man (none / 0) (#159)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 01:06:34 PM MDT

    Are you now or have you ever been a speaker at Goldman Sachs?

    I'm kind of embarrassed for you.

    Parent
    I don't know the players yet (2.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:55:41 PM EST
    Who is kdog?

    Unfortunately there is a lot of negativity in the party right now.

    And I do think Bernie is speaking to people's legitimate distrust but also fears of the banking industry.

    Parent

    Yeah... (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:57:25 PM EST
    ...going to a liberal website and calling people McCarthyists tends to do that.

    Parent
    It's preying on fear (2.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 03:08:38 PM EST
    You guys agree with Sanders so you don't see it...

    But from my perspective here's what it looks like...

    If you're caught going to a communist meeting, then you're a potential threat.

    If you're caught going to a Goldman Sachs meeting, then you're a potential threat.

    You guys probably don't even think an ad that says "not beholden to Wall Street" is negative.  Some do think it is negative.

    Parent

    Do you (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by sj on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 03:19:32 PM EST
    know what a fallacy is? Do you know about the False Equivalence Fallacy? Because you are quite proficient in using it.

    Parent
    This is what it looks like (2.00 / 2) (#202)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 03:26:37 PM EST
    From the perspective of one person who doesn't like to see someone they respect be accused of being beholden to people in some way that I think is untrue.

    Clinton said Bernie's attacks were like a "pox on all our houses" and I agree with her.  He's gone negative, and here we are.  Hey Clinton went negative too, but at least she doesnt pretend to not be going negative.

    That'll be my last comment for awhile.

    Parent

    Come On... (5.00 / 3) (#204)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 03:28:03 PM EST
    ...anything a candidates fears is some sort of defacto McCarthyism, that makes absolutely no sense.  

    FWIW, Wiki:
    McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism."

    Try again.

    Parent

    You realize of course that (5.00 / 5) (#158)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:06:09 PM EST
    you're trivializing somewhat what McCarthy and his ilk actually did by comparing Sanders to him..

    Is Hillary now in danger now of being possibly jailed, blacklisted, and placed in a desperate situation in which she'll frantically have to find some way to feed her family?

    On the bright side, she can always fall back on 300k-a-speech speaking fees..

    Parent

    Sigh (2.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:14:20 PM EST
    Again with the accusation of trivializing something because of a rhetorical flourish... But if you're making that accusation i will gladly remind you part of the insidiousness of McCarthyism was not only what you mention above but also the slander.  And the preying on the fear in the hearts of Americans who were then of the mind to think all communists were out to get them.

    Now some communists were.  But most were not.  We need to live in a world where there is decency among people who are capable of making such distinctions intelligently ... And without fear.

    Parent

    Sigh away (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by sj on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:57:33 PM EST
    McCarthy would have painted a huge target on the back of an avowed Socialist.

    The accusation of trivializing made against your comment is valid, IMO. Completely and utterly.

    Parent

    A justified accusation, I'd say.. (none / 0) (#165)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:20:30 PM EST
    there are rhetorical flourishes and then there is McCarthy-like (notice I said "like") demagoguery..

    But, to each his own, I suppose.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#172)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:35:53 PM EST
    I do think Bernie uses demogoguery with respect to Wall Street.  Yeah sure they're pretty awful and with the income inequality crisis being the second biggest issue after climate change its easy to flog the one boogeyman instead of tackle all the things that have led to income inequlaity..... but FDR didn't want to destroy Wall Street, he wanted to save if from itself.  And so he did, and it still lives to this day.

    The idea of private sector investment is a good one. In my opinion.  And in FDR's opinion too i bet.

    Parent

    Joseph McCarthy and Bernie Sanders.. (none / 0) (#162)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:13:42 PM EST
    Sure, why not?

    Given the way history is taught here, in a couple of generations they'll be blended into the same person anyway.

    Parent

    Is it possible you could actually be (5.00 / 4) (#169)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:30:27 PM EST
    as dense as this line of thought suggests you may be?  If you think this is a form of McCarthyism, you clearly don't know much about that period in America's history.

    Do you think Sanders gives a hoot about Yao Ming being paid by Goldman Sachs to enthrall audiences with the wisdom he learned on the basketball court?

    No, what he has a problem with is the kind of revolving door, quid pro quo that is expounded upon in this article.

    Sanders holds Clinton's feet to that fire because of things like this:

    According to public disclosures, by giving just 12 speeches to Wall Street banks, private equity firms, and other financial corporations, Clinton made $2,935,000 from 2013 to 2015.

    [...]

    The Associated Press notes that during Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state, Bill Clinton earned $17 million in talks to banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, real estate businesses, and other financial firms. Altogether, the couple are estimated to have made over $139 million from paid speeches.

    Goldman Sachs paid her [only] $675,000.

    This is the woman who's going to hold the financial industry accountable?  Is there anyone who actually believes that?

    Parent

    Yes (2.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:45:45 PM EST
    You can get paid to give a speech to Goldman Sachs and then go make a movie about fighting the establishment.

    You can get paid to give a speech to Goldman Sachs and then hold them accountable.

    It's really as simple as that.  Just ask John Lewis.

    Parent

    Stop With Your Non-sense (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:44:37 PM EST
    If you can't distinguish between the a popular/influential person and a person who has control of legislation/regulation, I mean seriously.

