home

Tuesday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 08:46:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

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

< El Chapo: His Wife's First Interview | Democratic Town Hall, the Late Late Show and the Rolling Stones >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tuesday Open Thread | 205 comments (205 topical)
    Paul Starr (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 10:23:05 AM EST
    A Pulitzer-prize winning professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton (and co-founder of The American Prospect) wrote a piece for Politico magazine yesterday titled, "Why Democrats Should Beware Sanders' Socialism" (sorry,  can't link).

    In it, he gives a good overview of what "socialism" is, especially how it is practiced in Europe, and contrasts that with Sanders' view (and with what many people THINK it means).

    ===

    "So, just what is Sanders' socialism? As analogs to his own program, Sanders points to the policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and the social democracies of northern Europe. As a liberal, I find a lot to like about both of those. But Sanders' portrayal of democratic socialism as nothing but the New Deal is a disingenuous sleight of hand that plays on foggy historical memories. And his comparison to Nordic social democracy is equally misleading: Much of Sanders's platform ignores the economic realities that European socialists long ago accepted.

    Many people may be inclined to interpret Sanders' calls for a revolution as just a rhetorical flourish. I think we should take it seriously. His policies are rooted in a socialist framework rather than a liberal one. And despite what Republicans may say, there's a big difference between socialism and liberalism. Democrats and independents attracted to Sanders ought to think twice before shrugging off his self-description as a socialist."

    SNIP

    "Since Republicans have been calling Obama a socialist for the past eight years, the label socialist may seem to many to be a synonym for progressive or liberal. But the differences between socialism and liberalism are fundamental. At its core, liberalism has a concern for liberty. While liberals have expanded public programs, they also have sought to strengthen rights that limit arbitrary power, both governmental and private. Liberals do not sanctify the free market, but they care about preserving the incentives that stimulate innovation and investment and make possible a flourishing economy.

    Socialism and Sanders have their heart in a different place--economic equality before all else. Socialism is still the dream of those who don't worry about concentrating power in the state or about the perverse effects of making goods and services available at a zero price. To bring socialism back from the dead wearing New Deal liberalism as a mask is no service to either. Socialists should know the difference, and liberals should too. After feverish right-wing accusations that every liberal proposal is tantamount to socialism, the last thing liberals need is a Democratic presidential candidate blurring that line."

    I dunno (none / 0) (#34)
    by CST on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 10:42:12 AM EST
    I think the last thing we need is people who think the current system is working just fine.

    Sometimes I wonder - how will the Capitalism system work when the planet continues deteriorating?

    IMO, what we need is a continued conversation about how to walk that line.  It's inherently blurry.  That's where the decisions need to be made, and it's why we have 3 branches of government - to balance each other out.

    Our economy is so far out of whack on the inequality side of things, we're definitely due for a correction.  But nothing in politics is permanent, least of all the job of president.

    Parent

    Sure, but (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 10:49:07 AM EST
    Bernie's answer isn't the answer.

    There's lots of room between more and better regulation and blowing up the economy to fill a pipe dream that can't and won't work.

    The takeaway is that most people who claim to be open to, or already embrace "socialism" don't really understand it, especially in the context of history or modern economics.  It's just "the cool" favor of the month.  I mean, heck, in comparing his plans to FDR's and then calling himself a socialist,  even Bernie doesn't understand this!

    Parent

    this reminds me of (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by CST on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 11:10:29 AM EST
    A conversation about religion.

    "How can you be an X when they believe Y?"

    and the answer to that is

    "You don't know what X means to me"

    These labels are personal to everyone, and we can define them for ourselves in our own way.  Words aren't perfect.  In this case they've clearly taken on a social construct beyond the webster definition.

    You have this tendency to dismiss the motivations of everyone who disagrees with you.  There are a lot of younger people supporting Bernie, but they aren't the only ones, and many of them may have their own very solid reasons for that.  And I seriously doubt people like the nurses unions are doing it because it's "cool".  Or for that matter, 80% of the state of Vermont.

    Parent

    See (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 11:32:01 AM EST
    You have this tendency to move off the conversation and then take a shot at me.

    The topic is "socialism".  It's not really up for debate what that means - it's a specific economic theory.  There may be several schools of thought, but your comparison to religion is silly.  It isn't "personal to everyone" and there aren't literally millions of interpretation.

    Yes, people may have reasons other than socialism for supporting Bernie. But that's not what I was talking about.  Please try to stay on topic if you're going to criticize.

    Parent

    your words (none / 0) (#48)
    by CST on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 11:33:48 AM EST
    "It's just "the cool" favor of the month."

    Not mine.

    It clearly means different things to different people.  The GOP for example.

    Parent

    If I could just sneak in here, (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by NYShooter on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 02:50:08 PM EST
    "Capitalism," as an economic system, really is the best model I can think of for advancing the standards of living for the greatest number of people in a society. It provides ample incentives for those who, for a variety of reasons, are better equipped to rise to the upper echelons. And, it provides substantial funds to Government to finance programs for those who, also for a variety of reasons, fall behind.

    The problem, of course, is that for this system to work we have to have rules, and, those rules have to be followed, and, enforced.

    You got that? The Rooolz have to be stated clearly, and, the Rooolz have to be enforced, vigorously!!

    I think the NFL gives a perfect example, and, analogy to what I'm saying here. The NFL, even though its game of Football is a complicated, violent, mish-mash comprised of 22 Behemoths smashing into each other, has risen to the top of the Sports Industry. And, the reason for that is due their management having realized that the only way the game can survive, and thrive, is to vigorously enforce the Rooolz.

    Just picture a Sunday football game with no referees, umpires, and/or judges. You know what you'd end up with? That's right, The U.S. Government. We have pulled the referees & umpires off the field, and replaced the rules as intended with Darwin's Law of the Jungle.

    Corruption is the poison we've been feeding ourselves for decades upon decades now. Capitalism is fine; that we've allowed the Inmates of the Asylum to police it is a problem that's way above my ability to understand.

    Parent

    My father had a much shorter version. (none / 0) (#191)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 09:18:39 AM EST
    Of this concept. He always said, " Capitalism is great, but you have to regulate those b*st*rds."

    He never clarified specifically who the B's are, so I took it to mean that the B's are a shifty shifting lot that I'm going to have to be on the lookout for :)

    Parent

    Sanders had no Plan B?!? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 10:23:06 AM EST
    I've been rather shocked how unprepared the Sanders team was for a loss in Nevada.

    They've been flaying about in the last few days with no clear message or strategy.

    This has left their online supporters with no direction. And they've largely been venting and acting like clichéd millennials who can't accept a loss.

    It seems like both Sanders and his supporters have finally realized, what everyone else knew all along, that their chance of winning this whole thing is remote.

    A Plan B might not have worked. But it could have bought them more time. Now they could very well be out of this thing in a week.

    American voters like a winner. But they also like a loser who gets up, dusts themselves off, and is ready for another fight. The Sanders team is still on the ground, staying at the sky, and wondering, "Wha'happened?"

    If they are laying on the ground (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 10:28:49 AM EST
    staring at the sky, they are going to get hit in the face by a falling brick on Saturday.

    Parent
    I think they (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 11:20:19 AM EST
    were trying for a 2004 or 2008 strategy when they really needed a 1992 strategy.

    Parent
    I think their Plan A was ... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 11:33:14 AM EST
    win the first two states and pray there's a groundswell.

    THAT is not a strategy.

    And they didn't even win the first two states.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 01:08:53 PM EST
    they were thinking repeat of Kerry in 2004 where winning Iowa made it possible for everybody to just fall in line. The problem with their thinking there is that Hillary is much tougher competition than Kerry had in 2004. Trying to repeat 2008 ignored the demographic challenges and the fact that Hillary has long standing ties to minority communities.

    But then again after they didn't win Iowa they should have adjusted to another plan but I guess they were hoping they could spin a loss into a win.

    Parent

    Personally (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by CST on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 01:10:12 PM EST
    I suspect they never actually expected to get this far, and somehow ended up with a real campaign on their hands.

    Parent
    Me too...it was enough of a groundswell to (none / 0) (#70)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 02:26:16 PM EST
    do better than expected, but not enough to carry very far.

    Parent
    "Flaying about" sounds more like Trump! (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 11:31:45 AM EST


    Parent
    Heh ... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 11:36:34 AM EST
    I meant flailing, of course.

    Rhyming, and off-rhyming, typos are so odd. But I do them and I see others do them.

    The brain is a strange machine.

    Parent

    Good anecdote from WSJ: (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 11:45:06 AM EST
    Asked by an audience member to tell his best story about Mr. Trump, with whom the former mayor has been friendly for decades, Mr. Giuliani, a former prosecutor who started his own law firm, said he never represented the businessman because Mr. Trump tends to haggle over fees he owes.

    "Donald, I never represented him, because he considers a legal bill the first offer in a negotiation," Mr. Giuliani said. "You don't want to represent somebody like that."
    Ha! (none / 0) (#56)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 11:59:11 AM EST
    Back in nineties "20/20" did a story where they sent checks to famous people to see what they'd do with them.  They did provide return address but no explanation for the checks.

    The list included actors, business people, sports people.

    They kept sending the checks, but they decreased the amounts. Until the last checks were for pennies.

    Most of the people returned the checks with a request for an explanation from the beginning and throughout. Dustin Hoffman fell into that group. The next group cashed some of the early checks, but stopped as they got smaller.

