home

Tuesday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 10:07:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Your turn. All topics welcome.

< Time's ShortList for Person of the Year | 35 Years Ago Tonight: Remembering John Lennon >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tuesday Open Thread | 209 comments (209 topical)
    Early Christmas presents... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:43:45 AM EST
    from Mother Nature & OPEC...300 bucks for 160 gallons of heating oil over the weekend, with December temps holding with daily highs in the 50's.  Oh baby, that's what I like...

    Now I can squeeze a ducat outta the holiday austerity budget to see Grace Potter & The Nocturnals Thursday night.  If I was from Paris, I'd say Oh la la la la la la la.  

    but but but but....don't you know the (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:59:22 AM EST
    earth is burning???

    Just watched the Weather Channel for maybe 3 minutes...from the tone of their forecasts you would believe people were dying..

    Parent

    Other parts of the world... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 10:29:51 AM EST
    are f*cked...my little pocket is liking this climate change and OPEC's attempt to derail the North American shale business;)  

    Well, at least until the Atlantic takes back my island, then it's off to the Catskills if I'm still breathing then....or go all Kevin Costner in Waterworld.

    Parent

    I'm thinking (none / 0) (#55)
    by CST on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 10:32:55 AM EST
    We'll just have to build canals.  Because driving in Boston isn't f*cked enough as it is.

    Parent
    We'll take back... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 10:40:30 AM EST
    the name New Amsterdam, you guys can have New Venice, once we're all canalled up.

    The totally submerged areas can be rechristened New Atlantis.

    Parent

    Just remember, Dog (none / 0) (#66)
    by Zorba on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 11:04:48 AM EST
    We live up here on top of a mountain.
    We can teach you how to clean a fish and dress a deer.
    And grow your own food.

    Parent
    Or... (none / 0) (#72)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 11:20:29 AM EST
    ...we can all move the second largest country in the world, Canada.  All that empty sub zero wilderness will soon be just like the northern parts of the US.  Hudson Bay will be the new Gulf of Mexico.

    Parent
    The largest country in the world, actually (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 11:24:28 AM EST
    I thought it was the largest, with a population smaller than California.   If you have a job or a skill Canada wants you.  I investigated.  It quite easy.   You just fill out the papers.  They allow dual citizenship.  The US does not recognize your Canadian citizenship unless you give up the US citizenship.

    Parent
    I would do it in a heartbeat. (none / 0) (#88)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 11:54:03 AM EST
    "The US does not recognize your Canadian citizenship unless you give up the US citizenship."


    Parent
    What's stopping you? (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 12:21:36 PM EST


    Parent
    My buddy had a dickens of a time... (none / 0) (#101)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 01:18:14 PM EST
    trying to relocate to Canada...married a Canadian citizen, they let him in the country as a resident but wouldn't let him work legally.  I guess he lacked the required special skills.  It was one of the nails in the coffin of the marriage, he's divorced now and back in Jersey.

    I thought Canada was cooler than that...but I guess no country is truly cool in this regard.

    Parent

    No offense (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 01:28:16 PM EST
    Did he have a criminal record ?  I've heard that can be a problem.  But everyone I talked to said it was very easy but I have/had a pretty specialized skill set and a pretty high income.  At the time.

    Parent
    Offense? (none / 0) (#107)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 01:48:52 PM EST
    This is America Jack, a criminal record just proves you walked the earth at one point...who would consider that question offensive? ;)

    Not sure but a petty marijuana offense is always a possibility, being a friend of mine.  Definitely nothing you'd call a real crime...he's salt of the earth.  I can't say I know all the details of his particular case, just that he wasn't allowed to work in Canada. This is within the last two years.    

    Parent

    That's why I asked (none / 0) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 02:10:27 PM EST
    Being one f us.  I was told even a minor drug offense could be a problem.  That was just in cnversations not from any official source.

    Parent
    Turtle Island.. (none / 0) (#90)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 12:14:16 PM EST
    I like that.

    Parent
    Canals galore down here... (none / 0) (#113)
    by fishcamp on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 03:08:09 PM EST


    Parent
    Canals up here this week too fish (none / 0) (#129)
    by CoralGables on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 04:38:45 PM EST
    but they are running down 6 lane roads. Rain for December in Miami up 1600% over average thus far.

    Parent
    If there is a upside (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 10:43:16 AM EST
    It's that the iceberg our resident trollerbear is sitting on is shrinking.  Fast.

    EXXON-MOBIL predicts dire consequences of climate change

    Parent

    I love the headline from WAPO (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 11:58:03 AM EST
    the other day: "Even Exxon Mobil Says Climate Change is Real. So, Why Won't Republicans?"

    Parent
    Has Exon Mobil (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 12:43:45 PM EST
    introduced you to their wind and solar divisions??

    lol

    ...the most sensible action would be a revenue-neutral tax on carbon -- in other words, a tax on oil, gas and coal, with the proceeds returned to taxpayers for them to spend as they choose.

    Less, of course, the standard 99% handling fee.

    The only taxes corps don't like is any tax they can't pass on to the customer.

    With no government action, Exxon experts told us during a visit to The Post last week, average temperatures are likely to rise by a catastrophic (my word, not theirs) 5 degrees Celsius, with rises of 6, 7 or even more quite possible.

    And the predictions have always been just soooooo correct.

    Oh  wait...

    Parent

    Thanks Obama! (none / 0) (#157)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 06:05:50 PM EST
    Wanted to beat Jim to the punch in thanking Obama for insanely inexpensive gasoline :)

    Parent
    Greenpeace Exposes Sceptics Hired (5.00 / 5) (#114)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 03:19:32 PM EST
    ...to cast doubt on on climate science.

    Over the course of their investigation, Greenpeace posed as the representative of a Middle Eastern oil and gas company and an Indonesian Coal company. In the guise of a Beirut-based business consultant they asked William Happer , the Cyrus Fogg Brackett professor of physics at Princeton University, to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions, according to email exchanges between the professor and the fake company.

    ...
    Also, in an email exchange with the fake business representative, Happer acknowledges that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal - the gold-standard process for quality scientific publication whereby work is assessed by anonymous expert reviewers. "I could submit the article to a peer-reviewed journal, but that might greatly delay publication and might require such major changes in response to referees and to the journal editor that the article would no longer make the case that CO2 is a benefit, not a pollutant, as strongly as I would like, and presumably as strongly as your client would also like," he wrote.

    He suggested an alternative process whereby the article could be passed around handpicked reviewers. "Purists might object that the process did not qualify as a peer review," he said. "I think it would be fine to call it a peer review."

    Greenpeace said its investigation demonstrated how, unbeknownst to the public, the fossil fuel industry could inject paid-for views about climate change into the international debate, confusing the public and blocking prospects for strong action to avoid dangerous warming.


    ...
    Such practices are receiving greater scrutiny in academic circles after it emerged that Dr Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who rejects mainstream climate science, was financed almost entirely by fossil fuel companies and lobby groups and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers. The Smithsonian launched an investigation.

    It's so unimaginable to me that for a fairly small fee opinions can be interjected into the realm of science.  They are playing fast and loose with the Earth's future for a couple bucks.

    This was very common (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by CoralGables on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 04:58:19 PM EST
    after the Gulf oil spill. BP tried to hire the Marine Science Department at the University of South Florida to write positive spin on the spill.

    Parent
    Gosh and gee (none / 0) (#179)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 07:50:59 PM EST
    You mean that special interest groups will seek to influence the dialogue?

    I do declare. What else will happen??

    Next thing you know someone will refuse to provide the source data for review or claim to have lost it!


    In early May, a study published in the journal Nature Climate Change purported to support a key EPA claim about its forthcoming global warming rules aimed at coal-fired power plants. The New York Times' headline, "EPA Emissions Plan Will Save Thousands of Lives, Study Finds," typified the media coverage.

    snip

    Study co-author Charles Driscoll of Syracuse University told the Buffalo News, "I'm an academic, not a politician. I don't have a dog in this fight." The claim of independence was also emphatically asserted by study co-author Jonathan Buonocore of Harvard University. "The EPA, which did not participate in the study or interact with its authors, Buonocore says, roundly welcomed its findings." [Emphasis added].

    snip

    An online search of EPA's web site revealed that Syracuse's Driscoll has previously involved as a principal investigator in studies that received over $3.6 million in research grants from EPA. Co-author Dallas Burtraw, a researcher at the think tank Resources for the Future, had been involved in previous EPA grants totaling almost $2 million. Harvard co-author Jonathan I. Levy had been involved in over $9.5 million worth of grants. Co-author Joel Schwartz, also of Harvard, had been previously involved in over $31 million worth of grants from EPA.

    Are we to believe that a group of researchers who had previously received some $45 million in grants from EPA, no doubt hoping for more in the future, could possibly not have any dog in this fight? It's probably not necessary to ask how this slipped past the incurious mainstream media.

    Link

    . We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

    Say what?! CRU has lost track of the original data that it uses to create its global temperature record!?

    Link

    How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d'être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

    It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

    So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it...

    I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people's motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don't think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club

    .

    Link

    Parent

    Didn't read a word (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:48:45 PM EST


    Parent
    That was in reply (none / 0) (#204)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:39:17 PM EST
    to Jim's long skid mark up above.

    Parent
    Didn't read a word (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:49:10 PM EST


    Parent
    From the documentary Climate Hustle (none / 0) (#180)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 07:55:48 PM EST
    One of the most powerful sections of the documentary is the one where various scientists and academics who have dared speak the truth about global warming describe how they have suddenly found themselves ostracised by their peers.