    Any politician on that list should lose their job, it's practically a list of whose who from the Obama administration.

    And you seriously going to call mentioning the fact that some people are beholden to Big Money, McCarthyism ?  Get a grip, beyond outrageous claims, they are factually wrong and rather juvenile.

    Want to know how one has already lost an argument of wrongdoing, they use other people who are who have done the same thing as some sort of defense.

    But judge, everyone else was speeding too.

    That is not a defense of anything, try defending it on the merits of what she did and not what other people have done.

    This is why Bernie has come out of nowhere, anyone with a functioning brain know that WS is a problem, it nearly took us into a depression.  They also realize that being financed by the people who collapsed the economy isn't making their lives any better and most likely worse in that money is not free and they certainly expect some consideration down the line.

    Parent

    With no proof of anything whatsoever (2.00 / 3) (#184)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:55:51 PM EST
    try defending it on the merits of what she did

    j'accuse!

    What did she do?  She "spoke" about what?  We don't know....but she got paid for it!  Horror of horrors.

    Seriously, this person who's been working for others her whole d@mn life getting morality lectures from people who haven't done 1/10th of what she's been able to accomplish (not saying this is you).  I don't know, sounds like hating to me.

    Parent

    Nobody be hatin'... (5.00 / 5) (#193)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 03:08:58 PM EST
    if she took those millions and sauntered off to work for The Clinton Foundation full time.

    It's the moonlighting we be hatin' on I think, and the appearance of quid pro quo or "the fix" it creates.  

    Do you want to be a well-paid public servant or a wealthy private citizen on the speech-giving/philanthropy circuit?  Trying to do both raises legitimate red flags, imo.

    Parent

    She Took Money... (5.00 / 4) (#196)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 03:16:39 PM EST
    ...from the people who took the economy to the brink of disaster and now she is running for President.

    Illegal, no, immoral, yes if you want to be in a position of regulating WS.

    Yeah, and lastly, unless you want 200 million people running for president there is a good chance that none of us have done what she has done.  For the record, she has made a sizable income with all her generosity, millions actually.

    You should not jump into the middle of a reply that was meant for others and cherry pick points.  All of this, and my reply was in regards to Bernie mentioning that HRC takes money from WS.  It was not a discussion about what HRC has done for the world, to which I am very appreciative.  But in regards to the election some of us would not mind someone who isn't bought and paid for by one of the villains in the economic collapse.

    For all I know I may vote for HRC, but she is not all that I want, neither is Bernie, it's why we have these discussions.

    Parent

    Not jumping in with Hillary's achievement (3.50 / 2) (#206)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 03:57:26 PM EST
    jumping in w/the idea any of the folks alleging she did something wrong by speaking somewhere have any proof of a quid pro quo. The theory being this is a question of character.

    Why should she not take money to use for her campaign which is working toward the betterment of your fellow citizens?

    Parent

    John Lewis (1.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:52:09 PM EST
    Should lose their job. Ouch.  I didn't read the rest.  Sorry.

    Parent
    Of Course You Didn't... (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:59:22 PM EST
    ...it's fairly obvious reading isn't your strong suit, you like pictures and words that sound cool like 'McCarthyism'.

    Parent
    Don't forget (none / 0) (#194)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 03:09:40 PM EST
    I also like US Rep John Lewis.

    Parent
    Yes I mentioned... (none / 0) (#197)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 03:17:38 PM EST
    ...the link with pictures.

    Parent
    A joyous MLK Day to everyone! (none / 0) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 02:14:20 PM EST
    It's a work day for yours truly and the start of a very busy week, because I've got three federal grant proposals due on Friday. I've got them all written, and I'm finalizing the proposed budget for the last one. They'll all be submitted today.

    Then it's off to Honolulu tomorrow for the opening day of our state legislature's 2016 regular session. I'll spend the night afterward, and visit with Elder Daughter, her hubby and our future left tackle, whose almost six weeks old now.

    On Wednesday morning, it's over to Wailuku, Maui to meet with Maui County Councilmembers on our quest to derail NextEra Energy, Inc.'s proposed purchase of Hawaiian Electric Co. The Council is one the verge of passing a resolution opposing NextEra's takeover, and supporting a publicly-owned utility. Yay!

    And then on Thursday, it's on to Molokai to announce that the USDA's rural Development Agency has pledged to support residents' attempt to establish a utility cooperative on that island.

    Hawaiian Airlines loves people like me. NextEra Energy doesn't.

    Goldman Sachs Speaking Fees (none / 0) (#2)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 02:15:04 PM EST

    i hope i did the linky thing right.  I'm the most disappointed in Ray Allen.  I really thought he knew better.

    well the link didn't work (none / 0) (#3)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 02:16:37 PM EST
    Oh well....

    if moderators would like to delete that's great, maybe i can find an FAQ on formatting.

    oi!

    Parent

    Hyperlinking is actually pretty easy ... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 03:37:52 PM EST
    ... once you get the hang of it, although some people around here for obscure reasons known only to them have insisted upon turning the process into the equivalent of nuclear physics or brain surgery. Just follow the following instructions:

    (1) Copy the URL you want to link. (Right-click on the address line at the top of the page you want to appear, and then click "Copy.")

    (2) Then, in the body of your text in the TL comment box, use your your cursor and mouse to highlight the phrase you wish to use as your hyperlink. (EXAMPLE: "I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts, there they are just standing in a row."