    Only one individual cashed them all without question ... Donald Trump.

    Now, granted, it probably wasn't Trump making this decision. But it probably wasn't Dustin Hoffman either. You learn a lot about famous individuals based on how "their people" behave.

    Parent

    Probably... (none / 0) (#67)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 01:33:27 PM EST
    ... more dependent on the number of checks coming in that any other variable.

    I have a check sitting on my desk from Texas, it's for ~$50 which basically means the time it's going to take me to call the state and track down the person here for coding info will cost my company more than the check is worth.

    I would be curious to know what a large check is as defined by 20/20.  

    Parent

    The fish rots from ... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 02:46:32 PM EST
    the head.

    But, as I recall, all the people you'd hope would do right, did right.  The middling people did middling. And Trump did the worst.

    Someone should dig that thing up.

    It's stuck in my head all these years.

    Parent

    This is unfair, btw. Trump was on a bankruptcy (none / 0) (#150)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 05:27:38 AM EST
    court ordered budget around that time.  Something like $440K/month and he had to give up his yacht.  So those $100 checks from 20/20 may have come in handy.

    And after all, why wouldn't money flow uphill to the Donald?  That's the way his world works.

    Parent

    I'm Not Following the Logic Here... (none / 0) (#199)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 10:01:52 AM EST
    ...it bad to deposit a check without figuring out what it is for and this somehow is related to Trump's character ?

    I don't like Trump but this is beyond silly.

    What I always thought would be an interesting experiment would be to bill, for me Houston, every big company for something like $100 for something nondescript, like janitorial services.  Then see how many checks you receive.  It's fraud, so I would never do it, but I think you would end up with a pile of cash.

    Parent

    CNBC's American Greed series (none / 0) (#200)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 10:16:36 AM EST
    covered the exploits of a lot of people who operated like that, only bigger.  And when it came to exploiting holes in the federal payment system, enormously bigger.

    Parent
    You know, that is just the attitude I want (none / 0) (#190)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 09:18:18 AM EST
    in a leader. Thank you for posting it.

    Parent
    Oddly I Agree... (none / 0) (#202)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 11:59:12 AM EST
    ...and prescription drugs being the first place the government should not pay what the vendor thinks we should pay.

    Parent
    War on Women... (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 11:54:28 AM EST
    ...just flanked the Girl Scouts.

    Archdiocese of St Louis

    In the letter, he questions whether Girl Scouts USA, the nationwide network with more than 2 million young female members, and its parent body, the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, should be entrusted with the spiritual formation of its charges given the groups' support for contraception and abortion. He also accuses them of promoting inappropriate role models such as the feminist writers Gloria Steinem and the late Betty Friedan, and of forging partnerships with human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Oxfam that advocate reproductive rights.

    "Girl Scouts is exhibiting a troubling pattern of behavior and it is clear to me that as they move in the ways of the world it is becoming increasingly incompatible with our Catholic values," the archbishop writes. "We must stop and ask ourselves - is Girl Scouts concerned with the total well-being of our young women? Does it do a good job forming the spiritual, emotional and personal well-being of Catholic girls?"


    LINK

    Not surprising, what is surprising is that people continue to insist religion is a good thing.  Never mind all the evidence to the contrary.

    Religion can be a good thing, ... (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 02:56:22 PM EST
    ... so long as it's used wisely as a window to personal growth and insight, and not wielded opportunistically as a cudgel for political power or material gain. Religion is a vehicle to a destination; when it's mistaken for the destination itself, it will ultimately become a road to nowhere.

    Like most anything, when religion is abused by man, it loses both its intrinsic value and its effectiveness as a means for good in this world. True faith is entirely introspective, and endows one with a sense of humility and awe. Blind faith is a narrow-minded exercise in groupthink that's completely projective and misguided, and further cloaks one with a false sense of moral superiority.

    One should therefore not conflate religious practice with spirituality, which is an innate and heightened sense of wonder with one's own being and its possibilities, and not a generic or universal proposition for all mankind. One can be both spiritual and a good person, without being at all religious. Conversely, dutiful expressions of piety without an element of spirituality are but empty and superficial personal experiences.

    As a Roman Catholic, my relationship with my Creator, i.e., my spirituality, is inherently my own. While I respect the teachings of the Church, no bishop or cardinal can rightly define that personal relationship with my Creator for me. As such, there are times when I find it best to keep my own spiritual counsel in matters such as these.

    And speaking for myself only, I believe St. Louis Archbishop Robert Carlson to be a vainglorious fool who has managed to confuse his own personal political biases for the concept of divine will. That's never a good thing in a church leader. His personal judgment about the Girl Scouts is repulsive. Pompous clowns like him, whose "L'etat, c'est moi" attitudes drive otherwise good people away, continue to inflict tremendous damage to the Catholic Church.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Every time I see one of these stories (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 03:17:20 PM EST
    That's just five more boxes of GS cookies that get bought by me. I buy 'em and just hand them out to friends and neighbors. But I will support the Girl Scouts till my dying day. Go girls!

    Parent
    "Religion is regarded (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by NYShooter on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 07:02:14 PM EST
    by the common people as true,
    by the wise as false, and
    by rulers as useful."

    ― Seneca

    Parent

    2000+ years. It's impossible to imagine (none / 0) (#151)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 05:30:27 AM EST
    anything said today lasting that long.

    Parent
    nothing new here (none / 0) (#57)
    by mm on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 12:02:58 PM EST
    This is from 2012, my own Parish in Northern Virginia.

    The Girl Scouts of the USA organization continues to attract critics for straying from its roots in a more secular and non-traditional direction. The most recent offense of this nature has prompted St. Timothy's Catholic Church in Chantilly, Virginia (left) to ban the organization from meeting on its grounds because of its alleged connections to Planned Parenthood.

    The church has barred Girl Scout troops from meeting in both the church and its school; furthermore, the girls are no longer permitted to wear their uniforms on church premises.

    LINK

    Parent
    (Sigh!) One is left to wonder ... (none / 0) (#111)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 06:29:33 PM EST
    ... who the real children are at St. Timothy's Catholic Church.

    Parent
    Sanders is weak, a coward. (3.00 / 2) (#60)
    by AX10 on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 01:10:13 PM EST
    He is pulling out of South Carolina.
    Hillary knew she would lose New Hampshire,
    still she campaigned there and took her hits.

    Sanders in concentrating on the few ST states were the polling shows a close race, OK/CO/MA and of course Vermont is his.

    This is some "strategy" alright.  A losing one.

    I'm sure you would rather him... (5.00 / 6) (#74)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 02:41:33 PM EST
    waste limited funds in SC so he has to drop out sooner, but it's not about a burning desire to be president with Sanders (imo), it's a burning desire to spread the message that has so resonated with the left-leaning & independent electorate.

    Sorry if that message is inconvenient to you, but many in the country are thirsty for it.  Even those who won't vote for it for Machiavellian reasons.

    Let us enjoy the new and improved populist Hillary for another couple months at least before she becomes a corporate moderate again, will ya?

    Parent

    Mrs. Clinton seems to (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 04:29:48 PM EST
    be at her best when she is fighting for it, the underdog fits her campaigning more than front runner.  I sense, too, that Mrs. Clinton has been taught by Senator Sanders that the electorate looks for aspiration and change--someone who will not just work within the system, but also, try to remake it.

     The Sanders' campaign has kept her on edge and reintroduced her to challenges of the campaign--her experience and expertise were placed on an equal footing by her challenger.

    Perhaps the best advertising/marketing word is "free," but that can't be used very often. So, a runner-up is "new and improved."   Mrs. Clinton needed to re-introduce herself and demonstrate improvements across her time in public service. A particularly important consideration for a person world famous.

     Attributions such as "coronation," were never accurate--she was keenly aware of the competition.  Senator Sanders no doubt reminded her of the disapointing first debate performance of President Obama with Romney--the differences between governing and campaigning.  Mrs. Clinton has, in my view, demonstrated her range of capabilities,

    Parent

    Machiavelli is my middle name (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 04:56:26 PM EST
    Well, Marie, but close enough.

    Let us enjoy the new and improved populist Hillary for another couple months at least before she becomes a corporate moderate again, will ya?

    Don't worry, once the GOP starts focusing on Hillary, she will look like a socialist again by comparison.

    Parent

    Bernie Sanders' message at this point ... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 03:57:33 PM EST
    ... is a non-factor. Once the caucuses and primaries got underway, he needed to land a quick hard blow in the early rounds to undermine his opponent's composure and knock her on her heels. That didn't happen. He was never going to win a prolonged battle of attrition, which with very rare exceptions always favors the side with superior organizational resources and logistics. And that's what this campaign is now becoming.

    Parent
    "a coward?" (none / 0) (#139)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 09:52:03 PM EST
    ... and it's gonna get worse before it gets better, kdog.  a lot worse.

    Parent
    Yeah, (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 02:03:27 PM EST
    as far as I can see he's pretty much given up on Georgia.

    Parent
    Georgia is a big delegate haul. (none / 0) (#83)
    by magster on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 03:14:10 PM EST
    He should do what he can to limit the damage, IMO.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 04:44:56 PM EST
    I can understand why he is not doing anything. With limited funds it makes more sense to put the money where he can win though I have to say I really question those OK polls but I think the rest of them are probably correct. I would imagine MA is close etc.

    Parent
    Like it or not, you can't compete (none / 0) (#73)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 02:34:54 PM EST
    in this environment with only small donor support. I'm all for campaign finance reform, but unilateral disarmament is not a winning strategy.  