    Among them is Judith Curry, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, who describes CVqdkm2U4AE3QbDhow she lost her faith in the alarmist establishment at the time of the Climategate emails, when climate scientists were caught red-handed in emails conspiring to withhold scientific information from their peers. She was subsequently branded a heretic.

    Another one is Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. She was viciously traduced and ostracised by her peers for questioning so-called "consensus" climate science. In the film she draws parallels with witchcraft trials in 13th century France where witchcraft was declared the most urgent threat to mankind of all and where anyone who dared CVsVn0JWsAAzuSLdisagree ran the risk of being declared a sorcerer and rejected - or worse - by mainstream society.

    Another is Caleb Rossiter, a left-leaning statistician at American University, who spoke out against the alarmists when he discovered that their statistics were junk and that the measures being introduced to "combat" climate change were harming the world's poorest. For his troubles, Rossiter had his fellowship at the US Institute for Policy Studies terminated.

    By the end of this jaunty, likeable, fact-rich journey through the history of the "global warming" the viewer will be left in no doubt that climate change is one of the most egregious political and scientific hoaxes in history.

    Parent

    Fer f$&ks sake (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 07:59:45 PM EST

    Climate change denier Marc Morano of the fossil-fuel funded Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) will feature a new "documentary film" called "Climate Hustle" in his latest attempt to promote his destructive climate change denial agenda. The film is due to be shown to a public audience for the first time on December 7 at the Cinéma du Panthéon in Paris at the same time as the upcoming United Nations climate talks.

    "While Climate Hustle claims to feature interviews with scientists, Morano fails to explain that these characters are not among the respected mainstream climate science community, but rather a collection of washed-up scientists with no expertise in climate science, or a biased view based on ideological or industry-funded bias," writes DeSmogBlog, which has created a new website "Climate Hustler" to expose the truth about the film and Morano's climate change denial.



    Parent
    What more do need to know about (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:23:25 PM EST
    the level of integrity and the willingness to brazenly insult the intelligence of the public beyond the fact that the best person they could think to hire to front their movement is an ex fulltime political dirty trickster and Swift Boater like Morano..

    I mean Jesus, why didn't they just hire Sean Hannity to lend some genuine scientific credibility to the proceedings..

    It would almost be funny if wasn't so pathetic on multiple levels.

    Parent

    Honest to god (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:25:45 PM EST
    And still we have to read it here.  At TalkLEFT

    Parent
    Lol (none / 0) (#182)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:06:36 PM EST
    So writes the DeSmog Blog.

    They did get 1 thing right

     feature interviews with scientists,

    Real accredited scientists

    I guess the Salem witch trials are back

    Or perhaps we are revisiting the the Catholic Church some several hundred years ago
    Persecute the deniers.

    Somehow, that doesn't sound scientific to me.

    Parent

    I take back what I said (none / 0) (#184)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:11:28 PM EST
    About smarter

    Parent
    that part about the "powerful sections" (none / 0) (#189)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:26:19 PM EST
    are your words, Trevor?

    Like the other night when you were telling us about "the award winning Climate Depot"?

    Parent

    Pathetic tool ... (none / 0) (#183)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:09:51 PM EST

    After decades of financing political groups to attack the science of climate change and the scientists conducting the research, ExxonMobil is embroiled in scandal.

    This follows revelations from InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times that Exxon not only recognized climate change as fact -- and its roots in fossil fuel use -- but spent millions on scientific studies of our global climate system. After Exxon buried the evidence and waged an advertising and public relations campaign to deny the science, the company coordinated and financed several groups to confuse the public.

    One of these groups is Marc Morano's employer, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) which pays him a $150,000 annual salary. CFACT and Exxon -- along with Chevron, coal utility Southern Company and a number of other front groups -- forged a plan in 1998 at the American Petroleum Institute that they continue to follow in 2015.

    The "Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan" involved placing scientists who appeared independent at these front groups, financed by coal, oil, car and other industrial corporations to make public relations sound like science to reporters and the public they report to.

    Morano was at a critical intersection of the strategy: he worked in the office of Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), who remains an outright denier of global warming. Morano's poisonous words are still parroted by Senator Inhofe at every opportunity, who loves to pretend that global warming is disproved every time it snows outside.

    Morano and Inhofe have capitalized on America's scientific ignorance. While public relations consultants like Morano continue to lie to the public, policymakers like Inhofe are cleared to continue putting polluters before people in Congress, siding with oil and coal companies paying for their elections instead of the people they are elected to represent.

    Will these pitiable enablers ever STFU?   What will it take?  I get why ppj does it.  For the same reason he does most things.  A desperate and sad cry for attention.  You seemed a tiny bit smarter

    Parent

    This (2.00 / 1) (#187)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:25:29 PM EST
    Is supposed to be about science, but it stopped a while ago. To me , it smells.
    East Anglia Climate Gate proved that, have you ever read the e mails.
    Every computer model they have ever come up with has been off, and not by a little bit.
    To me , they have not proven CO2 is a pollutant, (tell that to plant life) and excess CO2 is the biggest cause of warming, in fact they seem to have disproved it. CO2 emissions have consistently risen, but global temperatures have not, not for almost 20 years.
    It is the tone that they have taken that sets me back, DENIER? That is not science, then it becomes dogma, they are defending a religion.
    I do not think the science is settled, I believe that they have no clue on why temperatures have risen, they are so many factors to consider (Solar, Ocean currents, winds, Clouds, and many more)
    I am a skeptic, they just need to prove it

    Parent
    Btw (none / 0) (#185)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:18:42 PM EST
    Here for the third time I've posted this freakin link EXXON-MOBILE warns of catastrophic effects of climate change.

    Now

    Why would they do that?  See above

    Parent

    A puzzle (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 06:22:11 PM EST
    Did you ever notice that Trumos hair is a different color in literally every photograph?

    Even in ones taken the same day or at the same event?  How is that even possible?  It's like magic.

    The texture too (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 07:24:49 PM EST
    Sometimes it looks blurry on the TV like they are hiding something obscene...maybe he really is a di*khead.

    Truly amazing light refracting properties.

    Parent

    ahem . . . in reply to comment #131 (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 11:19:18 PM EST
    about Donald Trump's proposal to "close the Internet":

    Donald Trump: Somebody will say, "Oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech." These are foolish people.

    what have we here?

    Hillary Clinton, speaking at the Brookings Institution on 6 December 2015: We're going to have to have more support from our friends in the technology world to deny online space. . . . And this is complicated. You're going to hear all of the usual complaints, you know, freedom of speech, et cetera.
    Glad we didn't elect McCain in 2008... (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by lentinel on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 07:34:49 AM EST
    God knows..

    We might still be fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    Hell... he might have gotten us embroiled in Syria for heavens sake.

    Donalds Muslim ban is being discussed (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 07:51:17 AM EST
    On Mourning Joe.  The consensus view is that it will not stop him from winning the nomination but it will split the party.  That unless he backs down from the statement, raise your has if you expect that, the party will "kill itself" before allowing him to be the candidate. (Will they?) that the convention would explode and somehow they would stop him. Lots of talk about the convention.  It seems they see that as possibly their last chance to stop him.
    They quoted numbers from Trump supporters and talked to people at the event last night and it was clear this is not a problem with his supporters.
    CG I think I agree.  This just made a convention explosion a lot more likely.

    Why on (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 07:56:28 AM EST
    earth would his Muslim comment split the party? It seems to be the perfect type of thing for the GOP base.

    Parent
    Because (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 07:58:16 AM EST
    This has been universally rejected with a mixture of fear and horror by every republican in the country including Dick Cheney.

    Parent
    They said Paul Ryan (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:01:45 AM EST
    Was expected to come out forcefully against it.  Trump is now officially running against the democratic and Republican Party.  

    Parent
    Paul Ryan? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:04:13 AM EST
    Like that's going to have any effect. You can't spend 8 years demonizing a group of people and then all of a sudden do a 180. Wasn't it just a few weeks ago they were demonizing refugees?

    The polling on the GOP must be deadly for all these people to all of a sudden be doing a 180. This is sheer desperation.

    Parent

    Ga6, you should check your facts on Paul Ryan's (none / 0) (#30)
    by Green26 on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:27:55 AM EST
    position on Muslim immigration. I don't recall him being on the anti side. Doing a quick Google, I didn't see anything either. Let us know if you have any facts to back up your recent statement regarding Ryan's views.

    Parent
    he just came out, and was very powerful (none / 0) (#34)
    by NYShooter on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:39:59 AM EST
    in his denunciation of Trump's position.

    He said, "As Speaker I have not, and will not, comment on the candidates running in the Primary.
    But, for this I will make an exception. "THIS" is not being a Republican, this is not being a Conservative, and, it's not being an American. Right now we have Muslim Americans in uniform in far off lands, fighting and dying for this country. We have Muslims in our schools, in our hospitals, and, even in this House of Representatives.

    (I'm paraphrasing, but you get the drift. Very, visibly, emotional in his comments.)

    Parent

    And then Paul Ryan said, (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 01:40:46 PM EST
    I will support the nominee of the Republican party even if it is Trump.

    Parent
    That says it all, KeysDan (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by christinep on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 05:09:47 PM EST
    Repubs are publicly showing that they have no idea where they are and/or that they don't have the real ba!!s to do anything other than the mildest of belly-aches.

    Parent
    It (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by FlJoe on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 05:24:28 PM EST
    pretty much proves that they are willing to put their party ahead of their country.

    Parent
    Let me know when he and the other (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 04:57:54 PM EST
    Republicans excoriating him say that they won't support him if he's nominated.

    I won't hold my breath.

