home

Saturday College Football Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 10:02:39 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Tough first week - I stand at 7-9 (-5 units) ATS. Today I turn it around. The picks (in bold):

Wake Forest vs. @ Syracuse -4; Army +7 vs @ Connecticut; Houston vs @ Louisville -13; Temple +7 vs @ Cincinnati; Fresno State vs @ Mississippi -30(3 units);East Carolina +21 vs @ Florida; LSU -4 (5 units) vs @ Mississippi State; Hawaii vs @ Ohio State -41 (3 units); South Florida +29 vs @ Florida State; UCLA vs @ UNLV +30; Oregon vs @ Michigan State -4 (3 units); Boise State vs @ BYU +3; Kentucky vs @ South Carolina -7 (3 units) ; Toledo vs @ Arkansas -23 (3 units); Notre Dame vs @ Virginia -13; Minnesota vs @ Colorado State +5 (3 units); Georgia -21 (4 units) vs @ Vanderbilt;Miami Ohio +31 vs @ Wisconsin; Buffalo + 17 vs @ Penn State; Bowling Green +8 vs @ Maryland; Oregon State +15 vs @ Michigan

Go Gators!

Open Thread.

< Saturday College Football Open Thread | The Clinton Rules: About that "classified info" - what about the stuff not on Hillary's server? >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Saturday College Football Open Thread | 191 comments (191 topical)
    It is a state of Oregon vs state of Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by caseyOR on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 01:11:20 PM EST
    day in college football. The Beavers are in The Big House to have at it with the Wolverines. And tonight the Ducks visit Michigan State.

    I would imagine old Sparty wants to avenge last year's loss to the Water Fowl from the Pac NW. I don't think Sparty will prevail, however, even though the game is on MSU home turf.

    Go, Ducks!!!!

    Go, Beavers!!!!

    Watch out for those Wolverines! (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 02:20:09 PM EST


    Parent
    The Wolverines took a big (none / 0) (#39)
    by caseyOR on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 06:56:06 PM EST
    bite out of the Beavers, beating them 35-7.

    Parent
    DOJ agrees with Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by ding7777 on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 02:05:58 PM EST
    There is no question that former Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision -- she appropriately could have done so even if she were working on a government server

    If that comment doesn't violate TL rules (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by shoephone on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 10:13:04 PM EST
    then the rules no longer apply.

    Perhaps anger management classes are in order.

    In watching some of the 911 history shows, (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 01:56:39 AM EST
    I always devote some of the day to watching the 911 videos and personal accounts of that day. One of the nice things I noticed was how race did not matter to anyone. And with all the images of the last couple of years of black vs white and white vs black brutality it was nice to see no race difference. Only people helping other people.

    Until 9/12... (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    when muslims and brown-skinned people mistaken for muslims started becoming victims of retaliatory assaults, and subject to extensive, and sometimes illegal/unconstitutional, government surveillance.

    Not to be a downer, but we should never forget that part of 9/11 too BB.

    Parent

    And How it Was Used... (none / 0) (#171)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 01:19:41 PM EST
    ...to leverage us into a war that had nothing to do with 9/11.  How it was also used for years, and still is, to justify idiocy that is clearly unconstitutional, including secret courts, torture, and drones.

    Parent
    just learned one if my best buds (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 07:59:41 AM EST
    worked on the Dragon sequence in the Game of Thrones finale.

    Very few things make me miss work these days.

    Lovely fallish morning. (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 08:21:40 AM EST
    turned the heat on for the first time.

    Been an interesting weekend.

    Friday about 4-5pm  I got doubled over by the worst abdominal pain I ever had. Abdominal moving to the back.  Cold sweat.  Thought I was gonna blow chunks.  All I could do was lay very still and sweat.   Perfectly it was at the exact right time for such a thing.  All doctors offices had just closed leaving the only option the emergency room.  It passes.  I think I will see how it goes and try to wait out the weekend.

    Probably a stupid decision.