    Parent
    Believe Sanders has taken in more money (none / 0) (#81)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 03:05:46 PM EST
    than every GOP candidate but Bush. And that doesn't include the outside anti-Clinton money being spent to help him.

    Of course the money going to Sanders is also about to dry up so it's understandable the Sanders' campaign is beginning to consolidate.

    Parent

    Bernie Sanders' strategy was always a long shot. (none / 0) (#88)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 03:39:38 PM EST
    It depended upon him riding an inexorable wave of momentum out of Iowa and New Hampshire. That "revolution" simply failed to materialize, in part because despite media's fanciful notions to the contrary, Hillary Clinton's own substantial core base of support within the Democratic Party is now asserting itself in the face of his insurgent challenge.

    The contest is not over yet by any means, and I admire the fervor of Sanders' supporters. But fervor has its limits and should never be mistaken for actual political reach. Once the contest was actually joined, well, the Clintons are veteran campaigners and formidable organizers, and that experience showed in Nevada. Sanders' options at this point are increasingly limited, and only an unforeseen event such as a Clinton implosion is likely to turn the tide in his favor.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    He was 3 percentage points from staging an upset.. (none / 0) (#90)
    by magster on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 03:47:19 PM EST
    ... in NV that would have fueled a "Hillary is toast" narrative from the all to eager to destroy Hillary media. It's why he spent so much money this month, and he almost kept it going.

    But now, I don't see a path to nomination failing some Clinton catastrophe.

    Parent

    It wouldn't have ... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 03:56:38 PM EST
    moved African American voters.

    It would have bought him survival till the end of March ... maybe.

    Now he's probably looking at an earlier exit.

    We'll see how he does on Super Tuesday.

    Parent

    Sanders lost that contest in Las Vegas, ... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 04:06:54 PM EST
    ... where his campaign was thoroughly overmatched in terms of organization and Mrs. Clinton turned out 60% of the caucus vote. Las Vegas and Clark County account for 70% of Nevada's population, and getting throttled there more than offset Sanders' advantages elsewhere in that state.

    Parent
    That would explain outspending HRC (none / 0) (#121)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 07:23:50 PM EST
    in these early states -- as it sure is not the strategy for a long-term campaign.

    I do worry that, with so much spent in the primaries and caucuses -- more than Clinton planned to spend, before Sanders, and then him outspending her -- that there will be enough to fund the general election to win it.  Dems so often get outspent, with the GOP's limitless resources.

    Parent

    That, and Sanders clearly sees himself (none / 0) (#144)
    by lilburro on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 11:39:44 PM EST
    as a message candidate. And given the lack of specificity in his plans (including Plan Bs, or intermediary steps) and overall campaign strategy, that seems to be all he is. I wish someone would do a write-up of where Obama's ground team is today; maybe some of them are still with Obama, but it surprises me that for all his grassroots talk Sanders' operation has been so haphazard. Perhaps he alienated Obama's staffers with some of the things he's said or the primary threat. Or he just hasn't reached out. Maybe both.

    Not that his top-down messaging gives organizers much to work with IMO. You buy into his theory, or you don't. You can't push him left - on his own authority, he is left (sorry, Planned Parenthood!). My understanding is that he allowed Latino activists to draft his immigration platform, which is awesome, but that detail has been submerged in his campaigning. Instead, his day to day candidacy struggles to show that he's interested in listening to anybody but himself. Say what you will about HRC, but she's been excellent at doing that, and her campaign in the past few weeks has been brilliant at drawing attention to it. Plus, her ads have shown her embracing Obama's leadership with a similar posture of respect and service. It might make Bill's head spin, but they're doing a great job of selling Obama-Hillary as the Democratic Party 2.0.

    The fact that the GOP continues to demonstrate that they, more than Wall Street, are our enemy certainly helps.

    Parent

    I see (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 06:40:07 AM EST
    where Morning Joke and the Meat Puppet are taking incoming from all their Trump fluffing. LOL. Couldn't happen to two better people.

    That's what happens when ... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 08:03:36 AM EST
    ... you have a hot mic, like Lonesome Rhodes in "A Face in the Crowd." MSNBC ought to be rightly embarrassed at this inadvertent disclosure.

    I've stopped watching the cable news gabfests altogether, because I'm frankly tired of seeing everyone's thumbs on the scales. Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman told CNN "Reliable Sources" host Brian Stelter last Sunday that the media needs to investigate the records of the candidates, and stop telling people what to think.

    We'll see if they have her on again!

    Parent

    Asking (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 08:06:42 AM EST
    the media to actually do their job is asking them to actually engage in some hard work.

    Parent
    They have climbed on the bandwagon (none / 0) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 07:27:34 AM EST
    A slew of state polls out yesterday and today.

    Ohio - Trump
    Georgia - Trump
    Massachusetts - Trump
    Vermont - Trump
    North Carolina - Trump
    Michigan - Trump
    Illinois - Trump
    West Virginia - Trump

    New Mexico - Cruz
    Texas - Cruz

    Utah - Rubio

    They were wondering where Rubio might win a state. They may have found it in Utah if Romney is backing him.

    Parent

    Rubio (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 07:35:49 AM EST
    can continue to come in 2nd or 3rd forever I'm guessing. I'm guessing the establishment money is going to start flowing to Rubio but the way the GOP primary is going I'm not sure that money is going to make much of a difference.

    Parent
    Don't (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 04:18:00 PM EST
    look now but Rubio is "surging" in  post SC  polls in Ga as I predicted.

    That money will help Rubio, there wasn't enough money in the world that would have helped Bush's dead man walking campaign.

    Parent

    If you call (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 04:50:39 PM EST
    5 points a surge I guess so. However it might be a repeat of SC here in GA where he gets 2nd or 3rd but gets shut out of delegates. If he ends up making 20% statewide he will get a few and so will Cruz. The wild card here in GA is what is going to happen in the D districts like John Lewis' district on the R side. I can pretty much predict that Rubio will be shut out of any delegates in the gerrymandered R districts here in GA.

    Parent
    More then a few (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 05:58:07 PM EST
    For example if Ga goes for Trump 45/25/25 and giving him 46 leaving the other 30 split between the other two. Even if one of them drops below the 20 % threshold he only gains ~5 at the very most.

    This pattern should repeat itself across the south up until March 15th, with Trump getting ~60 at best (except Texas where Cruz should get the bigger share, I am thinking 50 Cruz/40 Trump range).

    RCP has a simulator that I have been playing with.

    Bottomline is that, barring Trump topping 50% anywhere, second has to get between 20-40 % and a close third is liable to get you up to 20.

    Parent

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 06:04:44 PM EST
    but I just don't see how Rubio ever catches up with delegates. Trump is going to get so far ahead. Depending on how many Cruz gets from Texas he might be running a close 2nd in delegates.

    Parent
    That money thing (none / 0) (#6)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 07:44:42 AM EST
    that flowed to Bush didn't help much. The same money in Rubio's pocket may just continue to spread the wealth into a few states.

    The same effect is coming from the outside groups attacking Clinton. It's not doing much to help Sanders, but it does funnel some of those GOP Koch riches back into the system.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 08:05:59 AM EST
    that's the thinking of a lot of people apparently--all that money sure didn't help Bush so it's kind of doubtful that it's going to help Rubio much either.

    Parent
    Might buy him (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 08:31:46 AM EST
    A nice VP slot.

    Parent
    I dunno (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 08:35:59 AM EST
    Rubio's an anchor baby according to Trump.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 08:39:37 AM EST
    What he is is a sock puppet for the establishment branch of the party.   That's a good thing for several reasons.   It brings support.  It brings money.   It brings the party together.

    Parent
    I do not think it's an accident (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 08:40:36 AM EST
    That Donald and Marco are teaming up to get Ted out of the race.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 08:45:43 AM EST
    it makes sense from the point that polling showed that if it's Trump vs. Cruz, Cruz would win. However I bet if it's Rubio vs. Trump, Trump is going to win that one.

    Parent
    Cruz is dead (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 09:38:41 AM EST
    He just doesn't know it yet.  Actually I think it will end up being a lucky thing for us that he is such a dick because there is going to be some pressure for him to get out.

    He will never never get out.

    Also about MR above, he also would bring a fawning swooning media enraptured but the handsome charming young VP wo is thefutuerofthereoublicanparty.

    Parent

    because (none / 0) (#24)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 09:48:02 AM EST
    of the delegate math, there is virtually no chance for Cruz. There is also a better chance of a brokered convention then a Rubio win.

    Parent
    "A Quayle for our Time" (none / 0) (#152)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 05:34:02 AM EST


    Parent
    Its the only way trickle down economics (none / 0) (#35)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 10:47:03 AM EST
    actually works.

    Parent
    - like the splash zone on the floor... (none / 0) (#153)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 05:35:15 AM EST
    ... underneath a urinal.

    Yeah, trickle down.

    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 07:37:13 AM EST
    and I wonder how the Trump birther claims are going to affect Rubio's campaign.

    Parent
    Interestingly (or not) (none / 0) (#5)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 07:41:21 AM EST
    there is no new GOP Nevada polling which I guess has come to be expected. Caucuses begin today between 5pm and 7pm local time and all caucuses must conclude by 9pm PT. That means a late night on the east coast for anyone interested.

    538 gives Trump about a 64% chance of winning and predicts a Trump victory by a 9 point margin over Rubio. It is a caucus though so who really knows if anyone will show up.