    Parent

    Well there you have it (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:44:18 AM EST
    Milquetoast Mitts sidekick and Dick the dick Cheney.   Donald is probably smiling.  Or performing some grim and frightening version of that expression.

    Parent
    Ah, what a dilemma for the Repubs (none / 0) (#139)
    by christinep on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 05:06:37 PM EST
    If they are seen as getting too close to Trump, the general election will be more than a tough-sell for that bunch of would-be tiger riders.  If they move too far away and hurt his either real ego or fabricated "I-guess-you-all-are-forcing-me-to-run-as-an-Independent" persona, he can proudly stomp away and probably do better than Perot's performance in 1992.

    Of course, the more mired down in this stuff that the Repubs become, even the general media & pundits are scowling because (as they must know) the false equivalencies always resorted to before no longer can be said with a straight face. It isn't just Rubio who looks like a pretzel today ... the whole Repub bunch does.

    As an example of how tricky it has become for Repub candidates who want to keep different segments together while posturing strength, consider the blandness of Rubio's response today about Trump's offensive proposal for barring Muslims: "I disagree with that."  And ... there is nothing more; no additional anything. That is a paraphrase, but the scramble to have it both ways is getting complicated.

    Parent

    If you notice (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 11:10:48 AM EST
    I said "they" as in an entire party. And I don't think Paul Ryan expended much energy trying to change the minds of the GOP base on that particular subject.

    Parent
    That Sounds Like... (none / 0) (#33)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:38:24 AM EST
    ...someone who might become an independent.

    On the TV they were discussing Trump supporters vs. people who will actually vote for him in the election.  The experts seem to think that voters are far fewer than supporters.

    I have no idea, but since the claim seems to come after he said something just about everyone disagrees with, I am skeptical.

    Parent

    You know (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:02:27 AM EST
    though Donald made a comment in the other thread that I completely agree with. Where was Dick Cheney with this kind of thing when Muslims were being tortured with his own policy? Dick Cheney was saying similar things to Donald when he was VP. I think they are finally having to pay the piper and are freaking out.

    Parent
    Ga6th: Cheney was waltzing with the (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by christinep on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 05:12:17 PM EST
    Saudis and other Mideast oil boys, because he sure is steadfast in knowing what his values are ($$$$$.)

    Parent
    So, how long before Trump takes his bat and (none / 0) (#14)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:17:19 AM EST
    his ball and goes indy?

    And then who gets the GOP nod - Ted Cruz?  Or do we ultimately end up with a Trump/Cruz GOP ticket?

    [that just makes my skin crawl]

    Parent

    Lot of talk about that this morning also (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:22:25 AM EST
    This is what he said he would do "if not treated fairly" the expectation is he will.  Or would.

    If it happens it doesn't matter who the nominee is they will lose.  He will be able to run in at least enough states to throw the election.   Which would be his main purpose.

    Parent

    If Trump ends up going Indy... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:05:23 AM EST
    we'll really be kicking ourselves for not nominating Sanders...it would be a once in a lifetime presidential opportunity!

    Parent
    IMO, no way he runs as an Indy, (none / 0) (#63)
    by NYShooter on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 10:52:34 AM EST
    First of all, he's lazy; do you know how much it will take for anyone to get registered in all 50 States, and, everything else that goes with it? Plus, he may be a jerk, but he's not stupid. He's got to know he won't stand a chance.

    Second, the money. I may know a little more than the average Joe about The Donald. I sat in the same room as him when my bosses were negotiating a real estate deal in Manhattan years ago. He's as different in private as a clown is after the circus closes. Everyone knows he's not worth anywhere near 10 billion. From my perspective he's not worth anywhere near a fraction of a fraction of what he intimates.

    He's rich, but, he's not stinking, filthy rich as the guys I was with, and, worked for. My point, I doubt very much he wants to spend any of his, less than you think, money stash.

    Parent

    I disagree (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 11:00:35 AM EST
    He's more than rich enough.   And if they mess with hm he will spend it all to f@ck them

    Parent
    Not to mention... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 11:06:14 AM EST
    his media pimping (or is it whoring?) means he doesn't have to drop a dime on tv ads...cable news is his free tv ad campaign.  All Donald has to do is keep saying stupid hateful sh&t.

    Parent
    Excellent point (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 11:19:33 AM EST
    Bush has out spent him, according to reports, 335-1 on advertising.   He has not spent a penny on TV.  A 200,000 radio buy is it as far as I know.
    And Scott exactly.  IMO he has expected and planned for this.

    Parent
    Nor Do I Believe Trump is Lazy. (none / 0) (#67)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 11:06:03 AM EST
    It wouldn't surprise me if he had everything ready and could do almost instantaneously.

    Parent
    What would you consider, (none / 0) (#143)
    by NYShooter on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 05:15:39 PM EST
    "rich enough?"

    Parent
    4-11 billion. (none / 0) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 05:26:23 PM EST
    That, IMO, is rich enough.

    Parent
    Perot had a peeved point to make (none / 0) (#148)
    by christinep on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 05:20:11 PM EST
    And, Trump loves to keep talking, hogs the spotlight by inclination.  Trump may not want to exit either stage right or left.  He may view it as "winning" the longer he stays and the more publicity he gets.

    Parent
    That is the absolute best outcome. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 10:44:34 AM EST
    He'll take his sorry excuse for human supporters with him, siphoning off the GOP vote. With decent turnout, will keep the White House Dem, even it does turn out to be HRC.


    Parent
    Basicially (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 07:59:59 AM EST
    the GOP is in a lose/lose proposition. There is nothing they can do to stop Donald without blowing the party up and if they have Donald as the nominee the party blows itself up.

    The self created monster is going to destroy the GOP.

    The thing is what's next? Does there cease to be a GOP and another party takes its place? Or do they actually do something with the ashes and start eliminating their own problems like talk radio and Fox?

    Parent

    As I just said (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:03:24 AM EST
    Scarborough says they will blow it up to stop him.   Judging from the reaction from around the country he coukd be right.  
    No predictions here.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:06:52 AM EST
    it's looking like something like that is going to have to happen at the convention and maybe they will blow the party up then.

    Parent
    We should probably move this conversation (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:12:09 AM EST
    To the thread created for the purpose and preserve the open for bickering with trolls.

    I didn't see that thread when I posted the iriginal comment.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#38)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:45:28 AM EST
    ...since reading that post about the GOP trying to emulate Trump, it seems unlikely that the GOP is going to blow-up.  IMO( they will fall in line because no matter their feelings on Trump, Clinton is the real enemy.

    What I keep wondering about is if Trump gets the nod, which seems fairly likily, what are all these republicans going to do, you can't take back stuff like 'he is unfit to be president' all that easy.  

    Clinton's marketing team must have miles of film for commercials.

    Parent

    Would love to see the ones they make just for fun (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:48:57 AM EST


    Parent
    I'm losing you here, Howdy (none / 0) (#9)
    by NYShooter on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:04:20 AM EST
    "this is not a problem with his supporters."

    What is not a problem?

    The Muslim thing, or, a Convention challenge?

    Parent

    The Muslim thing (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:06:56 AM EST
    They quoted shochking numbers,  for example about 50% support closing down every mosque in the country.  Every person the interviewed at last nights event thought it was about time someone did something.  Anything.

    Parent
    Accordingly to his supporters (none / 0) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:12:50 AM EST
    Trump is just "telling it like it is" and that is the reason they not only support him but love him for it.

    The "telling it like it is" applies to his comments about Mexicans and African Americans as well.

    Parent

    And Jews.... (none / 0) (#17)
    by NYShooter on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:27:58 AM EST
    "I don't want/need their money.".....ouch.

    Parent
    Such an ignorant d*ck :) (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:29:59 AM EST
    He's the candidate for the lowest information voter.

    Parent
    Not all low info voters... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:02:53 AM EST
    are low on heart...he's the hate-stoking candidate for haters.

    Parent
    And btw (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:04:26 AM EST
    He is not just appealing to low information voters.

    Parent
    Not intentionally, but if they believe 10% of what (none / 0) (#45)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:59:17 AM EST
    says they are indeed low information voters.

    Parent
    That's the thing (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 10:08:49 AM EST
    They don't.   And they will tell you so.   I've heard it personally and on tv.  They don't believe anything he says but see him as a way to give both parties the middle finger.

    They really don't.  Honestly, I don't believe half what he says.   I think he is saying whatever research says will whip them up.   What he actually believes?  Who the hell know.  I'm not sure it even applies to the situation.

    Parent

    He also appeals to some medium (none / 0) (#77)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 11:33:25 AM EST
    information voters..

    People who can design a structurally sound bridge, but still want to kill queers.

    Parent

    I can see where Joe would want to (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:26:00 AM EST
    Think that, but split the party? The base wants a ban on Muslims. The power brokers know that kind of bigotry will in the end lose them power. That's the split I see. The psychotic base splits with the power brokers, for one election cycle.

    Parent
    Right now Donalds support (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:31:27 AM EST
    Is between 30-40%.  That might be enough for him to get the required delegates in a crowded field but few enough for him to be challenged in a convention floor fight.

    I suspect there are still a few sane republican voters.

    Parent

    Man, I don't (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:39:15 AM EST
    Look at their line up. Nobody they are interested in even remotely resembles John McCain in 2008. They are all shades of Sarah Palin. Isn't 2nd runner up now bat$hit crazy Cruz?

    Parent
    Up until now (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:52:32 AM EST
    Every republican I've seen comment on the subject was more frightened if a Cruz than a Trump.

    This might change that,  might.

    Parent

    Here's what's really wierd, (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by NYShooter on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:19:19 AM EST
    and, scary.