    (3) Once your phrase is highlighted, look to the six icons to the top of the text box, the ones that read [B], [I], [U], etc. Click on the fourth one from your left, which looks like a chain link.

    (4) Once you've clicked on the "link" icon, a small dialog box will appear onscreen that will ask you to add the URL to be linked, which you've already copied. Right-click on the white portion of the dialog box, paste your URL, then click "OK."

    NOTE: I think what hangs some newcomers up is the "http://" which appears pre-loaded automatically in the dialog box. It's highlighted in blue, and after you right-click you should just be able to paste over it. However, please make sure the "http://" doesn't appear twice in the dialog box with your URL before you click "OK," otherwise it won't link because it's not a valid URL. To avoid this mishap, hit your "delete" button on your keyboard when the dialog box appears, which should get rid of the pre-loaded "http://" for you. (If not, then delete it manually.) Then paste your URL in the now-empty box, and hit "OK."

    (5) Within the body of your comment, the phrase you highlighted will now appear within the link in HTML format. To ensure that the link works, click on the "Preview" icon below the comment box, which will produce your comment onscreen without posting it. The phrase you highlighted for linking earlier should now appear in blue, and when you drag your cursor over it, it'll highlight as underlined. Look to the bottom left of the page as you place your cursor on the linked text, and your URL should appear.

    (6) Once you're satisfied that everything works and you've said what you wanted to say, click "Post."

    You can practice hyperlinking by using the "Preview" button, so your comment doesn't post until you're ready.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Not for Nothing... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 03:42:09 PM EST
    ...but not being able to figure how to link, with a link button, doesn't really help whatever argument you are making.

    Parent
    What I can say for now (2.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 05:21:58 PM EST
    I have the goods on Yao Ming details to follow.

    Parent
    An alternative method (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 08:34:21 PM EST
    to link:

    Copy URL, paste in comment box, surround with brackets: [ ].

    Inside the bracket, just after the first bracket, insert whatever you want to highlight. Press preview. If ok, press post.

    Parent

    meh (none / 0) (#77)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:02:06 AM EST
    it was a dumb idea anyway.  

    Parent
    So, did you recover from the Packers game yet? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 04:55:33 PM EST
    That was one helluva finish, particularly that Hail Mary from Rodgers. Disappointing end in OT, to be sure, but still a great game nonetheless. Next season can't come soon enough, now that my Rams are back in L.A. where they belong.

    Parent
    Yeah... (none / 0) (#27)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 05:59:33 PM EST
    ...obviously I was on the edge of my seat, but I went into it thinking they were going to get clobbered like last time.  They did better than expected and I would have like a win, but lets be honest, they weren't SB ready this year.

    I am also glad we did not have to play Seattle, after last year, no way did I want another humiliating defeat by those clowns especially in GB.

    I am happy with the season and proud of my boys.

    The schedules are already out, we play the NFC East and the AFC South, and by not winning the division, the Pack has a pretty easy schedule next year.

    HOME: Chicago, Detroit, Minnesota, Dallas, NY Giants, Houston, Indianapolis, Seattle

    AWAY: Chicago, Detroit, Minnesota, Philadelphia, Washington, Jacksonville, Tennessee, Atlanta



    Parent
    Thanks for the NFL link. (none / 0) (#50)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 08:39:09 PM EST
    As a Giants fan and LA resident I was very excited to see that the G-men are playing the Rams in '16.

    Hoping they'd be playing in LA, however, 'tis not to be...

    Sunday Oct. 23 Rams at St. Louis Rams
     Twickenham Stadium, London, UK


    Parent
    Maybe Two Teams... (none / 0) (#137)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 12:20:46 PM EST
    ... and the new NFL schedule that ensures every team plays every other team every fours years combined with pre and post-season, I would imagine the G-men will be in LA at least every other year.

    Well except when they play in England...

    Parent

    Wouldn't that guarantee (none / 0) (#139)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 12:34:49 PM EST
     an appearance in LA once every 8 years?

    Parent
    Every 4 years if 2 teams relocate? (none / 0) (#140)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 12:36:12 PM EST


    Parent
    That is the Bare Minimum... (none / 0) (#167)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:27:36 PM EST
    ...based on a 16 games schedule with, I believe, 2 wildcards teams.  In reality all teams play at least 20 games, some have an additional preseason game and at least 12 play post season.

    Although preseason opponents are usually decided by the team and not the league.  They can't play divisional teams, and some, like the Texans like games close to home, it's why they play the Saints/Cowboys so often in preseason.

    Other teams, like the Packers are more sporadic, they like the Saints as well, but travel all over for preseason.  The Rams are NFC so the odds are better than either AFC team of playing the Giants.

    I would think the easiest way might be to look at the history and see how often the Giants have traveled to St Louis or San Diego.  Same scheduling has been used since the league reorganized in 2002.

    Parent

    BTD (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 03:47:43 PM EST
    are you going to bring back the demographics are destiny series?

    On my dog walk (none / 0) (#14)
    by sj on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 04:53:54 PM EST
    today there was a bald eagle holding court near City Park. And me without my camera (phone). I don't usually take it with me when walking my girl on the theory that I should be paying attention to her and not "stuff". I only take some kind of camera if the lighting is particularly good or the sky is clear.