    Parent

    Trump (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 08:03:53 AM EST
    the casino guy is going to rock the state that is ruled by casinos. IMO this one is a gimme.

    Parent
    But I hear they expect (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 09:54:16 AM EST
    A big turnout.   Or at least a "big" turnout.

    I think one of the interesting data bits from the first three contests is that generally Democratic turnout is blah and generally republican turnout is gangbusters.    Records I think in maybe all three?

    Any way,  the point is this doesn't seem like a good thing.
    Yeah, it's just primaries but it almost looks like Donald is doing exactly what he said he would do which is bring people out who might not have been involved lately.   Or at all

    Or maybe not.  

    The point is they are turning out and us not so much.

    Hmmmmm

    Parent

    If anything (none / 0) (#26)
    by CST on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 09:57:15 AM EST
    I think it's the Rubio/Cruz/anyone but Trump vote that might be a little inflated in the primary - people crossing over just to keep him from winning.

    But Trumps's support?  Yea...  Lord help us all.

    Parent

    Trump drives turnout ... (none / 0) (#66)
    by FreakyBeaky on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 01:21:26 PM EST
    ... of those who support him and those who oppose him. Problem is the latter can't pick a candidate.

    It's a high-media-profile battle royal for the Rs over what kind of a (crazy) party they really are - Establisment? Movement Conservative? Nativist/Populist? We may think these are distinctions berween types of crazy without meaningful differences, but they don't.

    What's happening on the D side is much less consequential & I think D voters who are not political junkies sense that.

    Parent

    Nobody turns out in Nevada for a caucus (none / 0) (#76)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 02:46:29 PM EST
    Probably about 2% of the population.

    Parent
    Closer to 3 percent this time (none / 0) (#123)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 07:25:20 PM EST
    and that's of the entire population.  The percentage of the adult population would be a lot better, of course.

    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#11)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 08:07:53 AM EST
    am expecting a major push by Rubio in Virginia for a much needed win on ST. The latest poll shows him within shouting distance and Silver has him with a 50% of winning.

    Parent
    Apparently Rubio ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 08:50:56 AM EST
    was briefly a Mormon.

    Which some claim explains his strength in Utah.

    Parent

    This: (none / 0) (#19)
    by CST on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 09:31:01 AM EST
    Massachusetts - Trump

    Makes me more annoyed than it should.  I think he's up by something ridiculous like 50 pts.

    Then again, I've said for a while that he's just a racist Democrat...  Sigh.

    Parent

    Could be worst (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 09:33:34 AM EST
    Cruz is probably still leading in my state.

    IMO that IS actually worse.

    Parent

    yea there's really no one decent left (none / 0) (#22)
    by CST on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 09:37:23 AM EST
    Poor Baker - our "Republican" governor endorsed Christie.  He's already discussed the fact that he's not a fan of Trump.  Where's a pro-choice moderate to go in this mess...

    IMO, I wouldn't be the least bit shocked if the answer to that is Clinton, even if he'll never say it out loud.

    Parent

    Somebody (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 01:13:14 PM EST
    should corner your Governor and ask him about Trump.

    Parent
    oh they don't need to corner him (none / 0) (#65)
    by CST on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 01:21:26 PM EST
    He's already made his opinion well known.

    For example.

    Also

    He's not a fan.  But then, even though Trump is winning the MA republican party primary by a landslide, that's a far cry from actually winning the state - which is something Baker has accomplished and will frankly - likely continue to do.

    One other thing in the local news lately is that Baker is making a big push to "purge" the local republican party of conservatives and replace them with moderates.  I may not love his stance on taxes, but the man knows what he's doing.

    Parent

    I noted (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 01:56:06 PM EST
    to some Republicans here who were whining after the 2012 election that they needed to do a party purge. They whined and said things will get worse and believe it or not they said if we quit the culture wars those voters will go back to voting for Democrats.

    Parent
    Romney had "binders full ... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 08:59:03 AM EST
    of women".

    Apparently, Kasich has kitchens full of women.

    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 10:08:37 AM EST
    Has a binder full of SC nominees.

    Parent
    President to make a GITMO announcement (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 09:32:16 AM EST
    At 10:30 eastern

    Does anyone think that Trump or Cruz (none / 0) (#27)
    by Green26 on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 10:00:43 AM EST
    would have any chance against Clinton? I don't. I haven't looked at any polls. True independents would seem to go away from those 2 to Clinton. Even some moderate Repubs probably couldn't stomach those 2.

    Trump maybe (none / 0) (#28)
    by CST on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 10:04:18 AM EST
    Cruz hell no.

    Trump might lose some indies, but he might win some Democrats too.

    Parent

    Will the addition of the Koch brothers' (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 11:34:00 AM EST
    # 1 political advisor to Rubio's team help?

    Parent
    Well Cruz (none / 0) (#29)
    by smott on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 10:08:11 AM EST
    I think has nearly no chance of the nom.

    I haven't looked lately but natl polls showed Clinton and Trump very close.

    Problem is, basically no predictions about Trump imploding have come true.
    He may go to Clinton's left on trade and on Iraq in an effort to get votes.  He basically walked into SC, flipped the bird to the Bush clan and walked off with every delegate.

    I think we have seriously misunderesrmated the guy if you know what I'm saying.

    A big tell IMO will be how well he does in a debate that's only 2-3 guys and not a middle school food fight like we've had thus far. I think one on one he could be very vulnerable because there is less bluster and craziness for him to blend in with.

    But again, we've been basically wrong about everything Trump thus far.

    Parent

    My optimistic viewpoint (none / 0) (#38)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 11:11:22 AM EST
    is that the longer Trump goes without imploding, the more likely he is to implode. He is still a time bomb, just with a longer fuse than we thought.  Too bad for all of the GOP saps that he was able to outwit, outlast, and outplay, but I think it is going to work to the advantage of Hillary Clinton.
     

    Parent
    for a pessimistic take (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by CST on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 11:12:17 AM EST
    I feel like he's imploded 100 times and every time it only seems to get him more supporters.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#87)
    by smott on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 03:29:30 PM EST
    I don't think that actually counts as imploding. Technically...
    😉

    Parent
    My thoughts (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 01:15:33 PM EST
    are there is nothing he can do or say in the GOP primary that is going to make him implode. However I'm not so sure that what actually helps him in the GOP primary is going to do much to help him and might actually hurt him in a general election.

    Parent
    Sun Tzu said: (none / 0) (#39)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 11:12:01 AM EST
    "Every battle is won before it's ever fought."

    Trump doesn't need to implode to lose. He's already lost for two reasons:

    The electoral college map is against him. And he will head a fractured party.

    Candidates in both parties have overcome one of those problems. Never both.

    Clinton has neither of those problems. She has the electoral wind at her back. And will head a unified party.

    (BTW, I still don't think Trump will get the nomination.)

    CaptHowdy will jump in now and talk about Trump's mystical, magical crossover appeal. Don't listen. He thought Romney could win.

    Parent

    Trump (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 11:23:39 AM EST
    does have some crossover appeal however so does Hillary. It's not a zero sum thing where Trump takes and doesn't have to give up any voters. Even that one poll showing Hillary lost voters also showed Hillary gaining voters if Trump is the GOP nominee.

    Parent
    If he has one, and ... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 11:42:09 AM EST
    frankly I don't see it, it's not demographically significant, i.e. it doesn't make up for his deficits in the party.

    Remember, in politics, demography is destiny.

    Bernie Sanders got lesson one on that maxim on Saturday, he'll get lesson two next Saturday, and eight to eleven more lessons on Super Tuesday.

    Parent

    My unscientific (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 01:19:18 PM EST
    theory is that Trump's base is largely working class whites. Which you are correct do not make much of a demographic difference when it comes to the general election since the majority of those voters are already Republicans.

    However it also makes Trump a stronger candidate for the general election simply because he has a base. Rubio has no base for a general election. If the Trump voters I know are any indication of other Trump supporters there is no way they would ever vote for Rubio.

    Parent

    His base is racists, loons ... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 02:54:57 PM EST
    and wackadoos.

    That makes up about a third of the Republican party, apparently.

    Not much of a base. It looks better because the establishment hasn't gotten its act together.

    But no candidate who's gone on to be president has gotten less than 49% in SC.

    Parent

    Depersonalization will not help anyone (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 05:01:15 AM EST
    understand what's happening here.

    Kudos for the nice mirroring of Trump's own tactics, however.

    Parent

    The racist vote ... (none / 0) (#201)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 10:20:05 AM EST
    is discussed sometimes.  Not enough.

    But there's NO COVERAGE of the loon and wackadoo vote.

    They should be in the crosstabs!

    ;)

    But, seriously, Trump is a racist. Most of the people voting for him are racists. And that needs to be pointed out. Early and often.

    Parent

    What I am wondering if his weird appeal (none / 0) (#71)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 02:30:23 PM EST
    will change the red state-blue state electoral math we have been used to working with. Would he lose any of the solid red states? Win any of the solid blue states?

    Parent
    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 02:33:52 PM EST
    probably not. His biggest problem right now is the Republicans that won't vote for him. So from that standpoint some red states could become blue states. However that could change and even the Republicans professing to hate him now could end up voting for him in November.

    Parent
    Texas has been an interesting case (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 02:44:29 PM EST
    Get Julian Castro on the Dem ticket and Hillary might be able to take it in a race against Trump.