    I started reading an article about Cruz, and, I didn't realize how long it was until I got into it. Anyway, it was basically a biography, but started from his high school and college days. And, it was told by people who knew him during different periods during those school/Harvard days.

    Bottom line, almost without exception, every single person said the same, exact thing:

    1. Smartest person they ever knew.

    2. To meet him is to hate him. The most universally hated, not disliked, hated man they ever knew.

    So, the question is: insofar as he's an obviously brilliant guy, I'd have to assume his idiotic proposals, and, appeal to the most moronic, low information, low educated voter is a well thought out political scheme. My question is........who would be a worse, more dangerous person: someone  who truly believed the crazy shitt he espouses on the campaign trail? or, someone who knows better, but is such a sleazebag he can fake it well enough to fool his illiterate supporters?

    Parent
    Personally (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:29:27 AM EST
    I believe Cruz is more dangerous than Trump.   Cruz is just polished, refined and educated enough to get the party behind him.  

    Parent
    I prefer the sleazebag that knows better (none / 0) (#37)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:45:17 AM EST
    as long as he does not act on the crazy sh** he is telling his supporters.

    Such horrible alternatives...maybe they really have destroyed the party, but I doubt it.

    I think something will happen before the convention or at the convention to blow Trump up. Sure he has 30-40% support, but where are they going to go? Vote for Hillary?  Actually, yes, maybe. Ha.

    Fun days to be a GOP strategist.

    Parent

    Another one, Boy, I read a lot. (none / 0) (#76)
    by NYShooter on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 11:31:20 AM EST
    Yves Smith, from Naked Capitalism, (she's a really bright, and, savvy lady)wrote a story based on a recent symposium comprised of about a half dozen really intelligent former Republican policy analysts. Yves knows her stuff better than anybody and this article was one narrative woven from six sources......A real eye opener.

    Right from the start it was apparent that those guys were nothing like the current crop. They were insightful, patriotic, extremely experienced, and very, very loyal to the American Dream, if you know what I mean; old time Republicans.

    I'll make it short. Those guys came across as caring and "real" as can be. And, their thoughts didn't come from just the current dilemma. It was a combination of the several decades long evolution of their Party. In a word, they were disgusted. They almost cried when talking about how they  wanted to shape a new, modern, progressive, and, inclusive Republican Party going forward (Post-Watergate.) However, Their consensus was that the Party can't be fixed. It's got to be incinerated, and buried. Then, start over.

    What they fear is that others who feel as they do (there's more than you might think) might try to fix the current broken party instead of starting over. So, their solution.......wait till you hear this.

    Let it  all hang out. Screw the country; they wanted it, now, let them have it. Let them win all three branches. Give'm a super majority Supreme Court. Let the country see what its like living under the rule of the imbeciles they've been forcing down our throats all these years. Let them live in the dump they've sown after years of seeding it with Cranial Dreck.

    Yes, they know it will be a huge risk. But, they feel the people who have, so-called, "managed" the Party into its current state are, simply, too brain damaged to be of any help. Let the country go through the fires of Hell, and hope it doesn't totally self-destruct.

    Let's face it, what we have now is what we'll have ten years from now. It won't get even incrementally better, just look at the Congress.

    Blowing it all up, at least, gives you some hope. The status quo guarantees a long, painful, masochistic hell.
     

    Parent

    THAT'S what they came up with? (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 12:23:09 PM EST
    About as far from patriotic or intelligent as can be. It shows they have given up. But they are probably old by now (if they were operatives during the 1970's, they're very old). So whatever anarchy comes next won't affect them. But their desired scenario paints a very ugly picture: a police state with no healthcare and no interest in a working economy. The result? A lot of dead, innocent Americans. So phuck these people. Any way you look at it, the Republican party is BANKRUPT of ideas and solutions.

    Parent
    Let the imbeciles ruin it.. (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 03:22:28 PM EST
    that's exactly what Trotsky used say had to happen before a real revolution occurred..

    William Blake called it "the consolidation of error"

    When the stink gets so bad that Nobody can deny it anymore..

    Lets hope it doesn't have to come to that.

    Parent

    I'll Take a Pass on... (none / 0) (#81)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 11:41:37 AM EST
    ...living in Somalia, even if temporary.

    So the 'smart' republicans answer to idiotic republicans running the party is to give republicans complete control, OK then.

    Parent

    Likely, most of their efforts ... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 03:41:16 PM EST
    ruffian: "Fun days to be a GOP strategist."

    ... will be focused upon mitigating the collateral damage a far-right presidential nominee would otherwise inflict upon Republican candidates who are running in various state and local races, particularly in those so-called "purple" districts which are otherwise competitive.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    GOP strategists (none / 0) (#158)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 06:08:00 PM EST
    Whatever they are doing I bet they are being forced to get hotel rooms below the third floor that have been cleared of sharp objects.

    Parent
    He sold the crazy to get into power though (none / 0) (#156)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 06:04:39 PM EST
    So it's his perogative whether he goes there or not. That's what scares me about the entire Republican base, and how they will vote for their people thinking they really aren't that crazy. Remember the compassionate Conservative Dubya who everyone fancied having a beer with? And then remember WMDs and De-Baathification.

    Holy mother of Satan, if we elect a Republican it is their perogative to visit insanity upon us all or not.

    Parent

    Smartest person they ever knew? (none / 0) (#146)
    by Dadler on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 05:17:05 PM EST
    Interesting and egad, this might say more about Harvard and its student body than about Cruz. I have no doubt that in 24 hours we could recruit thousands of reasonably bright high school students who could kick his rhetorical ass. Kingdom of the blind, one-eyed man king, that kinda thing.  

    Parent
    IMO (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 06:10:31 PM EST
    Imaging people "are not smart" just because you disagree with everything they say is absolutely the most dangerous and foolish thing you can possibly do.

    Ted Cruz is smart.  Don't doubt it.

    Parent

    By (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by FlJoe on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 06:25:48 PM EST
    most if not all accounts Cruz is smart as a whip. I have been watching him closely and he has run a very crafty campaign so far.

    Parent
    Cunning and crafty. The two Cs.. (none / 0) (#163)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 06:33:25 PM EST
    how Mr Haney sell's a gin-yoo-ine leg o' lamb from the Court of Henry VIII..

    Parent
    I think it does say a little something (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 06:20:41 PM EST
    about Harvard. After all, there's that whole problem with their economics department and it's historically-challenged, more-deregulation-is-the-answer approach to fixing the economy..

    Inside Job should disabuse anyone overly enthralled by the mystique of Harvard..

    Then there's that plagiarizing Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Dershowitz..

    Parent

    I give Donalds (none / 0) (#144)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 05:16:26 PM EST
    support more like 25 to 30%, at the moment. As much as some would love to see him with the nomination, it will not happen.
    Although his support is basically being mirrored overseas in Europe, check out recent European politics, far right parties are around that 25 to 30 % as well.

    In the first six months of 2015, Sweden took in 75,000 refugees. For years, this country had one of the West's most generous asylum policies, accepting twice as many refugees per capita than its European peers. No country seemed to better represent the ideals of openness and tolerance toward outsiders. But recent opinion polls show the Swedish Democrats, a group with neo-Nazi ties, atop the board with more than 25 percent of the vote. Five years ago, they won just 5.7 percent of the vote in parliamentary elections.

    Sweden illustrates how wide-ranging the rise of the far right has become, while France shows how deep. Along with Germany, France is a leader of the E.U. But the Front National's Marine Le Pen--the self-dubbed "Madame Frexit"--currently leads the early presidential field at 31 percent, jeopardizing the entire E.U. project from the top-down. The Front National has been around since 1972, but it has never played a more important role in French politics. Le Pen has shown Europe's radical right that a little rebranding can mask a long history of xenophobic ugliness.

    http://tinyurl.com/o9s6xnf

    Parent

    How about a mood change? (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 08:39:53 AM EST
    FARGO!!

    "It's just a flyin saucer Ed,  we gotta go."

    But, but, no more Floyd? (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Towanda on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:32:40 PM EST
    And I also am worried about the Ted Danson character.  And he doesn't know that his daughter-with-cancer was found on the kitchen floor.  Nor does her husband, who headed back to S. Dakota, while I was saying to the tv set:  Noooo, don't go.  Did he save his father-in-law, only for them to finally head home next week to find her dead?

    It has become the weirdest soap opera ever. . . .

    (And yeh, Howdy, I also hate split-screen effects.  And I'm not crazy about their overuse in Fargo.  But, yeh, at least they're as interesting as they are annoying.)

    Parent

    Loved it...was very worried about Ted Danson (none / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:27:40 AM EST
    though..s.till am. Wish Lou had not left him to chase that crazy Ed and Peggy.

    Did you catch that was Martin Freeman in the voiceover...which I loved too..nice touch.

    Parent

    It was great (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:31:17 AM EST
    You know what else is?  I've never seen mor skillful and beautiful use of split screen.  Usually it's just sort of annoying.  They really use it to tell the story.

    And the music!

    Parent

    All of the above (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:47:22 AM EST
    I think this season is truly great...bloody, but great.

    Tieing it all back to the late 70s too,a nd the rise of Reagan...there are layers upon layers there.

    Parent

    And aliens! (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:54:58 AM EST


    Parent
    The thing about the Muslim (none / 0) (#26)
    by lentinel on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:06:03 AM EST
    ban is that it is, as stated, a ban on a religious belief.

    He is not proposing a ban on people from, say Pakistan, or other predominantly Muslim countries.

    So how the hell is he proposing that people be barred?

    Will they be asked whether they believe in Allah? The Koran?
    Does he expect that a potential terrist would answer that question honestly?

    Soooo dumb.