    Bit me in the a$$ today. I wished I'd had it with me.

    Reminds me of the afternoon I (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 05:03:46 PM EST
    went out to the garage to get something out of the refrigerator, and was startled to see a hawk perched on top of one of the trash cans in the back of the garage not 6 feet from me.  He must have flown in and not been sure how to get out, but he was kind enough to stay where he was while I backed away and back into the house to get my phone.

    I managed to get a couple pictures, then called my husband downstairs to see; he extended a broom handle to the hawk, and after checking it out, latched on, and allowed my husband to carry him close enough to the door opening that he could fly away.

    We decided he was fairly young - he wasn't big enough to be fully grown; it was just so cool to encounter this beautiful creature, as brief an encounter as it was.

    Parent

    Aren't they just the most majestic of raptors? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 05:19:07 PM EST
    Bald eagles have really made quite a comeback from being on the brink 50 years ago. The first time I ever saw them outside a zoo and in the wild was back in June 2002, when we were up at Lake Arrowhead, in the mountains to the northeast of L.A. and we saw a pair of them roosting in a pine tree by the lake. What regal and magnificent creatures!

    There was a great story on "60 Minutes" last night about the mountain lions of L.A. Most residents and visitors don't realize how close to real wilderness they actually are. Growing up in Pasadena, I was always intrigued by the amount of wildlife that was just a few miles away in the San Gabriel Mountains.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    We have Bald Eagles (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by fishcamp on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:42:33 PM EST
    down here too.  Their lairs are over five miles apart since they are so territorial.  It's quite amazing to see an eagle fly by with a big bonefish in its talons, while I'm fishing for bonefish.  We also have many Osprey, and their lairs are much closer, two on my street.  They look like small Eagles while perched on the bridge railings waiting for a fish to approach the surface, then they become dive bombers.  We also have many types of tall white wading birds, and of course the Pelicans, gliding the currents by the bridges, in perfect formation.

    Yes Donald, I did see the show about Pumas in Los Angeles last night.  Simply amazing how many there are.  Maybe they will build one of those monster forested bridges across the freeway, to help stop the inbreeding.  Excellent show.

    Parent

    I'm hoping they build them too. My home (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 03:27:56 PM EST
    is literally right next to one of them.

    Parent
    I Remember Seeing Bal Eagles... (none / 0) (#143)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 12:56:59 PM EST
    ...when I was a kid camping up in the UP(upper Michigan).

    Now they can been seen in Wisconsin fairly regularly.  Growing up there were no turkeys or bears, now thy are so prolific, that they are becoming a problem.

    Pointless related trivia.

    I was trying to remember what exactly a panther was when I watching the game, and how it differed from a cougar, because their logo, to me, looks like a cougar.

    Turns out, these are all panthers: Cougar, Puma, Jaguar, and Leopards.  I thought it was funny in that the Jaguars are also Panthers.  Also a Panther, for some reason is also a mythological create, which is odd considering they actually exist.

    But the current Panthers in the NFL almost pulled a Green Bay last week.  To give up 24 consecutive points in a game and win, is unheard of.  Good think the score was 31-0 before that happened.

    Parent

    This morning, I was greeted by... (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by desertswine on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 09:47:17 PM EST
    a tiny ruby crowned kinglet under my feeder.  Not a grand regal bird, but a beautiful little gem, a great delight to see.  I couldn't take a picture, but they look like this.  They seem to be fearless, I think I could have grabbed it if I had wanted to.

    Parent
    what a pretty little bird! (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by sj on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 09:55:30 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, you know, The littlest birds... (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by desertswine on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 10:08:10 PM EST
    Sing the prettiest songs.

    Parent
    Seen more RED red Cardinals this fall (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 10:29:54 AM EST
    Than I ever remember seeing.  No idea why but I like it.  Looking at 2 on the lilac bush right now.   I recently started feeding them.  
    I have to figure out how to save some from the squirrels.

    Parent
    Try mixing some (none / 0) (#138)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 12:22:30 PM EST
    Hot pepper sauce or cayenne pepper in with your bird seed.  Birds don't mind it, they have no capsaicin receptors and won't even taste it.
    But mammals, like squirrels, definitely do taste it, and don't like it.

    Parent
    Birds of Prey... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 09:40:46 AM EST
    are such awe-inspiring creatures.  You have the picture in your mind sj, and sometimes that is the best photo to be had.

    Parent
    Keep a green branch in your heart (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 10:26:57 AM EST
    and the singing bird will come.

    We have these crazy tiny birds in the old growth woods around here that I'm still trying to identify. They only really come out around dusk and have a liquidy song that sounds like someone playing a flute underwater..

    They really sound like the kind of birds you'd expect to hear in a tropical rain forest somewhere.

    Parent

    War on Christmas. (none / 0) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 05:22:17 PM EST
    Marco Rubio says that he bought a gun on Christmas Eve. The campaign did not say if he bought bullets.

     He is not home much so this was a good time to head to Ye Olde Gun Shoppe, although he does have another gun at home.  He claims that he needs the additional gun to protect his family from ISIS (the dark bearded guys, not to be confused with It's Santa In a Sled (ISIS).  Good,too,  to publicly note that you are not home a lot and you have some guns around.

    he went (none / 0) (#31)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 06:20:36 PM EST
    full gun grabbing conspiracy loon at the debate. I understand the value of the NRA vote but they are not one of the largest blocs. I don't understand his over the top focus on it.