    Parent
    Liberated Palestine? (none / 0) (#41)
    by thomas rogan on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 11:12:24 AM EST
    In Gaza, Bicycles Are a Battleground for Women Who Dare to Ride

    By DIAA HADID and MAJD AL WAHEIDIFEB. 22, 2016

    NY Times today.

    How can progressives support handing over control of the West Bank to such a government?  Women and LGBT, among others, won't do so well.

    handing over? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by CST on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 11:13:11 AM EST
    Why do you think it's ours to allocate?

    Parent
    Creepy but interesting underwater museum (none / 0) (#51)
    by McBain on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 11:36:42 AM EST
    British artist Jason deCaires Taylor has managed to place sculptures 45 feet underwater.  The article says it's accessible to scuba divers and snorkelers.  Do snorkelers go that deep?

    Some sculptures include people transfixed on their phones, a figure with cactus emerging from its body, and a faceless couple taking a selfie.
    These are Becoming Very Popular (none / 0) (#61)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 01:11:33 PM EST
    There is one about an hour away that is in an old granite mine.  They have tombstones, dinosaurs, angels, two ships, a WWII plane, and some abstract art pieces, all sank for scuba divers.  The water is no where near as clear.

    I want to say N or S Carolina is creating one off the coast and I believe, that they have something related to a sunken U-boat.

    I can free dive around 30ft, an Olympic pool is generally 5 meters deep.  Which is plenty deep to see a 10ft statue in 45 feet of water.  Probably see it at the surface if visibility is good and in the pics it's really good.
    -------------------

    I mean to comment on another post, but it filled up.  The 10 year old who as an adult admitted she lied.

    I get that you want someone held accountable, but in that case specifically, how would they possibly get 12 folks to agree to either convicting a woman who was 10 at the time, or her mother who possibly coached her ?  Not even sure if they could try the woman in adult court since the crime occurred when she was a minor.  It wouldn't even surprise me is the statute of limitations had already expired, depending on the charge used.

    I don't know what the remedy is beyond a huge check, but I don't think any jury in the country would convict a woman who was 10 at the time, of anything.  And the mother already said she didn't coach her daughter.

    Parent

    Good points (none / 0) (#82)
    by McBain on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 03:06:20 PM EST
    If a conviction is unlikely a prosecutor isn't suppose to bring charges. I just don't want another Crystal Magnum situation.  She was the false accuser in the Duke Lacrosse fiasco.  The state of North Carolina decided not to press charges against her.  Later, when she should have been in prison, she killed a man.  

    Right now, there doesn't seem to be any significant consequences for lying about rape or molestation. I don't believe false accusations are "extremely rare" as some suggest. Bad people will do what they think they can get away with.  

    Parent

    Google is your friend (none / 0) (#86)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 03:20:15 PM EST
    Try "false rape allegations statistics".

    Obviously, it's hard to get a completely accurate number, but most studies show between 2-7% are false (some go as high as 10%).  Of course, there's also semantics beyween someone falsely accusing another of sexual impropriety and actually going to law enforcement (smaller number) and some going through with the process further to get to all the way to court and conviction  (much smaller number yet).

    But like I said, Google is your friend.

    Parent

    Apparently Google isn't your friend (none / 0) (#89)
    by McBain on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 03:42:12 PM EST
    Provide a link to a study. Not just someone's opinion. If you can't do that, then just say it's your opinion.  My opinion is the actual number is probably higher than 10%.

     

    Parent

    Since I have repeatedly said (none / 0) (#98)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 04:45:05 PM EST
    I can't link from my phone (it's not that I don't know how - it just stopped working, along with bolding, italics, etc.), but ok, I'm home now and will do your homework for you.

    How to Deal with False Rape Allegations - cites several studies and highlights several of the issues I mentioned in determining what is a"false accusation" and what you are counting when you want to say "all these women who make false accusations should be prosecuted".

    Here's a breakdown that deconstructs the 2-8%, just so you don't think I'm "hiding" something.  Here's post 2

    Wiki can give you a quick breakdown of studies done in other countries.

    And here's some more.

    The point being, no one really knows.  But if you look at ALL the data, you still see one common element - it's not a large number and is dependent on lots of definitions and semantics.

    I don't know what you're looking for, but you seem to be implying that this is a HUGE problem and there are millions of men (mostly) in prison for sexual assault crimes they didn't commit.

    I'm not saying false accusations don't happen, but most experts agree that those need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

    Parent

    We agree on at least one thing... (none / 0) (#107)
    by McBain on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 06:09:57 PM EST
    "no one really knows"  Because, some rapes aren't reported and some cases aren't proven either way. In the articles you linked which included links to to at least one study (thank you), there seems to be a huge gray area.

    I do think false accusations are a problem that isn't being addressed effectively.  I also believe the campus rape "crisis" is mostly BS.  
     

    Parent

    You do realize your opinion doesn't mean sh!t? (none / 0) (#136)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 09:27:24 PM EST


    Parent
    Obviously my opinion means something to you (none / 0) (#146)
    by McBain on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 01:58:08 AM EST
    or you wouldn't have taken the time to respond.

    Now, do you actually have something to say about either topic we've been discussing here?

    Parent

    After a week of 80s (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 11:42:06 AM EST
    ACCUMULATING SNOWFALL EXPECTED LATE TONIGHT THROUGH WEDNESDAY

    FORECAST ACCUMULATIONS ARE ON THE ORDER OF ONE TO THREE INCHES
    FROM NORTH OF CLARKSVILLE...TO CLINTON...TO BATESVILLE. LOCALLY
    HIGHER AMOUNTS WILL BE POSSIBLE AT HIGHER ELEVATIONS WHERE THE
    COLDEST AIR WILL RESIDE. SOME LIGHT ACCUMULATIONS COULD ALSO BE
    SEEN FURTHER SOUTH AND EAST OF THESE AREAS.

    THE PLACEMENT OF WHERE THE HEAVIEST SNOW WILL FALL...AND HOW MUCH
    SNOW WILL ACCUMULATE...CONTINUE TO REMAIN UNCERTAIN AND CAN STILL
    CHANGE. TRAVELERS AND AREA RESIDENTS ARE URGED REFER TO THE LATEST
    FORECASTS OVER THE NEXT 12 TO 18 HOURS FOR REFINEMENTS IN THE
    SNOWFALL FORECAST...AS WELL AS ANY WINTER WEATHER ADVISORIES OR
    WARNINGS.

    I, for one, WELCOME or new Climate Overlords

    Not advocating this except for entertainment value (none / 0) (#84)
    by magster on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 03:16:43 PM EST
    Once Trump virtually clinches the nomination on March 15, Obama should nominate Trump's pro-choice circuit judge sister to the Supreme Court. The intra-party drama between Trump and the Senate would be delightful.

    Nevada Prediction (none / 0) (#94)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 04:10:28 PM EST
    TRUMP 41%
    CRUZ 23%
    RUBIO 22%
    KASICH 8%
    CARSON 6%

    Mine (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 06:21:18 PM EST
    Trump 37
    Rubio 27
    Cruz  22
    Kasich 8
    Carson 6

    Parent
    Not much difference ... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 06:39:35 PM EST
    but you seem to be expecting more of a Rubio surge than me.

    While I feel, it's Nevada, baby!  Donald will get Jimmy Two-nose, Eddie Cooch and Tommy the Mouse to make sure everything goes smooth. And then ... fuggedaboutit!

    ;)


    Parent

    Rubio (none / 0) (#120)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 07:18:41 PM EST
    got the Mormon endorsement, he has an organization there, he will probably get all of Bush's points, the media is fluffing him and except for NH he has seemed to grab most of the late deciders, what's not to like?

    Rubio, barring a serious glitch at Thursday's debate, will start polling in the mid to upper 20s pretty much everywhere, maybe in the low 20's in parts of the south.

    I am more and more thinking he could be competitive in several states and maybe even win VA on ST.


    Parent

    We'll see. (none / 0) (#122)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 07:23:59 PM EST
    I don't think that's a forgone conclusion yet.

    I think voters have to be convinced he can win first.  The chattering class has been more tepid than I expected so far.

    Parent

    Probably (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 07:30:28 PM EST
    oppo research dump causing them to cool on him maybe. I read that he has some really large skeletons but I don't know if that's just rumors or if there is any truth to it.

    Parent
    That's what I hear too. (none / 0) (#125)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 07:33:46 PM EST
    And one gets the sense there's really juicy stuff we've heard nothing about so far.

    Parent
    The (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 07:46:50 PM EST
    anybody but Trump crowd is running out of options.

    I admit the Rubio has a very good chance of having another debate meltdown that could possibly doom him. If he has a good night tonight I expect Trump to a least try to get under his skin on Thursday, maybe even team up with Cruz and go all out on him(they are always switching sides in wrassling after all). His handlers are going to have a very tense night.

    If he escapes relatively unscathed he should have a good enough ST for the media to declare him a "winner" and keep the dream alive.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 07:50:50 PM EST
    if those polls are right Trump is polling at 50% in NJ and MA.

    And I read an analysis of a poll that said Jeb Bush's voters are not all going to Rubio. They're going to everybody almost equally. So the thinking that he might pick up all of Jeb's voters might be off base.

    Parent

    I could see (none / 0) (#132)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 08:20:58 PM EST
    Kasich getting some of the meager Bush vote in the NE and midwest but Trump or Cruz nada, the last stragglers of the establishment would never go there. In any case  probably not big enough numbers to change the delegate count much if at all.