    The next step, since he is proposing a ban on a belief, is political persecution as happened in the putrid 1950s with McCarthy.

    Having said that, I would say that his thought, un-American though I might consider it to be, and despite the "protestations" of other neo-fascists in the republican party, is not particularly divergent from what is being felt by many in the general population. They do not want potential saboteurs to be living next door - and are hungering for a solution. Whatever it is.

    The solution that does not appear to occur to anyone in either party is that we might consider not continuing to bomb Muslim countries - with the staggering toll of civilian casualties that result. Hundreds of thousands killed during the tenures of Bush and Obama - and millions displaced.

    Are they supposed to feel nothing and take it all in stride?

    The more I think about it (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:27:26 AM EST
    The more I think it might be not dumb.   Evil, insidious, frightening, blood curdling, craven and soleless, not dumb.

    He tried as hard as he could to get the establishment to attack him.  I believe he really wanted that.  They wussed out.  They were and are afraid to take him on.  With this he finally has the establishment attacking him.  Dick Cheney!  How establishment is that.  Every thinking republican in the party is horrified and saying so.  Now setting aside if we believe Dick Cheney gives a rats ass about the rights of Muslims or anyone else, I don't believe for one second he does and this is just a chance for him to shill for the "establishment",  this is exactly what Trump wants.
    Check THIS OUT.

    Some Republican candidates are denouncing Donald Trump's call for a total ban on Muslim immigration to the US, but let's check out how the GOP voting base is reacting, shall we? For example, the commenters at Breitbart "News."

    Let's face it -- this is only going to make Trump more popular with the degraded right wing audience. His poll numbers are going to soar.

    I'm hiding these comments by default, for reasons that will be obvious. There are already more than a thousand comments in this vein.

    Click to Reveal

    The comments are not for the timid.

    Parent

    All of this is what makes me embarrassed (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:48:38 AM EST
    to be an American. And makes wish I was healthier and more mobile. My house would be on the market tomorrow. I want out. I want out so bad my head hurts. My sister lives in China. She constantly remarks that she feels much safer living there than living in the US. I envy her.

    Howdy, I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of Cruz. A Cruz presidency is unacceptable not just the US, but for the entire world. The future of the planet is at stake with Cruz. I fear he believes in end times prophesies and will follow and/or implement policies to make those end times prophesies, reality.

    But Trump and his supporters (as seen in the Breitbart comments) are just as scary and sad. These are the people to fear. Not Muslims. But rather Americans who have no clue what this country was supposed to represent and stand for.

    Parent

    I was working and living in Canada (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:54:03 AM EST
    When W was reelected.  I came reeeeeealy close.  Canada makes it pretty easy.   Or it would have been then at that age and with the job I had.

    I understand.  But take heart.  They will not win

    Parent

    If Canada Wasn't So Damn Cold... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 10:00:34 AM EST
    ...they would need a wall.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 10:11:13 AM EST
    The southwestern coastal area is quite temperate

    Parent
    In some areas it's a rare occurrence (none / 0) (#102)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 01:18:39 PM EST
    if it gets below 50 in the winter time.

    Or so I'm told.

    Parent

    My sister (none / 0) (#50)
    by CST on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 10:10:41 AM EST
    Is talking to former co-workers in Toronto right now.  She is Muslim, and her husband from Turkey, who's married, has two American born children, has a green card, and has been living and working in the U.S. for over a decade, with no criminal record, was recently denied citizenship - they don't know why yet.

    But they are making back-up plans.  My sister was born and raised here, and is white, so at the end of the day she could stay.  But if they kick out her husband for whatever reason, they really don't want to move to Turkey right now, as her husband has been vocally opposed to Erdogan.  He wasn't even going to go visit before getting his citizenship - just in case.  So now they are looking for jobs in Canada in the hopes that it may be a safe haven.  One thing she was discussing was whether or not it would be a good idea for her to wear a scarf in her next ID- just in case she needed to leave in a hurry.

    Parent

    That Sucks... (none / 0) (#58)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 10:42:01 AM EST
    I am not sure I understand it, your sister is married to a guy who is married, you mean married to your sister ?

    Parent
    yes (none / 0) (#62)
    by CST on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 10:49:18 AM EST
    he only has one wife, and it's my sister :)

    Parent
    I Was Hoping... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 11:00:58 AM EST
    ...he didn't have a Turkish wife, the wording was just odd.

    I hope they get it figured out, but is the denial the last word, or can they appeal.  I think it's very odd to find out you are denied and not find out why.  That isn't right that they don't come at the same time.

    Parent

    it was recent (none / 0) (#69)
    by CST on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 11:06:41 AM EST
    and I believe whatever official explanation is coming soon - so at that point they will see what comes next.

    But it's very odd.  They already passed their interviews to determine they were "really married" (two kids helps with that), and all the ducks were in line, so to speak.

    I don't think they can appeal but they can re-start the process.  The problem is - why was it denied?  And without knowing that you don't know what your chances are, but they can't be great if they denied it the first time, and they could end up revoking his green card.

    Parent

    It must have been pretty shocking (none / 0) (#166)
    by vml68 on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 07:01:44 PM EST
    and stressful for your sister and BIL. Hope they find out the reason soon.
    Even a minor mistake on the forms can result in denial. Just a stab in the dark on my part, but did your BIL get his green card before he turned 26? And, if so, did he register for Selective Service?

    Parent
    they don't have to actually win (none / 0) (#53)
    by CST on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 10:26:39 AM EST
    To influence policy.

    Parent
    From seven years ago: (none / 0) (#133)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 04:52:10 PM EST
    "Only 23% of college-educated young people [in the U.S.] could find Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and Israel, four countries of ultimate importance to American policy, on the map -- a map, by the way, that had the countries lettered on it. So in other words, it wasn't a blank map, [which] meant they didn't really know where the Middle East was either. ... If only 23% of people with some college can find those countries on a map, that is nothing to be bragging about. And that has to have something to do with why, as a country, we're having such shallow political discussions."
    -- Susan Jacoby, author (The Age of American Unreason), "Bill Moyers Journal" (February 8, 2008)

    Yes, this is indeed something to fear. As I noted yesterday, an educated and well-informed populace, fully cognizant of its situations and surroundings, makes for a less fearful society and a more confident nation.

    Unfortunately, we presently have a Republican Party whose members are both firmly wedded to the wholesale denial of fact and reality, and entirely contemptuous of even the meekest suggestion that their mindlessly militant foreign policy has in any way contributed to our present and multiple predicaments in the Middle East. And there is a large and growing Hallelujah Chorus of sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid citizens who are cheering them on.

    These are ingredients from which true national calamities are made. (See Bush, George W. - (1) "Mission Accomplished" and (2) "Brownie, you're doin' a heckuva job.")

    Aloha.


    Parent

    I beg to differ (none / 0) (#167)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 07:14:14 PM EST
    "Only 23% of college-educated young people [in the U.S.] could find Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and Israel,

    They aren't educated.

    And whose fault is that??

    We old folks learned geography to that level in the 5th grade.  My grandson, who attends a private school, had to name all the countries in all the continents in the 6th grade.

    Parent

    The Comments Are Actually Pretty Funny... (none / 0) (#44)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:58:59 AM EST
    ...you mentioned above his supporters aren't all low information, well the commenters in that post would offend low information folks.
    Obama has gay Muslim sex in the White House

    Sanity, finally

    Obama should have taken a lesson from FDR who did what needed to be done with the Japanese during WWII

    Obama led by Satan. Luke 4:5-8, Revelation 12: 12.

    Islam is pro abortion and all about wealth redistribution. It's a leftist ideology. That's why libs are supportive of them.

    He is 100% correct. I support this completely.

    Uh Oh....I bet Megyn Kelly has Blood Spurting out of her Eyes and Wherever !

    I'd rather have the mexicans driving the taxis

    Hillary had Vince foster killed.

    The last two are especially funny and I don't believe the majority of those  came from adults.

    Parent

    So, my question is, what is the GOP (none / 0) (#52)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 10:20:54 AM EST
    going to actually be able to do about Trump's latest proposal, beyond criticism and denouncement?  Anything?

    Basically, we have a bunch of Henny-Pennys running around squawking about how the sky is falling, but I'm not getting the sense that the people who need to hear it are at all interested in listening.

    Here's the thing: I believe that most of the current GOP field are not so much opposed to the policies and proposals Trump is putting out there, as much as they are opposed to how open Trump is being about them.  I get a sense that the others may not be all that opposed, they just want to keep it on the down low, and they're hiding their anger that he's let the cat out of the bag behind indignant expressions of disgust.

    But what can they do, really?  They're backed into a corner, and the only means of escape come with probably some rather unpleasant consequences.

    It's hard to feel sorry for them, but I'm resisting taking too much satisfaction...at least at this stage.

    Parent

    I thank all of you for the wild attacks on (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 10:01:09 AM EST
    Trump and Cruz.

    Very entertaining.

    Wild attacks? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 10:48:01 AM EST
    What blog are you reading? All I see is commentary on the insanity that is Trump. and to some extent Cruz.

    Parent
    Jim, who do you predict will be the GOP nominee? (none / 0) (#74)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 11:26:40 AM EST
    Maybe you can calm down our wild imaginings

    Parent
    I haven't the vaguest idea (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 11:42:44 AM EST
    But no matter who s/he is it won't calm your wild imaginings.

    Parent
    I had a wild dream the other night (none / 0) (#85)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 11:47:01 AM EST
    that Cruz, Huckabee and Jindel attended a rally at which the Paris terror victims were described as devil-worshippers.

    Parent
    my questions re immigration (none / 0) (#56)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 10:36:48 AM EST
    Ideological restrictions on naturalization in U.S. law . . .