    I'm more or less ok if not pain free till about 8pm.  I have another not quite as bad.  It passes and I try to go to bed and hope for the best.  3am it arrives again and this time I get out the iPad and go to WebMd.  I decide I have pancreatitis.   And I should stop dawdling.  I call my nephew at about 4am.  We arrive at the emergency room at Bout 5.  Which is thankfully deserted and I go right in.

    Good news bad news.  After being poked and tested for a couple of hours I find out I don't have pancreatitis.

    I have a kidney stone.  In fact I still have it.  

    If there is an upside they gave me some kick ass pain medicine that will hopefully help "everything come out alright"

    So I just took the morning dose and I fading fast.  Please send slippery slidy vibes a spare me the description of personal horror stories.  Already heard plenty of those.

    See you n the other side.

    Yes, Captain, (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by KeysDan on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 02:27:43 PM EST
    of the two possibilities, the kidney stone is the "good news."'  But, that is not to say, of course, that this is really good news.  Once the stone passes into the bladder (assuming it is still in one of the ureters) the worst will be over.

    The ER probably gave some medications to help in the stone's travels, such as Flomax. And, hopefully, they gave you a funnel/filter so as try to collect the stone (which often looks like a wood tick).   If you can retrieve the stone, it can help to determine the cause. For example, calcium (diet), cystine (hereditary), or uric acid (high protein diet/gout).   As other have recommended, a lot of water now and always.  Here's to a fast recovery.

    Parent

    "This too shall pass," or at least (none / 0) (#69)
    by Anne on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 08:56:41 AM EST
    that's the hoped-for/expected outcome.

    In the meantime, hope the pain meds do the trick, and you're back with the "all-clear" report before too long.

    Parent

    The ER doc was in a good mood (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 09:04:16 AM EST
    he said "don't worry.  It's like having a tiny angry baby with sharp finger and toenails"

    Thanks doc.

    Parent

    So sorry to hear this, Capt. (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by caseyOR on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 01:42:03 PM EST
    Thank the universe for pain meds. Drink lots of water and sleep as much as you can. I agree with Towanda about getting whatever meds you take checked for their possible guilt in this matter.

    And fishcamp is so right- get out of the south.

    First, though, get better.

    Parent

    Sorry to hear this Capt. (none / 0) (#77)
    by fishcamp on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 09:59:39 AM EST
    but at least it isn't the pancreas, and that's good news.  Upon reading about kidney stones I see you are in good company with such notables such as:  Napolean, Peter the Great, Louis XIV, Lyndon Johnson, Benjamin Franklin, Isaac Newton, and Antonio Scarpa.  Also read the southern states are in the kidney stone belt of America, due to global warming.  You need to pass that stone and get out of there, which of course, you know.  Get well soon.

    Parent
    But do yourself a favor and do not read about (none / 0) (#78)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 10:25:45 AM EST
    the treatments in Newton's time.

    If you are up to it though, the Neal Stephenson book Quicksilver does into excruciating detail.

    Parent

    What is the correlation between (none / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 07:36:47 PM EST
    global warming abd kidney stones, if I may be so bold as to ask?

    Parent
    Oculus, I read about this (none / 0) (#133)
    by fishcamp on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 07:22:13 AM EST
    phenomena in the Apple dictionary.  The American Urological Association merely says global warming will lead to an increased incidence of kidney stones in the U S by expanding the "kidney stone belt" of the southern United States.  It doesn't say why.  It does say to limit the consumption of cola soft drinks which contain phosphoric acid, to less than one liter of soft drinks per week.  My thinking is people in the southern states drink more sodas, but the dictionary does not say that.  This article speaks of the exact same three main reasons for kidney stones, that KeysDan pointed out.

    Parent
    oculus, if you click on (none / 0) (#135)
    by fishcamp on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 07:45:35 AM EST
    "all" in the Apple dictionary it includes Wikipedia, which I'm sure you know.  