    The pattern has held with polling showing him rising in the polls just before the vote in IA,NH and SC. The actual vote exceeded the polling in SC and IA, but his becoming a punchline for last three days killed him, certainly driving off the late deciders, probably to Kasich and Bush who both over preformed.

    Parent

    What happens (none / 0) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 08:24:22 PM EST
    when Rubio loses in Florida? I had predicted that was the end of Jeb but it looks like it might be the end of the road for Rubio.

    Parent
    Probably (none / 0) (#135)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 08:56:29 PM EST
    toast but I expect him to soldier on if he has shown some strength elsewhere, especially if Kasich steals Ohio, there is no way Rubio can win if he loses FL and no way that Kasich can win even if he wins Ohio but together, along with Cruz hanging around they might be able to prevent Trump from gaining the first vote nomination.

    Parent
    Look, you beat trump by ... (none / 0) (#141)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 10:27:01 PM EST
    beating Trump. You beat no one by having a better three-point plan. Or having nicer hair. Or being more uniting. Or more suited to the general. And you certainly don't beat the guy in first by beating the guy in second.

    If Rubio did whatever and won Nevada tonight. That would be the best campaign decision he's ever made.  It would be better than all the rehearsed sound bites in the world.

    And until the candidates realize this they have no chance.

    Parent

    I really wish someone can explain why (none / 0) (#100)
    by mm on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 04:51:16 PM EST
    this judge cannot see thru this Judicial Watch bs.

    A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that U.S. State Department officials and aides to Hillary Clinton should be questioned under oath about whether the former secretary of state's private email system was an effort to skirt open records laws.

    U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ordered that the State Department and Judicial Watch, the conservative watchdog group suing the department for records about the employment of a senior Clinton aide, come up with a plan for the depositions and other discovery by April.

    Clinton is vying to become the Democratic Party's presidential candidate ahead of the election this November.

    Her use of a private server in her New York home for her government work is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State Department's internal watchdog and several Republican-controlled congressional committees.

    Last year she apologized for the setup, several months after it came to light last March. She said she broke no rules.

    The State Department said it was reviewing the order but could not comment further on ongoing litigation. The department may appeal the ruling.

    Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch's president, called the ruling "a major victory for the public's right to know the truth about Hillary Clinton's email system." His group will propose that the testimony include former State Department officials, and may also seek to have Clinton give testimony.

    "While Mrs. Clinton's testimony may not be required initially," Fitton said in his statement, "it may happen that her testimony is necessary for the Court to resolve the legal issues about her unprecedented email practices."

     LINK

    If this questioning in the JW case occurs, this (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Green26 on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 06:14:10 PM EST
    would likely force the issue with some of the aides. If the FBI is looking at possible criminal violations by them, as some conservatives have indicated, the aides would have to decide whether to answer questions under oath or take the 5th. If they didn't take the 5th, then it would seem likely that the FBI is not in fact looking at them.

    I have not been following the JW case--other than reading some articles on the rulings--so don't know what's going on there, or know why the judge is ruling the way he's ruling. Obviously, not a good judge for the Clinton side.

    Parent

    I don't know why you keep repeating this tripe. (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 07:01:37 PM EST
    Green26: "If the FBI is looking at possible criminal violations by them, as some conservatives have indicated, the aides would have to decide whether to answer questions under oath or take the 5th."

    The FBI is addressing electronic security concerns in the intra-departmental communications of federal agencies. The Department of Justice has stressed over and again that this is not a criminal probe.

    Yet time and again, you've come here to these threads to allude otherwise, even going so far as to argue with attorneys like BTD, who are obviously far better informed on both the issue and the law than you'll ever be.

    There's really no other explanation for your behavior, other than that you're doing so intentionally for presumed political effect. And so once again, I feel compelled to upbraid you for deliberately trafficking in misinformation. The only effect you're having is upon others' opinion of you.

    You're certainly entitled to your own opinions. However, opinions are not facts, which you're otherwise asserting whenever you insinuate criminal wrongdoing on Mrs. Clinton's part without offering any corresponding substantiation of your own.

    Sorry, but wishful thinking and partisan enmity toward Mrs. Clinton are not evidence of her criminality and guilt, I don't care how many times you and your fellow conservatives click the heels of your ruby slippers together in unison with your eyes wide shut.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Sorry, Donald, but you are not correct. (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Green26 on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 07:33:56 PM EST
    The FBI has not repeatedly said anything, let alone that its investigation is not a criminal probe (particularly recently). Below is what the FBI general counsel said in a letter several weeks ago sent to the State Dept, which filed the letter with the court. This is the most recent information/statement from the FBI.

    Now read these quotes, and the full letter, carefully. It does not support your post. You are confusing what Clinton people have said in the past, not what the FBI has said as recently as this month.

    "... the Bureau has acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server."

    "The FBI has not ... publicly acknowledged the particular focus, scope, or potential targets of any such proceedings."

    Note that it says it has not said anything about potential targets.

    "Thus, while the FBI's response to you have changed to some degree due to these intervening events, we remain unable to provide the requested information without adversely affecting on-going law enforcement efforts."

    Note the term "on-going law enforcement efforts".

    Link to full Feb. 2 letter of FBI general counsel.

    If BT or anyone wants to comment, I'd love to see what they have to say. However, I will mention that I have talked to some of our white collar lawyers, and I know what they think.

    Parent

    That letter says absolutely nothing of the kind. (none / 0) (#138)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 09:46:55 PM EST
    All the FBI Chief Counsel James Baker's letter to State Dept. Counsel Mary MacLeod says is that he is not at liberty to either discuss or disclose any details of the agency's ongoing inquiry, in response to her request for information as it might relate to the ongoing Judicial Watch civil suit. Period.

    So, once again, you're backhandedly alleging that criminal wrongdoing has occurred here without any foundation whatsoever for doing so, other than your own personal willingness to engage in such disreputable tactics.

    It's long been clear to me that you're driving a personal agenda here and being intellectually dishonest, as is the case with most of your fellow GOPers these days. Or, you've OD'd on AM squawk radio BS and are no longer able to discern truth from fiction. Doesn't matter one way or another to me, because I'm through discussing this matter with you.

    In the meantime, I'd suggest that you re-acquaint yourself with Jeralyn's rules about trolling. As a criminal defense counsel, I doubt that she would appreciate your smearing of Hillary Clinton in this roundabout manner with unsubstantiated allegations and innuendo. Because again, you're misrepresenting your own wishful thinking as thought it's somehow rooted in fact. And it's not.

    Not. Even. Close.

    Parent

    Donald, the FBI letter provides zero support (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Green26 on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 12:13:07 AM EST
    for you. It actually undercuts your statements. I find it interesting that you can't see or admit that.

    As for trolling, I have never trolled and never will. I will guarantee you that Jeralyn will never say I troll. She may disagree, and she has corrected me a time or too, but will never support you on the troll thing. In fact, I don't think either Jeralyn or BT will provide you much support for what you tried to say today.

    Again, I would be happy to see comments from them or anyone on what I said. I work for a large law firm. I have had significant experience with white collar criminal stuff and big time criminal law issues. I don't think Clinton will be indicted, but I think there is a decent chance that her aides will have issues and other stuff may come out that affects her campaign. I am a Clinton supporter but I am a bit nervous.

    I am sorry that you and some others on TL are too partisan to even have a discussion. I hope you are right that nothing comes of the emails/server or anything related. The Repubs and Sanders have noting to offer. Clinton is the clear choice.

    Parent

    Scares the hell out of them (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 06:17:57 AM EST
    I am sorry that you and some others on TL are too partisan to even have a discussion.

    Now, the partisan judge sitting on the Judicial Watch case was a Clinton appointee.

    That case , the depositions will be why was the server and e mail address set up, and why the State Department sent replies to FOIA requests that there was no information, when they all knew that the information was safely locked away on Hillarys server.
    So, will Pagliano take the 5th in Court?

    Another big Drip...Drip...Drip


    Parent

    You (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 06:36:04 AM EST
    guys make me laugh. Your hero Klayman was in front of the White House at a KKK rally screaming for Obama to reject Islam.

    And your guy Rubio has gone down along with your guy Christie.

    You've been close to 100% wrong in all your predictions but hey, that hasn't kept you from making them.

    Embrace the Klayman! He's the perfect representative of the modern GOP. You'll turn even more potential voters off of the GOP.

    Parent

    Who is Klayman (none / 0) (#161)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 06:54:08 AM EST
    ??????????

    Parent
    The (none / 0) (#163)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 06:57:28 AM EST
    head of Judicial Watch the guy that filing all this stuff. Embrace the Klayman Trevor. He even sued his own mother. LOL.

    Parent
    Am not familiar (none / 0) (#167)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:04:00 AM EST
    With him. Families often have spats.

    This particular lawsuit has relevance,

    Why did the State Dept reply to FOIA requests, there is no information requested,

    When they damn well knew all the stuff requested was on Madame Sec server.

    This particular lawsuit is designed to determine who sent out those FOIA replies, why did they respond in that fashion, when everyone in the State Dept Upper admin knew Hillary kept all her correspondence on a private  server. News organizations also have a number of lawsuits similar to this one pending. You know, those right wing news organizations such as AP

    Parent

    Here you (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:11:10 AM EST
    go: Larry Klayman

    Read it and weep.