    Parent
    Ah, the "plan" is finally out (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 05:37:58 PM EST
    But, Bernie Sanders' health care plan isn't a plan at all.

    I swear (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 06:37:15 PM EST
    Ezra is just annoying. I remember him during the ACA debate and he was always spouting the CW in the beltway and not the best way to get a plan. Last week he was on Hillary's case. Feh.

    Parent
    Intresting (none / 0) (#35)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 07:09:10 PM EST
    Trump attacks Cruz, "he's nasty...nobody likes him", reportedly gets some blowback from a lot of the big time radio blowhards. Then he blows a bible verse in front of a bunch Evangelicals, gets booed by bringing up the Goldman connection (basically the same attack Bernie used on Hillary with mixed results, politics is weird).

    I am thinking Cruz just ticked up a few points in IA.

    Not suprised (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 07:29:01 PM EST
    about the blowback from evangelicals but kind of surprising to hear it from the radio blowhards.

    I can explain the Goldman Sachs thing and why it didn't go over in SC. First of all this is the concern of lefty bloggers for the most part. People in some of these areas of SC like GA have had UE numbers of 20%. They absolutely do not care about the fact that Hillary got money giving speeches. What they want to hear is how you are going to make their lives better. They want jobs, to be able to buy a house and just the regular things that most Americans want and talking about Goldman Sachs means you are ignoring their concerns.

    Parent

    There is a misconception (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 08:15:37 PM EST
    about everybody hates Cruz, while that is certainly true in the in the DC bubble, but that hatred has earned plenty of love among the "thought" leaders on the far right who themselves have no love for the establishment rinos. Cruz took his strict small govt conservatism  into the belly of the beast and did not back down, no matter what an incredible dk he is he will remain a hero.

    Not sure about the GS Sachs thing, he has consistently attacked his opponents for being beholden to the piles of money that he doesn't need, it's always worked before.

    Parent

    It works (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 09:23:02 PM EST
    with his demographic for the most part. In SC you have people struggling to put food on the table and here comes a candidate ranting about Goldman Sachs. It just comes off as out of touch with their concerns. Imagine if he had went to Flint MI and started raving about Goldman Sachs to put it in perspective.

    Parent
    I think where it works is in the (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 09:38:10 AM EST
    psychology of it; there's an anger out there that people are working hard, some at more than one job, they're playing by the rules, and they are still just hanging on by their fingernails - meanwhile, these big movers and shakers are literally stealing from people, creating the conditions where people have lost their homes and had their credit ruined, and they've paid no price for it beyond some measly fines.

    I think Sanders' point is that with these kinds of people installed within the government, making economic decisions, steering economic policy, how will the 99% ever climb out of the hole?  

    Trump has no plan for anything beyond the awesomeness of himself; at some point, that's going to stop working.

    Parent

    Nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by sj on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 12:05:20 PM EST
    In SC you have people struggling to put food on the table and here comes a candidate ranting about Goldman Sachs.
    Where do you get this stuff? Have you even listened to a Sanders speech.

    He doesn't "rant" Goldman Sachs! Goldman Sachs! He talks about the real world effects of those shenanigans. I'll wager that half of the working and middle class knows of someone by name or face who was impacted by the real estate meltdown.

    Those foreclosure signs were omnipresent.

    You say the strangest things.


    Parent

    I never (none / 0) (#96)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 09:06:59 AM EST
    have seen Trump actually address the pocket book issues in a meaningful way. It's always been "I will create so many fantastic, wonderful jobs, so fast, it will make your head spin", always to huge cheers.
    He proclaims to the crowds that he alone can do this because everybody else is stupid, more cheers. He proclaims to the crowds that only he can care for them because everyone else is beholden to special interests, again to cheers.

    This shtick has worked every time, in every region of the country. Trump fans do not go to his rallies seeking policy wonkery, they go for his bombastic promises and the constant haymakers he throws at virtually everybody.

    I sense a different dynamic here, was this particular crowd more astute then the rest? Highly doubtful. Has the "shiny object begun to dull? (I would have to see a ton more evidence to believe that). Or maybe there is something different about Cruz, I can hardly imagine Trump getting booed for taking the same shot at Bush before the same crowd.


    Parent

    Is the extent of the GS issue with Cruz (none / 0) (#63)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 09:36:03 PM EST
    That he did not disclose the loan on his Senate race campaign form? I thought his explanation was plausible, maybe one of the few believable things I've ever heard him say. Can't blame Trump for making the moat of it that he can, but I don't expect it to matter much to voters that are already leaning Cruz's way.

    Parent
    But Falwell just endorsed Trump. (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 08:41:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Not the famous Jerry Falwell, of course (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 09:06:58 PM EST
    He died in 2007. That would be his son, the president of "Liberty" "University," a mostly on-line money machine, I mean "institution of higher education."

    Parent
    I'm sure by now (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 09:18:00 PM EST
    We all know about Trump quoting "2" Corinthians today.

    In front of a crowd who to a person knew it was actually supposed to be Second Corinthians.

    I won't bother to link since the video is literally everywhere.

    Talking to my very conservative and religious brother today about politics and he said "if it's between Trump and Hillary I'm voting for the Green Party"

    No kidding. He really did.  