    Though ideological exclusions on entry were largely eliminated in 1990, ideological bars arising from each of these time periods still exist in American naturalization law. This long history has resulted in a naturalization statute that requires naturalization applicants to be "attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States" (a requirement that has existed since the earliest US immigration laws) and forbids them from adhering to several more specific ideological principles such as totalitarianism, communism, and anarchism.

     Similarly, in Kleindienst v. Mandel, the Supreme Court cited Congress's plenary power over immigration laws as the basis for applying an extremely deferential standard of review to the statutory exclusion of communist aliens from the United States.[68] No ideological naturalization restriction has been overturned on First Amendment grounds. . .

    OK . . .

    the USA is pretty much ok with excluding communists from legal immigration cause communists don't believe in "our system," the constitution, the 1st amendment, etc and some and perhaps many (but not all) communists will use violence to impose their system rather than the US system.

    It appears from surveys that a large portion of Muslims and that would include Muslim immigrants and Muslim refugees desire sharia law.

    Per Ben Shapiro and various polls, 78% of the Muslims then or currently in UK want people who draw cartoons of Mohammed to be legally prosecuted.

    You've got a wide divergence between saying we will take in nearly everybody and some of the groups of "nearly everybody" don't support the 1st amendment and do support Sharia law.

    What is the diff between excluding from imm the Muslims, either all of them or the 75% of them who don't believe in the 1st amendment and want prosecutions of people for cartoons, and the communists who don't support the 1st amendment?

    Now, the USA currently has restrictions against "anarchists" immigrating.  Of course, there aren't really a lot of anarchists at this time . . . the ideology mostly came and went, but when it was in vogue among some people, the anarchist ideology helped inspire the assassination of the archduke Ferdinand and also the assassination of president carnot and the assasination of McKinley.  However, anarchism itself is not inherently violent . . .

    Proudhon [the father of anarchism] himself did not advocate violence, and few anarchists were bomb-throwers. But desperate individuals heard the propaganda and took it upon themselves to strike against entrenched privilege.

    No, no one here at Talkleft has been protesting that it is unfair, wrong and unAmerican for the USA to exclude communists and anarchists from immigration, based on their disbelief  in "our" system and their (just some of them, actually) willingness to fight and assassination to achieve their political goals.

    About 75% of Muslims living in developped Western countries don't believe in the 1st amendment and do believe in prosecuting people for drawing cartoons.  What is the diff between excluding communists, anarchists and excluding Muslims from immigration and/or refugee status?

    A good point (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 11:37:36 AM EST
    What is the diff between excluding from imm the Muslims, either all of them or the 75% of them who don't believe in the 1st amendment and want prosecutions of people for cartoons, and the communists who don't support the 1st amendment?

    But the Left didn't want to exclude communists.

    So we should not be surprised that they go into hissy fits when Trump says:


    "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," a campaign press release said.

    Of course CNN led with an easy to quote and totally misleading....

    CNN)Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump called Monday for barring all Muslims from entering the United States.

    I believe, and have so stated in the past, that the radical islamist problem can only he solved by the supposed moderate Muslim. I say "supposed" because the problem has been identified for a very long time and yet it is getting worse.

    Parent

    Please Elaborate (5.00 / 4) (#164)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 06:47:25 PM EST
    But the Left didn't want to exclude communists.

    That's because "the left" respects the Amendment that comes just before the Second Amendment.  Can't remember what it's called.

    "Communists" have been demonized all my life.  After hearing 60 years of rhetoric, I am still confused.

    Communism is a political philosophy.  The Bill of Rights guarantees American citizens the right to any philosophy they want, communist, vegan, Republican or nihilist.

    What exactly is a "Communist," and why should we hate them for having a political philosophy we don't agree with?  I'm not aware that any American born communists ever tortured anyone, but we know Republicans have, and we tolerate them.

    Parent

    You obviously are incapable of (none / 0) (#170)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 07:23:17 PM EST
    understanding that the USSR billed itself as a communist country.

    Of course what you are trying to is reframe the discussion and make a moral equivalency claim based on philosophy.

    I hate to be blunt and that is sophomoric and just plain silly.

    Parent

    So Educate Me (5.00 / 3) (#199)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:16:36 PM EST
    You obviously are incapable of understanding that the USSR billed itself as a communist country.

    Would it surprise you to know that I collect books on political philosophy and contemporary history written between 1900 and 1950?  It was an interesting era of great political foment.

    That subject is covered in them.

    Of course what you are trying to is reframe the discussion and make a moral equivalency claim based on philosophy.

    I'm trying to pin you down on the meaning of a single sentence, which implies that "communism," is an idea so toxic that the right, which doesn't want any other part of the marketplace regulated, wants to keep communism from even setting up a stall in the marketplace of ideas.

    I know what the ideals of '30s communism were.  I have read Karl Marx.  Marx predicted to a high degree of accuracy what our economy is doing today.  His ideas are worthy of discussion, but anathema because communism incorporates some of them.  

    Communists have been demonized because that philosophy is tough on really, really, really rich people.  Really rich people do not want their power challenged, and they also own governments.  It's an interesting conundrum, worthy of discussion.

    But no.  "Communism" is so scary that rich people do not even want the implications of Marx's accurate observations discussed out loud.

    I hate to be blunt and that is sophomoric and just plain silly.

    What I am not seeing in your response is a definition of what you believe "communism" is.  Whatever my differences are with communists, they are closer to me politically than the wanna-be dictator GOP oligarchs currently running the show.

    Why do you believe "communists" are more dangerous than, say Trump?

    (Thanks for letting me collect my thoughts on this interesting topic.)

    Parent

    the question is (none / 0) (#175)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 07:36:25 PM EST
    the question is whether or not Congress has (or should have) the constitutional power to exclude communists from immigration and the other question is whether or not Congress or the states can ban (or should be able to ban) being a peaceful communist or even flying a flag that displays your loyalty to communist ideology.

    The scotus has given the Congress the power to greatly regulate immigration and forbidden to Congress and the states forbidding a person from flying a communist flag or burning the US flag.

    There are few or no republicans who currently support banning the communist party or flying its flag.  NeoNazis, if in power, might easily choose to ban other political parties, and communists themselves might choose to ban other parties.

    Neo-naziism and Communism are so dumb that we can easily laugh at them, but that does not mean we need to allow immigration of current communists or Nazis or Muslims.

    About hating communists . . .  Jesus says Love your enemies . . . so that might put a damper on at least some of the so-called hatred being expressed against communists. .  .  Moreever, the FBI keeps track of hate crimes and the reasons for the hate crimes . . . and I don't think that any significant % of hate crimes reported to the FBI are done against communists.

    They are more fit for the looney bin at this point . . .

    It is possible that jimakappk does not read as many scotus decisions as I do and that might result in his not speaking clearly, esp in this matter in which you or someone is claiming that constitutional law is part of the question.

    There was a recent protest in Seattle . . . someone heard or fabricated a rumor that there was going to be a neo-Nazi protest or march . . . and within a short time, there were the usual dozens or hundreds of people protesting against being a Nazi, stopping traffic, maybe vandalizing . . .

    Of course, there are or were no neo-Nazis . . . or if there are or were neo-Nazis, they have not been protesting in Seattle . . . and the people who carry guns at a parade do so to let the lgbtq community know that they can carry and it might be good for their own self-defense . . .

    Maybe I should join a Seattle protest group and tell them that there is a pro-animal experiment protest scheduled . . . or a pro-burning oil protest going on . . .  or a "make the Solstice parade bicyclists wear clothing" protest going on . . .

    and we could have an counter-protest to some non-existent cause . . .


    Parent

    Andrea Mitchell (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 11:27:27 AM EST
    Is interviewing Bob Dole, Bob who?  Who goes on a long rant about Trump and Cruz.  Blah blah blah.   And then admits he will support the nominee whoever it is.

    Listen Kids, when fleeing the pigs... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 11:33:26 AM EST
    don't run into the arms of gators.

    The gator musta had a really sh*tty lawyer, convicted and executed in a Stand Your Ground state?  Shoulda called Mark O'Mara.

    Sometimes lunch isn't free! (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 11:44:58 AM EST
    When a police dive team located Riggins' body, they also came across the alligator, which was euthanised.


    Parent
    Thats (none / 0) (#86)
    by FlJoe on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 11:48:10 AM EST
    right down the road from me, used to work there, fed the gators marshmallows.

    Parent
    which explains why they were so famished (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 11:52:05 AM EST


    Parent
    Freddie Gray prosecutors witheld exculpatory (none / 0) (#91)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 12:19:48 PM EST
    evidence....

    Prosecutors failed to disclose that Freddie Gray complained of back problems the month before he suffered a fatal spinal injury in police custody, a judge ruled Monday during the trial of one of six officers charged in Gray's arrest and death.

    The judge decided not to declare a mistrial. This could be another issue for appeal.  The Prosecution has rested and the defense will start it's case.  Hard to tell what's going on inside the courtroom but it looks like another backwards trial where the defense is arguing the facts and the prosecution is appealing to emotion.

    Since the judge is allowing the defense to (none / 0) (#95)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 12:40:17 PM EST
    introduce this "exculpatory" evidence, it's coming in and the prosecution will have to deal with it.

    If he had back problems, all the more reason why extra care should have been taken to make sure he was securely belted into the vehicle.

    From the Baltimore Sun:

    Raising the idea of a "pre-existing condition," Murtha asked the experts whether their testimony would change if they knew Gray had suffered a previous back injury.