    Parent
    My Doc Said... (none / 0) (#139)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 10:27:04 AM EST
    ...'Stop with the tea', which I had just started drinking about 3 months before the stone.  I have and all is well, but that would make sense in that everyone here, the south, drinks tea.

    By tea, I mean cold sweet tea.  I gave up soda pop, and tea was the obvious low cal alternative that was available everywhere.

    Parent

    Scott, it's disturbing to me (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by fishcamp on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 01:03:57 PM EST
    That your doctor told you to stop with the tea.  For the last few years I've been drinking three cups of freshly brewed unsweetened green tea.  It supposedly has the ability to slow the growth of blood capillaries, that bring food, to new cancer cells, thus starving them.  I read this in the excellent book "Anti Cancer A New Way of Life". By David Servan-Schreiber, MD, PhD.  I'm wondering if it is the tea or the sweetener your doctor means, or both?

    Parent
    Black tea is the one to avoid. (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by caseyOR on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 01:33:37 PM EST
    Herbal and green teas are fine. Here is an explanation of why.

    Parent
    Dr. Davies says... (none / 0) (#173)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 01:32:10 PM EST
    If you feel a bit under the weather,
    If you feel a little bit peeved,
    Take granny's stand-by potion
    For any old cough or wheeze.
    It's a cure for hepatitis, it's a cure for chronic insomnia,
    It's a cure for tonsillitis, and for water on the knee.

    Have a Cuppa Tea

    Parent

    And Theanine....so good for your brain (none / 0) (#177)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 01:44:07 PM EST
    I got my spouse to switch to cold green tea with Splenda. He needs a sweetener, I don't. With mild PTSD though I will never get too much Theanine in him.

    Parent
    I Was Buying... (none / 0) (#180)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 01:56:38 PM EST
    ...gallons containers of Arizona Tea, and when I would let it sit in the fridge, I could see it settle out, and the dust at the bottom would be my guess at the bad stuff for kidneys.  The correlation was seriously like 3 months of drinking it and a stone.

    Casey's link seems to indicate green tea has much lower or none of the crystallizing content.

    For me is was easy in that I don't really like tea, but it did work for getting me off soda.  I still drink it, but not nearly as much.  I just said, F it, water is probably my best bet.  I think that is why my overall experience was pretty painless compared to others, I drink a lot of water, I just don't like it with meals.

    Parent

    Whatever you do, do not (none / 0) (#82)
    by Towanda on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 11:04:31 AM EST
    do what I did, when I had my last kidney-stone attack:  Do not look on the internet to see what kidney stones look like . . . and magnified.  

    That ER doc's description ought to be "a tiny angry baby octopus made of cut glass with dozens of razor-sharp claws."

    Yes, do take those pain meds, and drink lots of water.  And when this is over, as it will be soon, give yourself a pat on the back for making it through this.  (But not the lower back.)

    And then, have your regular doc look again at your meds.  It turns out that I was taking one that could have caused that first kidney-stone attack in forty years.  And, with a different med (I process calcium poorly, so I need a lot of vitamin D3), I haven't had another attack in several years since.

    Parent

    So glad you went to the doc ...I know I talk (none / 0) (#80)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 10:27:44 AM EST
    myself out of it too. Hope you feel better soon!

    Parent
    Sending you (none / 0) (#83)
    by Zorba on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 11:35:55 AM EST
    Healing thoughts and vibes, Capt.  

    Parent
    Good luck Cap... (none / 0) (#93)
    by desertswine on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 02:13:42 PM EST
    Hopefully in the future you won't ever get this again.

    Parent
    My Story, No Horror Story... (none / 0) (#138)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 10:21:24 AM EST
    ...same thing, pain in back that kept getting worse, to the point where I told my gf to call an ambulance.  Never in my life have I sweat and lost breathe from pain.  I had decided that I would absorb the cost of the ambulance versus waiting in the emergency room.