    Parent

    It would be (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 09:27:23 PM EST
    highly ironic if that one thing was what took Trump down. Seriously.

    I'm surprised your brother didn't say the Constitution Party. That's the one the people around here seem to name.

    Parent

    It's not going to (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 09:40:52 PM EST
    "Take him down". They laughed.  I saw reporters who said they talked with people who were there and they didn't think it was a big deal at all.  Saying they did not think he was particularly religious and it didn't matter to them.

    My brother, perhaps like me, is not really typical of anything.  He is a life long democrat who believes in many democratic principals who was driven from the party by the homasexhuals

    Yeah, I know.  We have interesting holiday dinners.

    Parent

    Holiday dinners. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 09:47:05 PM EST
    I can't imagine. I try to avoid the subject of politics with my family. Stepfather is a tea partier. I don't know what has happened to my mother and my brother is a staunch Republican who at one time supported Ben Carson. Too much distension and can ruin holidays. Once my brother starts I walk out of the room and find something else to do.

    Parent
    We are (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 09:51:00 PM EST
    A very political family.  Every one of us.  That brother is one of the two former elected Democrats usually at the table.

    We do not avoid politics.  Though some family members would have it so.   Particularly the ones who married in.  I think.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 09:54:02 PM EST
    what was the reaction to the last presidential elections? Did they think the world was going to end or what?

    And by golly they must have loved George W. Bush with his banning gay marriage stuff.

    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 09:46:08 PM EST
    And he didn't even know about the Corinthians thing until I told him.  He laughed.

    And in spite of what he said I definitely came away with the feeling he would vote for Donald but just didn't want to admit it.

    Parent

    And he HATES (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 09:46:46 PM EST
    Ted Cruz


    Parent
    Interesting. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 09:49:55 PM EST
    The Republicans around here that seem to hate Cruz are the so called moderates. But of course it's the Atlanta suburbs and nothing like the rural areas. The evangelicals here seem to be ga ga over Cruz. I don't get it but I'm not Cruz's target audience either.

    Parent
    I'm as bad as the candidate who talked about (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 09:34:18 PM EST
    meeting w/the deceased king of Jordan!

    Parent
    The evangelical (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 09:25:34 PM EST
    movement is really split this time it seems. Usually they have a candidate that most of them can rally around but this year they are splitting off with different priorities. Those that are most concerned about the "browning" of America are going with Trump. Those most concerned about the other social conservative issues are going with Cruz.

    Parent
    Anyone besides me (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 18, 2016 at 10:35:25 PM EST
    Looking forward to PRIDE AND PREJUDICE AND ZOMBIES?

    NO (none / 0) (#79)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 06:22:33 AM EST
    Silliest trailer I saw yesterday before viewing The Revenant.

    Parent
    Very surprised (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 08:00:36 AM EST
    Thought you would be excited!

    Parent
    Cersei and Tywin (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 08:25:23 AM EST
    Together again!

    Parent
    How much longer before (none / 0) (#129)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 11:32:35 AM EST
    they come out with Jesus of Transylvania?

    Or did they already?

    Parent

    538 is out (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 07:23:57 AM EST
    with their predictions and they say Cruz is gonna win Iowa and Trump NH. Nothing earth shattering for sure.

    What would be (none / 0) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 07:59:29 AM EST
    Sort of earth shattering is if the predictions/speculations that the Trump campaign has been working very hard in Iowa to not only build a massive organization but to keep it stealthy and under the radar so that if he wins it will be big news.

    There are rumors that all this money Donald is not supposed to be spending is actually being spent on that.  It will be interesting to see if it's true.

    No idea really if it is but if it is it would be rather politically brilliant.

    Parent

    I guess that (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 08:08:01 AM EST
    could be true but I find it doubtful that Trump will win IA simply because Cruz is organizing through the very large network of evangelicals there in IA. Trump's voters seem to be the less reliable ones. However I guess we shall see.

    Parent
    Something to think about (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 11:29:42 AM EST
    Beware A GOP Calendar Front-Loaded With States Friendly To Trump And Cruz

    In a few weeks' time, it's possible that Donald Trump and Ted Cruz will steamroll their way through Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and dominate the so-called "SEC Primary" -- the collection of 13 mostly Southern states that will vote on March 1 -- horrifying many GOP elected officials and depriving any other candidate of a night to celebrate.

    Yet even if that happens, it's still possible that Marco Rubio (or another more establishment-friendly candidate) could end up with the nomination, thanks to quirks of the GOP's complex delegate math.

    The GOP's primary calendar is surprisingly front-loaded with states friendly to insurgents like Trump and Cruz. But because of Republican National Committee rules, all but one of these states will award their delegates on a proportional basis, intentionally making it difficult for any one candidate to build a durable or commanding lead.

    Instead, Florida and Ohio, which tend to support more conventional Republicans, are likelier to shape the race's destiny than Iowa or South Carolina. That's because they will award a whopping 99 and 72 delegates, respectively, in huge winner-take-all primaries on March 15.



    Parent
    That sounds good (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 11:58:54 AM EST
    nut Trump and Cruz are also currently dominating polling in Florida.

    Not 538's aggregate work, but their opinion pieces have become less data driven, and instead nothing more than wishful opinion driven. 538 has too many cooks in the kitchen these days trying to get clicks.