    Soriano said his testimony likely would not change unless the injury was specific to Gray's cervical column. Allan said she had not noticed any evidence of a previous back injury during her autopsy of Gray.

    It doesn't appear that the defense got the response it was hoping for.

    Parent

    Why didn't the prosecution give this information (none / 0) (#97)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 12:51:17 PM EST
    to the defense? Seems shady but not all that surprising considering...

    Civil settlement with the Gray family before the trial
    No change of venue
    Jurors aren't sequestered
    No mistrial...

    I just hope the the jury bases it's decision on the evidence or lack there of

    Parent

    You aren't ever going to believe that (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 01:13:55 PM EST
    a conviction was based on the facts and the evidence, and you have already made up your mind that none of these officers is guilty of anything, so I don't even know the point of having this discussion.

    And if they acquit, this same evidence and these same facts will work just fine for you, and you will praise the jury for its ability to be objective in spite of the prosecution and the judge stacking the deck for convictions.

    Maybe Uncle Chip will slither out from under the rock where he's been lurking, and you two can be a little chorus of nothing-to-see-here-move-along.

    Parent

    Update: New grandson has arrived. (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 03:02:24 PM EST
    And he weighs in at 1lbs., 9 oz. The C-section went quickly and smoothly with no issues, and mother and baby are both doing fine. I'm flying over to Honolulu at 3:45 p.m. this afternoon.

    Parent
    Congratulations, Donald! (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 03:07:37 PM EST
    I hope everything is ok with mama and the little one.

    Gonna be a grandfather myself in a few months.

    Parent

    Is this your first? (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 03:46:27 PM EST
    It is for us. It took a little getting used to the concept of grandparenthood when we were first told, but now, we're looking forward to the adventure.

    Parent
    It's my first.. (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 03:57:36 PM EST
    Bit of a wake up call, in some ways..

    Though, it doesn't make me feel as "old" as I thought it might.

    It is an adventure, there's no question about that!

    Parent

    wow, congrats Donald! (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 03:53:35 PM EST
    very exciting...I echo the thoughts below that I hope that weight is a typo...hope all are well!

    Parent
    Correction: That should read 11 lbs, 9 oz. (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 04:05:20 PM EST
    As I noted to Anne last night before the procedure, he's a very big baby who was in a breech position in the womb, hence the decision to go with a C-section.

    Dad just forwarded to me the first photo of mother and son, and I'm surprised to see him looking so alert with eyes wide open, almost in wonderment. Mom's smiling, but otherwise looks totally exhausted, which is not surprising given what she just went through. They'll likely remain in the hospital until Thursday or Friday.

    Our grandson's pediatrician is our daughters' former doctor, who was flattered to be asked. He just examined the baby, and reported that he's a very healthy newborn.

    I've got a few things to finish up here at the office before heading to the airport, so I'm signing off. I'll catch up to you all later.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    whoa - that is a big'un! (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 04:36:47 PM EST
    No wonder he is wide awake - must have been hard to get comfy in there!

    Enjoy your new family time!

    Parent

    Congratulations to you and your family, (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 04:40:14 PM EST
    Donald - so glad to learn mother and baby are doing well!

    I just told my 37-weeks pregnant daughter about the size of your new grandson, and her comment was along the lines of "Holy Schitt!"  Her first was almost 9 lbs, and she thought that was plenty big enough!

    Enjoy this blessing, Donald - not only is being a grandparent wonderful, but I've found that it's brought my daughters and I closer together and elevated our relationship.

    My heart just melts when my 3 yr old grandson wraps his arms around me and tells me he doesn't want me to leave, that he wants me to stay at his house forever.  And when my 1 yr old grandson blows me kisses and tries to kiss me with his wide-open mouth, well, it just fills my heart.

    You have so much fun ahead of you - and don't be surprised if your priorities undergo a bit of a shift!

    Parent

    Many, many congratulations, Donald! (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Zorba on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 04:35:29 PM EST
    Yes, I figured it was a typo.
    Eleven pounds nine ounces!  Huge baby, especially for a first birth.
    Extend our congratulations and best wishes to the proud parents, as well.

    Parent
    Whew, what a relief.. (none / 0) (#128)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 04:37:49 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh congratulations, Donald (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by sj on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 04:45:09 PM EST
    How wonderful.

    Parent
    Congratulations (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 05:02:05 PM EST
    Glad to hear that mother and baby are doing well.

    Grandchildren are a wonderful gift that you can enjoy for years to come.


    Parent

    Mazel tov, Donald. (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 05:49:29 PM EST
    A new baby in the family is such a joy.

    Congratulations to the new parents. And let me echo others that 11 lbs 9 oz is one big baby. Much respect to your daughter.

    Parent

    Congrats (none / 0) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 03:47:50 PM EST
    Donald. I think the 1 lb 9 oz must be a typo though out of excitement.

    Parent
    Baby!! (none / 0) (#165)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 06:58:53 PM EST


    Parent
    Congrats Donald.... (none / 0) (#194)
    by desertswine on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:04:05 PM EST
    Don't forget it's Grandparents' Privilege to spoil the kid rotten.  And it's great fun!

    Parent
    Not even close (none / 0) (#172)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 07:25:30 PM EST
    The only thing I've made up my mind about is the unethical behavior of the prosecution team.  I'd still like to know why they withheld that evidence.

    I'm guessing some of the these cops messed up somehow but it's just a guess. They might all have done something or none did anything wrong. Cops are like everyone else... some good, some bad.

    Unlike you, I need to see/hear evidence before I make up my mind about a murder/wrongful death case.  

     

    Parent

    Ted Cruz is so slimy (none / 0) (#100)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 01:18:02 PM EST
    I feel like I need a shower after reading this stuff.

    You Know... (none / 0) (#108)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 01:50:59 PM EST
    ...I was thinking, this barring muslim refugees from entering legislation seems very odd in that it's not on any official documentation and I doubt people who want to kill are going to have an issue with lying.

    It's not on your passport.  What is the procedure, asking people, or just assuming that all Arab sounding names or people coming from Arab countries are muslims ?

    The masterminds of Paris were from Belgium, how do you filter out something that is self identified, can and does change, and for most something fairly personal ?

    What if you are like me and have no preference, can't come in because I am not Christian.  I don't understand how you filter people by religion.
    ----------------

    Cruz is just hedging his bets and when Trump gets the nod, he's going to be the only one who doesn't have figure out how to back a guy he's been slamming for 6 months.

    He also wants the VP.

    Parent

    See, the problem is (none / 0) (#104)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 01:40:17 PM EST
    a few prominent voices on the Right have already declared that the rising waters couldn't be true because the Bible says the earth will end in fire.

    And your point is what??? (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 03:24:22 PM EST
    That all the predictions have came true?

    Well that's wrong.

    That some of the predictions have come true??

    Well that's wrong.

    That ONE of the predictions have come true?

    Well that's wrong.

    You know the saying is, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me."

    But now we have a new standard.... Fool me dozens of times and I'll defend you....

    lol

    Change that "we" to "I" (none / 0) (#117)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 03:27:59 PM EST
    and I think you'd be right on the money.

    Parent
    Don't you have a link (none / 0) (#124)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 04:08:00 PM EST
    to a cut and paste article at Devil-Worshipper Depot that proves that the Paris "devil-worshippers" were actually REAL devil-worshippers?

    I bet you do.

    lol

    Parent

    Trump With Another Great Idea (none / 0) (#131)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 04:45:05 PM EST
    Closing the internet

    "We're losing a lot of people because of the Internet," Trump said Monday at a campaign rally in South Carolina.

    "We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way."


    Wait there is more...

    Trump continued, "Somebody will say, 'Oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people."
    Constitution? That's just so...yesterday. (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 04:54:55 PM EST
    Freedom of speech?  Of religion?  Pshhht...as long as you're saying Trump-approved things, and you're not a Muslim, you have all the freedom you need.

    He's already talked about torture, so there's that.

    Close the internet?  I imagine for some people, threatening to take their internet might be worse than threatening to take their guns.

    The Secret Service must be having a collective cow at the threats his incendiary and fascist rhetoric are generating.

    Parent

    I just (none / 0) (#140)
    by lentinel on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 05:07:45 PM EST
    don't think that his declarations are very far removed from the thinking of the other republicans in the field.

    Their protests seem to me to be shallow and unconvincing.

    I would also expect, despite enlightened rhetoric to the contrary, that it will soon be harder for people from Muslim countries to come to this one.

    Everyone flipped over Trump's comments about Megan Kelly, about John McCain, about the wall... and it meant nothing except higher poll numbers.

    I expect that the same will happen here. That is to say, his poll numbers will go up.

    People are frightened, understandably.
    And there does not appear to be any relief in sight.

    Parent

    Certainly was foolish to give (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 05:16:34 PM EST
    him freedom of speech.

    Parent
    He's now sounding like a complete loon (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 05:21:05 PM EST
    "Closing the Internet." Like Ted Stevens with his "intertubes" quality understanding of the web. FFS. Trump is just trolling like mad now.

    Parent
    Just had a thought: (none / 0) (#151)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 05:25:19 PM EST
    It was only about two months ago that Trump Hotels got hacked. Wouldn't it be fun if hackers played some hackoriffic games with Trump's campaign site? And Anonymous would probably love to do something if they weren't busy scheming against ISIS at the moment.

    Parent
    You mean ISIS - ISIS or Ted Cruz? (none / 0) (#153)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 05:28:19 PM EST


    Parent
    Good luck closing the Internet (none / 0) (#147)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 05:17:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Related sort of (none / 0) (#155)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 06:00:51 PM EST
    Just saw a very interesting doc called Deep Web.

    Pretty fascinating.    I thighs I had a pretty good understanding of this stuff but I learned some things.