    Parent

    Klayman (none / 0) (#171)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:08:24 AM EST
    is the one filing all these suits. The suits you are thinking are wonderful and enlightening. Embrace the Klayman Trevor. The guy spent time trying to prove that Obama was ineligible for office. He's a birther among every other crackpot thing. I mean there's a long, long list of the nonsense he's done. Apparently he is very good at fleecing the rubes as you are showing in your post.

    This lawsuit is no more relevant than any of the others Klayman has filed. He's always filing lawsuits and you thinking that it has relevance is showing how masterful he is at fleecing conspiracy theorists like yourself.

    Parent

    What Klayman has done (none / 0) (#196)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 09:36:19 AM EST
    in the past or who he is, was or will be....

    has nothing to do with this suit.

    Starting to hear footsteps, eh?

    Parent

    Here's the thing (none / 0) (#110)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 06:27:28 PM EST
    President Obama has not once, but at least twice,  publicly and tacitly endorsed HRC.  Do you HONESTLY think he would have done that  (or, as we all suspect) talked Joe Biden out of running if there was even a SCINTILLA of a chance that this was going to be a legal problem for HRC or someone closely connected to her?

    Parent
    it just feels wrong (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by mm on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 06:47:31 PM EST
    Judicial Watch has been harassing Hillary Clinton for years and they've been on a complete fishing expedition with these emails and the judge just gave them license to continue with their harassment taking it right into the election season.

    Isn't there a word for this type of abuse of the legal system?

    Parent

    Unfortunately, the judge giving (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by NYShooter on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 08:18:45 PM EST
    "...them license to continue with their harassment," was appointed to his position by none other than that famous crackpot, President, Bill Clinton, Hillary's sometimes bunk buddy.  

    Parent
    Judges aren't good at stooge-duty, (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 05:22:37 AM EST
    The textbook example: the three Nixon appointees who voted Nixon under the bus in the unanimous United States v. Nixon tape case.

    The President wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment.[4] - Nixon attorney Jeffrey St. Clair to Judge John Sirica (D.C.District)

    (Holy Flashback, Batman, I'd forgotten that name!)

    Parent

    He's (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 08:22:34 PM EST
    not the only judge that has let this crackpot proceed. If the GOP wants to continue to support this insane guy shopping all kinds of conspiracy theories that is up to them. Unless he continues to sue he's not going to be able to raise money off fleecing the rubes. It's a gig he's got and has been doing it for years. I think he even was suing Obama over his birth certificate.

    Parent
    that means nothing to me (none / 0) (#147)
    by mm on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 04:59:45 AM EST
    was appointed to his position by none other than that famous crackpot, President, Bill Clinton, Hillary's sometimes bunk buddy.  

    nor does your gratuitous snide comment about Secretary Clinton's marital relations.

    The fact is this is a clear vindictive abuse of the legal process by a known racist lunatic, Larry Klayman and his organization largely funded by extreme right wing billionaires.

    This is a fishing expedition with no proffer of proof by JD.  And this judge has now set a completely unique standard for Secretary Clinton.

    "federal employees routinely manage their email and `self-select' their work-related messages" when they delete personal emails from government email accounts
    .

    The FOIA by JD has been complied with.  The unprecedented release of every single work related email to or from Secretary Clinton is ongoing.  Judicial Watch has no right to go digging through her personal emails as well.

    On Tuesday, Sullivan said he might also at some point direct the State Department to subpoena Clinton, Abedin or others to return all of the emails sent and received from Clinton's personal email system, not merely those they or their attorneys have deemed work-related and submitted to the State Department.

    The suggestion was an ominous sign for Clinton that 31,000 emails she has said were purely personal and deleted could make their way into the public realm.



    Parent
    Hillary (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 06:49:47 PM EST
    can handle it. Larry Klayman sued his own mother. Suing people is what he does though I'm surprised that the courts let crackpots like him continue. He has been thrown out of court a number of times by judges though for his crack pottery.

    Parent
    Feh (none / 0) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 06:45:21 PM EST
    let them obsess about it. It's the only thing Republicans have going for them these days.

    And if they want to think that a crackpot who stood outside the White House screaming for Obama to renounce Islam is a legitimate legal scholar go for it.

    The more money the idiots in the GOP dump down this money pit the less money they have to spend on their own candidates.

    Parent

    jbindc, do you think Obama is being advised (none / 0) (#118)
    by Green26 on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 07:08:53 PM EST
    of what the FBI investigation is finding or doing?
    Do you think that the FBI investigation has evolved over time? Why do you think the FBI investigation is taking so long?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#119)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 07:13:30 PM EST
    I think the president has some clue as to what is going on with his former Secretary of State and the investigation into her emails (but not her, as the FBI has repeatedly said).

    I think the FBI is trying to be thorough, lest they be accused of playing politics. And maybe it's taking so long because they don't really have many people on it and there are lots of documents to go through - she did turn over tens of thousands of documents.  And maybe, the cynical part of me says it's taking so long so it looks they are being even more thorough - who knows? They could be done and no there's no "there there", but in order to look like they aren't trying to clear this before she gets the nomination, they're sitting on it.

    Parent

    Short answer (none / 0) (#155)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 06:19:33 AM EST
    No
    And most likely he knows better than to ask

    Parent
    Knows better (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 06:36:19 AM EST
    then to ask? He's the ultimate boss of the FBI he has every right and even the duty to ask about any actions being taken by the FBI. It's the FBI's absolute duty to provide him with any info he asks for.

    Parent
    These (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 06:41:24 AM EST
    commenters are perfect examples of why the GOP is in the mess it is today. Facts and critical thinking is completely lost on them. It's all about whacked out conspiracy theories, baseless speculation and crazed predictions.

    I find it hysterical that they are embracing the Klayman.

    Parent

    As the President (none / 0) (#162)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 06:57:01 AM EST
    So sagely has said before

    He will let the process play out

    The Director of the FBI will inform him when the investigation has expanded, as it has

    But as to details, No.

    They will inform him him when they are nearing conclusion, and what they expect their recommendations to be.

    Parent

    You have (none / 0) (#164)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 06:59:20 AM EST
    been shopping conspiracy theories about this for months. You have to realize that people like you were predicting Bill Clinton was going to be indicted for Whitewater every week for years. At this point you've cried wolf so many times that nobody listens to you.

    Parent
    Conspiracy theory? (none / 0) (#170)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:06:21 AM EST
    I have stated 1 problem for Madame Sec,

    Her e mail address and server.

    And that is far far far from being over.

    It is actually expanding and growing.

    That is the only WOLF I have cried, and it may soon be at your door.

    Parent

    The FBI (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 08:01:43 AM EST
    has already stated that there was no crime committed in having a private server. There is no there there. However I'm sure that's not going to make you quit your baseless speculation. If you read my link Klayman has been deposing people for decades. As a matter of fact he spent 15 years filing suits about "filegate" deposing people etc. to no avail. This is just another thing that is a win win for him because it gets people like you to give him money and think there's something there when there is not. It's also a loss for the GOP since they keep wishin' and hopin' that something is going to save their sorry butts from getting kicked instead of you know actually doing the hard work of modernizing the party.

    Parent
    It's harrassment, plain and simple (none / 0) (#180)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:29:32 AM EST
    to bleed off the "enemy's" strength, resources, attention, reputation, maybe even a few votes.

    The flip side is that it preoccupies her attackers.  The more time they waste attacking Clinton, the less time they have to examine their own highly flawed candidates.

    It's win-win for whoever keeps this bs going.

    Parent

    If what you're saying is (none / 0) (#169)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:05:30 AM EST
    Obama is not interfering with the process - I agree.  But if you think for one minute his handlers would let him go out and not once, but TWICE tacitly endorse HRC without knowing what is going on, then you are out of your mind.

    Parent
    I don't think (none / 0) (#174)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:12:20 AM EST
    This Director would tell him, well there is a 50% chance of indictment. He will tell him when they are ready to either recommend or not recommend indictment.
    This is the Director that when as a assistant stopped Ashcroft from reversing himself in a hospital bed

    He will stand up to political pressure

    White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and President Bush's chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., were on their way to the hospital to persuade Ashcroft to reauthorize Bush's domestic surveillance program, which the Justice Department had just determined was illegal.

    In vivid testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Comey said he alerted FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and raced, sirens blaring, to join Ashcroft in his hospital room, arriving minutes before Gonzales and Card. Ashcroft, summoning the strength to lift his head and speak, refused to sign the papers they had brought. Gonzales and Card, who had never acknowledged Comey's presence in the room, turned and left.



    Parent
    You're missing the point (none / 0) (#181)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:46:03 AM EST
    As usual.

    Say you're right - the President has no idea how the investigation is going.  Then he wouldn't have tacitly endorsed her to begin with and would have stayed silent in the first place.  He wouldnt have talked Biden out of running.  His people would not be working to get her elected, etc.  Don't you see that?

    But keep dreaming there, big guy.

    Parent

    Nixon hung with his (none / 0) (#192)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 09:27:08 AM EST
    team right to the end.

    Parent
    Their (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 05:26:36 PM EST
    cases have been thrown out of court numerous times already but they keep trying. Judicial Watch is a crackpot organization and suing over some BS is what they do.

    Parent
    One phone.... (none / 0) (#102)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 05:01:09 PM EST
    or 13, who's counting?

    Saul (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 05:22:33 PM EST
    The world is a rich tapestry my friends.   But trust me, you don't want to see it."