    Parent

    The fact you (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 08:10:36 AM EST
    And everyone else is "doubtful" would actually be the point.  IF he won the news coverage would be massive and breathless and Cruz would be Ted who?

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 08:18:51 AM EST
    probably would be the end of Cruz but then moves Kasich up since I have read that he's now polling 2nd in NH.

    Parent
    Come on Howdy (none / 0) (#110)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 09:45:34 AM EST
    A stealth organization? There is no such beast, especially the in your face ground game that is supposedly the key in Iowa.

    Parent
    Arguing with you about (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 10:05:12 AM EST
    The existence of a stealth organization would be a bridge to far.  Even for me.  But it's being reported by otherwise reliable political reporters like Robert Costa for one who would have no reason I can see to make it up.  

    If it's true and if it's enough we will find out soon enough.

    Parent

    I would (none / 0) (#126)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 11:03:14 AM EST
    not apply term reliable to any political reporter(even my faves) in this political landscape. Besides, using the word stealth in regard to anything Trump sounds like a total oxymoron to me.

    Are you sure you are not in the market for a bridge? I have a sweet low mileage creampuff that a certain politician would just love to get rid of.

    Parent

    Yeah well (none / 0) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 11:15:47 AM EST
    We will talk on Fed 2nd.

    Parent
    Plain to endorse Trump (none / 0) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 11:34:53 AM EST
    In Iowa today

    I'll admit it -- when this speculation began mounting yesterday, I wasn't remotely sold on the idea that Palin was poised jump aboard the Trump Train when so many influential figures within the conservative talk radio constellation are at long last blasting The Donald and rallying to Cruz. The Palin speculation seemed even less plausible when this rumor leaked:

    TOWNHALL


    Parent

    Not (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 01:21:58 PM EST
    sure if that will make any difference as I think her voters are probably already Trump supporters.

    Parent
    Clinton (none / 0) (#91)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 08:30:46 AM EST
    Also the predicted winner and they say they're never wrong.

    Parent
    Well, not never (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 08:45:25 AM EST

    One of the biggest errors I think I made in 2015 was concentrating too much on who would win the Republican nomination and not so much on who would drive the conversation.1 You can see that clearly with Donald Trump (who I still don't think will win the Republican nomination). Not only did I dismiss Trump's candidacy on many occasions (here, here, here and here, for example), I was sometimes eager to do so in order to confirm my original belief that he wouldn't win.

    --

    One big reason I didn't take Trump seriously was because he entered the race with relatively poor favorability ratings, and putting too much stock in those was another semi-major mistake I made in 2015. My research showed that past nominees started their campaigns either well-liked or not well-known; Trump was the opposite: well-known and disliked. But I underestimated how much voters' impressions of even well-known candidates can change. Trump's favorability ratings among Republicans, while still mediocre, improved a ton.

    538

    Parent

    Can you explain why you posted that (none / 0) (#93)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 08:47:48 AM EST
    As a reply to my comment? I'm not understanding.

    Parent
    You said they say they are never wrong (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 08:49:31 AM EST
    I showed you that is not true.   Anything else?

    Parent
    Yeah. Theres Something else (none / 0) (#97)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 09:10:59 AM EST
    My understanding they are never wrong came from what Maddow reported last night so, if your point is of great importantance, maybe follow up with her as well.

    Lets just be real for a second, I am talking about eventual predictions about winners.  Yes.  538 will sometimes question their own methodology and underlying assumptions, but as far as predicting a winner, have they ever been wrong?  

    I'd like to know.  Was Maddow factually wrong on this point?

    Parent

    As we often say around here (none / 0) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 09:22:02 AM EST
    Google is your friend.

    Wiki-


    The FiveThirtyEight model correctly forecasted the outcome of 31 of the 33 U.S. Senate races.

    538 is a good source.  It's not gospel.

    Rachel is a good source.  She's certainly not gospel.  I don't know what she said or was referring to.  Perhaps a group that did not include the information above.

    Parent

    31 out of 33, OUCH! (none / 0) (#100)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 09:25:55 AM EST
    Never say never amirite shame on you Rachel!  I'm tweeting at her now to issue a correction.

    Parent
    I'm pretty sure here (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 09:27:49 AM EST
    The point is they are NOT "never wrong".  

    Parent
    I told Maddow 94% isn't "never wrong" (none / 0) (#104)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 09:34:30 AM EST
    I haven't heard back yet.

    Parent
    Btw (none / 0) (#106)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 09:38:17 AM EST
    Hillary is going to be the nominee.

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#109)
    by Kmkmiller on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 09:45:08 AM EST
    My prediction is no.

    But If she is the nominee, the media making it a close race is going to have a net negative impact on the party.

    We're almost better off just giving the nomination to Bernie at this point so we don't have to deal with the fall out.  We're talking about supporters, a wing of the party, who now literally will hold their breath and stamp their feet until they pass out or worse.

    Let the kids have their way, it's not worth the trouble.

    Parent

    And fwiw (none / 0) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 09:26:03 AM EST
    I posted the comments about getting Trump wrong last year because I think it's relevant to their predictions about Trump this year.  Because IMO he does not fit into their models.  

     

    Parent

    For example (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 09:33:51 AM EST
    The Real Clear poll average gives Donald an 18 point lead in NH.  538 gives him a 38% chance of winning.

    I find that odd.  My personally percentage of him winning NH is a bit higher than that.