    The point is in the most drastic circumstances it might be possible to "close" the Internet to the average user but the rest gets a lot harder.

    Parent

    A friend of mine was touting that doc to me (none / 0) (#193)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:03:50 PM EST
    Apparently, there are two levels of Dark Web, and the deepest one is really scary and you have to have a lot of savvy to be able to get to it.

    Parent
    On second thought, (none / 0) (#195)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:04:46 PM EST
    isn't one called the Dark Web, and the other called the Deep Web?

    Parent
    Had to google (none / 0) (#197)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:10:41 PM EST
    what is dark web what is deep web

    The doc I saw was Deep Web.  I don't thing there is a Dark Web movie but it was a brief Google.

    Parent

    AHHHH wrong (none / 0) (#198)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:15:17 PM EST
    There is indeed a Dark Web movie.  Now I want to see that.

    Parent
    From what was described to us (none / 0) (#200)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:22:50 PM EST
    (he even let us read something about it) we decided we could not live in that world for even a short time. Way too icky and depressing.

    Parent
    Right (none / 0) (#201)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:30:34 PM EST
    The movie I mean.  From what. I know I  probably would not want to spend much time there

    Still like to see the doc

    Parent

    yeah, well (none / 0) (#178)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 07:47:32 PM EST
    after WWII, we and Germany suppressed the production and dissemination of pro-Nazi literature.

    certain ideas being expressed can be properly suppressed.  The 1st amendment is not absolute and it should not include protections for inciting others to murder, such as we commonly find in ISIS literature and websites.

    Parent

    Trump (none / 0) (#137)
    by lentinel on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 05:00:02 PM EST
    has certainly managed to turn the conversation away from the easy access to weaponry by unstable people.

    And then you go to (none / 0) (#176)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 07:36:55 PM EST
    the graveyard at midnight with a dead cat.

    Like they teach all red state kids in science class.

    lol

    Apparently the (none / 0) (#196)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:08:55 PM EST
    GA GOP sent the names to be on the ballot for Super Tuesday and did not put Donald's name in to be put on the ballot. I have to wonder if this is going to happen in other states.

    Towanda (none / 0) (#203)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 09:37:14 PM EST
    Floyd is my first name

    :)

    Always hated it actually.   And I've never seen it in the feminine

    Perhaps that's because ... (none / 0) (#205)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 10:27:01 PM EST
    CaptHowdy: "Floyd is my first name :) Always hated it actually. And I've never seen it in the feminine."

    ... "Floydina" sounds like one of those oval shaped pills that pharmaceutical companies are always urging you to ask your doctor or pharmacist about, after first warning you about all its possible side effects such as dizziness, nausea, vomiting, psoriasis, hallucinations, delusions of grandeur, urges to run naked through public parks and of course, happy feet.

    ;-D

    GOP Debate Next Tuesday Night (none / 0) (#208)
    by CoralGables on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 07:46:21 AM EST
    Should be more MMA than debate. Looks like the mainstage lineup 6 days out could be anywhere from 7 to 9 contestants. Due to national polling a sure 5 will be:
    Trump
    Cruz
    Carson
    Rubio
    Bush

    Additional definites due to NH polling:
    Christie
    Kasich

    Hanging on by the skin of her teeth in NH polling:
    Fiorina

    Hanging on by the skin of his teeth with polling this week in Iowa deciding his fate:

    Paul

    Both Paul and Fiorina could still miss the cut. I prefer all nine. The more the merrier.

    Towanda @ 202 (none / 0) (#209)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 08:51:44 AM EST
    At least Floyd never knew that her son killed her granddaughter...or that Dodd was actually dead. Though she had to know what a bunch of sickos she raised. Wonder how she really felt about all of that, underneath the gang mama bravado.  She is a bit of an enigma...I'll be re-watching the whole series in the next few weeks.

    All you need to know (none / 0) (#210)
    by CST on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 09:49:40 AM EST
    About Boston real estate is in this picture

    That house, with "a cozy 991 square feet of living" is listed at 1.2 million.  Granted, it's in Beacon Hill, but still...

    CST (none / 0) (#211)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 10:45:15 AM EST
    1.2 mill and you don't even get brick streets?   I lived a couple of places in Beacon Hill before I moved to the South End.   The brick streets was my favorite part.

    Still, prett darn charming.  

    It is charming in a way (none / 0) (#212)
    by CST on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 11:38:30 AM EST
    Tiny, but charming, I'll give you that.

    I'm a Dorchester girl myself.  Of course, Dorchester is the new Southie and has the fastest growing condo prices in the city right now.  Apparently triple-deckers are all the rage right now.  Granted, I've been raving about Dorchester and triple-deckers for years, I was just kind of hoping no one else would figure it out...

    I have never heard the term (none / 0) (#213)
    by vml68 on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 12:12:50 PM EST
    "triple-decker" used in conjunction with apartments before. Thank-you "series of tubes" for helping me find the info!

    P.S.- Don't know if you saw my comment #166 above. My brother and husband both got their citizenship a few years ago. Very stressful for both of them, particularly my brother who almost got his green card revoked over a false accusation of domestic violence.

    vml - yea (none / 0) (#214)
    by CST on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 12:28:31 PM EST
    I believe he failed the interview. Which is why they haven't received a formal "reason" yet.  But he was over 26 when he got his green card.  It's very stressful, because if he does get his green card revoked they have very limited options.  My sister will not move to Turkey.

    Triple-deckers are everywhere here but they are pretty distinctive to the region.  They don't look like much from the outside, but they are great apartments. You get a good amount of living space and each level is usually 2-3 bedrooms.

    Ugh! I feel for them. It is horrible not knowing (none / 0) (#215)
    by vml68 on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 12:41:20 PM EST
    the reason, 'cos then you can't even plan your next steps. Hope things get resolved in their favor soon. Wishing them all the best of luck.

    Triple Deckers... (none / 0) (#216)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 03:05:22 PM EST
    ...in the Heights, which is Yuppie central go for around $400k new or close to it.  The entire area that is all you have, with the occasional small home hold-out, no sunlight until you get on the 3rd floor decks.

    Other areas you can find them considerably cheaper.

    Inside they are bad-ass, the design IMO is way better than a house, but having neighbors on all sides in the same building design is odd.  There are miles and miles of them, from the outside yuck, but once inside.

    That small home in Houston simple does not exist.  I doubt there is one habitable building from the 18th century in the entire city.

    the triple deckers here (none / 0) (#217)
    by CST on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 03:19:46 PM EST
    Generally have windows on all sides - and I've never lived on the top floor, but you get a decent amount of sunlight through the front/back.  A lot of them have mini-yards which helps.

    Right now they are going for about 300k+ per unit in my neighborhood, which is the cheap area, but it's changing fast.  In other parts of town (southie, jp, etc...) you are easily topping 400k per unit.  The vast majority were built in the late 1800s - 1920s.  So not exactly new.

    The same layout thing is odd - but I find it comforting in a way.  You step inside, you know exactly how it's laid out, and where everything is.  And yea, badass on the inside is right.  On the outside... I dunno, I mean objectively they look like cr@p, but it also looks like home.  This is a good photo which I'm pretty sure was taken in my neighborhood.

    They are Way Tighter Here... (none / 0) (#218)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 04:31:29 PM EST
    ...it's normally gated for the cars, all all the garages face each other, and there is about 3 feet between buildings.  Like THIS & THIS

    They can't build them fast enough.

    garages (none / 0) (#219)
    by CST on Wed Dec 09, 2015 at 04:42:56 PM EST
    what's a garage? ;)

    The ones around here are mostly made of wood and a lot older, although there are new ones going up anyplace they can find room for it.  They were spaced that way to try and reduce the fire hazard back in the day.  Yours look way nicer on the outside though.

    They Are New... (none / 0) (#220)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 10, 2015 at 09:49:53 AM EST
    ...and nice, the garage is on the first floor with usually a bedroom, the main living space and kitchen on number 2, and the main bedroom and deck on the top.

    Inside they are straight up bad ass.

    THESE are also trending in other areas, townhomes (they call them lofts for some reason) with common walls and sheet metal siding.  They tend to be a bit more minimalistic inside, metal stairs, concrete floors, open plans.  They are also considerably cheaper, $200k if you want to be on the gentrification front line, which means living in the the edge of the ghetto.

    These are more single person units, whereas the others are couple or small family.

    HERE is another pic.

    Ahh (none / 0) (#221)
    by CST on Thu Dec 10, 2015 at 10:07:14 AM EST
    The triple-deckers here are a lot different.  You only live on one floor of the building.  So there are three completely separate units per triple decker.  And each unit is a 2-3 bedroom.  So each building is 6-9 bedrooms.  It's historically been lower income/immigrant housing, and now they are selling for 300K+ per unit (so a million or more for the entire building).

    And for reference, a lot of people consider Dorchester to be the ghetto (I would call it mixed-income).  So that's 300k for 1/3 of a triple-decker, in the "ghetto".

    F*ck.

    Dang CST... (none / 0) (#222)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 10, 2015 at 12:02:58 PM EST
    ...$300k per floor.  I can't imagine, I don't think there is anything like that here.  When I was looking a long time ago I was trying to find a duplex, which were everywhere in Wisconsin, thinking own one half and rent the other.  They don't exist here.

    I used to live on the fringe, I say ghetto, but it's not, more like old run down neighborhoods with extremely high property crime rates, but not much violent crime.  The natural barrier was always the freeway that cuts through downtown, but the property is too cheap to not cross because the locations are fantastic if you work downtown.

    Tuesday Open Thread | 209 comments (209 topical)