    Parent
    Squat cobbler (none / 0) (#130)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 08:15:25 PM EST
    Maybe it's like Hellmann's Mayonnaise, it has a different name west of the Rockies."

    Parent
    Cnn presidential townhall (none / 0) (#129)
    by AnnL on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 07:53:15 PM EST
    How is it Bernie always goes first? Student asks Bernie about black colleges I really free college. Not an elegant response

    Bernie has an earlier bedtime (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 09:35:00 PM EST
    Okay that was uncalled for.

    Parent
    But it gets a cheap laugh. (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 10:01:14 PM EST
    At least it got one from me, anyway. I like cheap laughs. And if you do, too, check out last night's rapid fire take-down of John Kasich by Samantha Bee. If we had more of that, maybe politicians would be less inclined to take themselves so seriously.

    Parent
    Just 3.8% of precincts reporting (none / 0) (#142)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 11:25:40 PM EST
    and they've already called it for Trump.

    Tune in later to hear (none / 0) (#143)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 23, 2016 at 11:35:16 PM EST
    Marco Rubio give another speech on how he won again by not winning (again).

    Parent
    With 96% in (none / 0) (#165)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:01:04 AM EST
    Donald 46%
    Marco 24%
    Ted 21%

    And low singles

    Well, thank god  he will never get to 50%.    At least we don't have to worry about that.

    Parent

    At this (none / 0) (#166)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:03:33 AM EST
    point it definitely looks like Donald is going to be the nominee. I expect his numbers to start rising here in GA and in other places. I'm not surprised that he did that well in NV. I mean Trump is a casino guy and as we all know casinos rule Vegas.

    Parent
    Really?? (none / 0) (#197)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 09:39:44 AM EST
    I mean Trump is a casino guy and as we all know casinos rule Vegas.

    The black SUV's just left the Mirage....

    ;-)

    Ga, that is the funniest excuse I have ever heard.

    Parent

    The next (none / 0) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:04:39 AM EST
    question in my mind is when does everybody else drop out outside of those three?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:10:27 AM EST
    Very important

    If Marco had their combined 8% he would have come in a MUCH closer second.

    Parent

    That (none / 0) (#175)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:12:39 AM EST
    is also thinking that Marco would get that 8% of which I'm not exactly sure. Rubio was supposed to get Bush's voters but it has not ended up that way.

    Parent
    30% (none / 0) (#183)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 08:07:07 AM EST
    would have allowed the media to declare Rubio one of the "winners" on the night. The little bit of CNN coverage this morning gave him more of a loser vibe.

    Rubio needs one win on ST but his odds of getting one just got much longer. Va, Mn and Co are his only chances, but in any case he will probably get enough delegates to pretend he is still in the race.

    Cruz is probably still poised to win in Tx but it will need to be huge to have any real bearing on the over all race and he probably stays in thru 3/15 in any case probably longer if the money is still there.

    Carson probably stays in for the grift for at least a week. Kasich probably needs one or two low double digits(Mn, Va, Ma, VT) and/or a continued tepid showing by Rubio and he will continue hoping for an upset in Ohio.

    Parent

    Marco (none / 0) (#184)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 08:12:06 AM EST
    Is going to win the VP contest.

    Ted is a walking dead man.  I think he could lose TX.  But even if not.....

    Carson will stay in long enough to make sure of that.

    Parent

    Rubio's (none / 0) (#187)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 08:19:49 AM EST
    main problem it seems is that he's the leftover candidate not the candidate of anyone. Trump has a constituency. Cruz has a constituency. Rubio has whatever is left over from those two. Apparently leftovers are enough to run close with Cruz but I'm not sure they're ever going to be enough to win anywhere. Frankly I don't think Rubio has any shot in VA nor CO where the GOP is heavily evangelical. Maybe MN but even there I'm not sure.

    Parent
    I think Marco's (none / 0) (#193)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 09:30:43 AM EST
    Constituency is roughly half the Republican Party.  That group is just not winning many elections this year.  So far.
    So, maybe they can slide one in with the deal maker.

    Whatever.

     I'm pretty sure Donald has made a deal with Dr Carson.  Like, stay in long enough to kill Cruz and I will give you a cabinet position like Secretary of Thinkin About Stuff.

    Parent

    No Right to Video Cops? (none / 0) (#156)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 06:32:04 AM EST
    Friday's federal trial court decision in Fields v. City of Philadelphia takes a different, narrower approach: There is no constitutional right to videorecord police, the court says, when the act of recording is unaccompanied by "challenge or criticism" of the police conduct. (The court doesn't decide whether there would be such a right if the challenge or criticism were present.) Therefore, the court held, simply "photograph[ing] approximately twenty police officers standing outside a home hosting a party" and "carr[ying] a camera" to a public protest to videotape "interaction between police and civilians during civil disobedience or protests" wasn't protected by the First Amendment.
    "Trump Shatters the Republican Party" (none / 0) (#160)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 06:45:11 AM EST
    You had me at the headline.

    Waiting for a Miracle (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:23:41 AM EST
    Ah I don't believe you'd like it,
    You wouldn't like it here.
    There ain't no entertainment
    and the judgements are severe.
    The Maestro says it's Mozart
    but it sounds like bubble gum
    when you're waiting
    for the miracle, for the miracle to come.

    Waiting for the miracle
    There's nothing left to do.
    I haven't been this happy
    since the end of World War II.

    Nothing left to do
    when you know that you've been taken.
    Nothing left to do
    when you're begging for a crumb
    Nothing left to do
    when you've got to go on waiting
    waiting for the miracle to come.

    --

    Nothing left to do ...

    When you've fallen on the highway
    and you're lying in the rain,
    and they ask you how you're doing
    of course you'll say you can't complain --
    If you're squeezed for information,
    that's when you've got to play it dumb:
    You just say you're out there waiting
    for the miracle, for the miracle to come.

    LEONARD

    Parent

    The GOP Nevada Post-Mortem (none / 0) (#176)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:18:08 AM EST
    With 22 of the 30 delegates from Nevada assigned thus far, Carson lost less ground to Rubio than Rubio lost to Trump.

    Rubio ekes out a 2nd place finish over Cruz, but in the delegate allocation as of this morning he finished in a tie with Cruz.

    In 17 different voting districts, Trump won 15, Cruz won 2, Rubio won nothing.

    Hardly any Hispanics voted in the GOP caucus but of those that did Trump won the vote.

    The GOP now has a short break. The Dems rock n roll on Saturday in South Carolina.

    Latest SC RCP avg, Clinton +24
    538 projections:
    Clinton's chance of winning >99%
    Expected win total: Clinton +33

    It was "big" (none / 0) (#178)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:25:26 AM EST
    Donald alone got more votes than than the total cast last time

    Definitely "big"

    Parent

    Don't get carried away (none / 0) (#185)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 08:14:16 AM EST
    Trump received about the same number of votes statewide as there are students at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas. In one of the counties won by Cruz only one half of one percent of the population bothered to show up.

    If my numbers are correct, Trump garnered the vote of approximately 1.2% of the population of Nevada.

    Caucuses...Democracy at its finest.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#186)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 08:17:25 AM EST
    No argument.   At all.

    But my earlier point was republicans are turning out in record numbers time after time.

    'swhat happened.  Record turnout.   Maybe a sucky joke of a record but a record still.

    Parent

    Considering the relatively low turnout (none / 0) (#188)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 08:28:33 AM EST
    by democrats, down 50% from '08 was how I saw it spun.


    Parent
    It's (none / 0) (#179)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:26:31 AM EST
    completely ironic that the supposed "rising star" can't do any better than he is in the GOP primary.

    I guess he will be out after Florida. I imagine Cruz will maybe be in longer since he at least has a chance to win a delegate rich state-Texas.

    Parent

    With 100 (none / 0) (#189)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 08:55:03 AM EST
    percent now reporting in NV it's

    Trump 46.1
    Rubio 24
    Cruz 21.5
    Carson 4.8
    Kasich 3.6

    If Carson is beating Kasich I have to wonder if he's even going to make it until the Ohio primary.

    My (none / 0) (#194)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 09:33:37 AM EST
    understanding is that Kasich spent very little time or effort in NV, I am guessing he is putting a lot of effort in MN.

    Parent
    Yes, he will (none / 0) (#195)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 09:34:30 AM EST
    He spent the last few days in Georgia and Virginia (ignored Nevada). His SuperPac "New Day for America" has bought a chunk of TV ad time for Super Tuesday which I suspect will attack Rubio.

    Parent
    I would (none / 0) (#198)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 09:49:31 AM EST
    think he would be better served in VA, if there is anyplace that the mythical establishment base exists anymore it has to be in the northern Va-DC suburbs.

    Parent
    It wouldn't matter, even (none / 0) (#203)
    by NYShooter on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:39:21 PM EST
    if Rubio, somehow, won this election.

    Ga6th has written thousands of comments regarding Rubio, each one identical (slight punctuation changes maybe) each one dripping with hatred of the man.

    If he managed to win this one, her first post would be, "sure, but I'm not hearing a single person saying they'd vote for his reelection."

    Disagreeing is fine, obsession isn't.

    Shooter (none / 0) (#204)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 08:20:23 PM EST
    Rubio has said he wants me to be turned into a birthing slave. Yes, I detest the guy.

    Georgia, guess what? (none / 0) (#205)
    by NYShooter on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 09:27:45 PM EST
    I detest the guy too.

    So, never mind.

    Tuesday Open Thread | 205 comments (205 topical)