    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#108)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 09:43:11 AM EST
    but that 39% chance is double the next highest candidate.

    Parent
    That's (none / 0) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 10:00:30 AM EST
    what I was going to say. It might only be 38% but it's way above what they have for all the other candidates.

    Parent
    Howdy (none / 0) (#117)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 10:10:41 AM EST
    If you want to stir it up, you could mention that the Polls-Plus Forecast at 538 has Clinton winning both Iowa and New Hampshire.

    Parent
    Ha (none / 0) (#118)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 10:14:38 AM EST
    I posted that yesterday.  The thing about 538 and NH that sort of bugs me is that if any other candidate was 18 points ahead, for six months, his chances at 538 would not be 38%.

    In that first 538 thing I quoted from Dec 30th the guy said he still didn't believe Trump would be the nominee.  And actuall admits his own desire for that to be true colored his predictions.

    Sall I'm sayin.

    Parent

    Trump (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 10:26:25 AM EST
    may not yet be the nominee. My head says he is gonna be but my gut tells me it's doubtful.

    Parent
    Without endorsing Trump (none / 0) (#146)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 01:15:06 PM EST
    The Governor of Iowa just did the next best thing for Trump:

    Asked if he would want to see Cruz defeated, Branstad said "yes."
    Oh man (none / 0) (#182)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:52:46 PM EST
    What do we think?  Possible VP candidate for Trump?
    Nah, Trump's not that stupid (none / 0) (#186)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:57:14 PM EST
    He's floating the Scott Brown trial balloon for a reason.

    Parent
    oh god (none / 0) (#190)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 02:59:59 PM EST
    I missed that one.

    Thank goodness for E. Warren.  What a joke.

    Parent

    Imo (none / 0) (#191)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 03:06:04 PM EST
    Very much a possibility.  In fact I would not be surprised if it was the price of the endorsement.  
    As you said.  It makes sense.

    On Brown, I wonder if anyone has asked him?

    Parent

    Trumps not going... (none / 0) (#199)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 03:19:48 PM EST
    to make your boy Tommy B. his running mate?

    Parent
    What can I say (none / 0) (#201)
    by CST on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 03:23:01 PM EST
    He's been hit in the head one too many times.

    At least he's still pretty and can throw a football as good as any of them.

    Parent

    Anyone who thnks (none / 0) (#205)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 19, 2016 at 03:43:24 PM EST
    A Palin endorsement will not help Donald in Iowa is mistaken.

    Cruz is already being attacked by camp Palin on social media.  Saying some things he said about the endorsement is why no one likes him.

    This is bad for Ted.

    vicndabx (none / 0) (#210)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 20, 2016 at 10:05:45 AM EST
    Wouldn't it just be better to have someone in office that didn't take corporate dollars, then we wouldn't have to discuss whether millions actually have an effect on our politicians/legislators/presidents decision making processes ?

    I think that is the argument for Bernie, rather than HRC would not be a good president.  She would be an excellent president IMO and I don't think any democrats think their options are anything more than very good and better.  But having a president not tied financially to corporate interests, at least for some of us, is a pretty big plus.

    This is reality (none / 0) (#211)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 20, 2016 at 10:34:32 AM EST
    You have a candidate who has to raise a billion bucks or a billionaire.  That is in fact many peoples argument for Donald.

    Reality in the Bizzaro World... (none / 0) (#212)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 20, 2016 at 01:18:08 PM EST
    ...but yes it is a reality, but I think Bernie and Trump are both proving it doesn't have to be.

    It is a huge plus for Trump and Sanders, it's probably going to play a good part in who is nominated.

    Do you think Trump is going to finance his campaign and not take large donations, even though his Super PAC ?

    No idea if Donald will do that (none / 0) (#213)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 20, 2016 at 03:06:28 PM EST
    Or not.  So far he hasn't spent any money.  

    Rumor is (none / 0) (#214)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 20, 2016 at 03:08:18 PM EST
    If it's Donald and Hillary we could have another billionaire to choose from.

    Bloomberg .

    We (none / 0) (#215)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jan 20, 2016 at 04:26:33 PM EST
    did some feasibility polling for a Billionaire a couple months ago(using a straw name). This guy spent some serious cash, last I heard he decided no.I still think there are several "third way" types out there with the notion.

    Polling shows that 9 out 10 Billionaires despise the Donald....if they all pitched in together they could put up a serious third party candidate.

    And then..... (none / 0) (#216)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 20, 2016 at 04:32:38 PM EST
    Polling shows that 9 out 10 Billionaires despise the Donald....if they all pitched in together they could put up a serious third party candidate.

    We'd have a candidate owned by 9 billionaires.

    Joe Biden goes after 'socialism' (none / 0) (#218)
    by AX10 on Wed Jan 20, 2016 at 07:41:07 PM EST
    He was speaking at Davos and said

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/266483-biden-we-dont-need-socialism

    "We need a more progressive tax code -- not confiscatory policy. Not socialism. A tax code."

    The move to push non-Democrat Bernie aside is starting.

    this thread is closed (none / 0) (#219)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 20, 2016 at 11:15:41 PM EST
    We close at 200 comments. There's a new open thread up if you want to continue the discussion.

    FWIW... (none / 0) (#220)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 21, 2016 at 10:13:02 AM EST
    ...the two new threads are not open.

    Monday Open Thread | 219 comments (219 topical)