    Went away in 5 mins, told gf to cancel ambulance.  They needed confirmation, to cancel, I gave it to them.  It's funny, because during the worse pain I have ever felt, my brain was focused on what I would need for the trip and possibly stay.  I had my gf getting my wallet, checking insurance card, and packing my toiletries.  All this while hunched over my bed, with my feet on floor.  She was freaking the F out, as I probably would if she told me to call an ambulance.

    That was it, the next day I went in to see my doctor, no tests, nothing, he said it was a kidney stone and that at some point it was going to pass.  He would only do tests if I got another, but told stop with the tea.  I haven't had a sip of tea since and been stone free for 3 or 4 years.

    What freaked me out is not knowing and that I was going diving in a couple weeks.  I can't imagine that going on while 80 feet under the surface.  Or even being on a plane or in a bar, any place but home would have made the situation so bad.

    The stone came out painlessly, just a -bloop- as I was going to the bathroom, and as much as I wanted to retrieve it, the idea of sticking my hand into the toilet was too much, said good bye and flushed that bothersome crystal.

    Now at least if I get another I will know.  But the pain as intense as it was, for me, only lasted about 5 mins.  Knowing this in the future will greatly keep me from freaking the F out.  But I do get a little nervous when I have back paid, which isn't that often, but I always think, please don't worse.

    Parent

    "Bitterkix? Party of one?" (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Anne on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 09:44:36 AM EST
    This completely juvenile and petulant exchange seems to have its origins in your being offended that your arguments are not getting any traction and no one's coming to your defense.

    Sometimes, that's what happens.  We've all had the experience of people not interpreting what we're writing as we meant for it to, and we've all been damned on the basis of our commenting history.

    For what it's worth - and you may not think it worth much - I'll probably be on the receiving end of some of this kind of reaction, since I'm lukewarm at best about Clinton, and just completely over the never-ending drama.  And it's not because she's a woman, either.  It's a combination of her hawkishness, her dancing around things she ought to be able to be more definite about, not being able to trust that what she says she wants to do is what she actually will do, or try to do.  It's about her attitude about the national security state, and transparency and accountability and privacy rights.  I know she's a big advocate for women and children, but I don't know if it's enough.  And I pretty much hate her blind allegiance to Israel that could have some serious costs to this country and to the region.

    I don't know where this leaves me.  I know I won't be voting for any Republicans, but I know as sure as I'm sitting here that if she is the nominee, she's likely to end up being the Republican in the race - not the crazy kind, but so far over the center line in her effort to appeal to traditional Republicans that she's going to look like one of them, instead of one of us.

    Feistykix :-) (none / 0) (#92)
    by Politalkix on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 02:11:29 PM EST


    Parent
    Up to 20 troll ratings (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 11:25:30 PM EST
    from a wide variety of people on the blog. Good job.

    Politicaltrix (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by fishcamp on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 06:50:11 AM EST
    If I agreed with you that would make us both wrong.

    That is You Arguement... (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 09:54:34 AM EST
    ...Wisconsinites like beer and cheese ?  You forgot brats and the Pack in your idiocy.

    If credibility is a concern, look at your ratings, you have none what-so-ever*.  If being a jack@ss is your goal, well done sir.

    * 1's are troll rating here, and that comment has 8 of them.  
    Yes (none / 0) (#195)
    by Politalkix on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 06:38:59 PM EST
    Make Towanda gulp the Packers says the idiot who got offended for not getting the attention he was seeking!

    Parent
    L'Shana Tova (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by jbindc on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 10:37:54 AM EST
    To all celebrating Rosh Hashanah today!

    Towanda please accept my apologies (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by fishcamp on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    For giving Politicaltrix a fiver regarding the hideous comment he made about you.  I was reading shoephone's comment, and my fingers went to the wrong place.  Happens with age.  It has been corrected.  Sorry.  Good to see you back shoephone.  Bad boy Politicaltrix...

    Labor Party in UK chooses socialist as leader (none / 0) (#1)
    by Politalkix on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 11:31:21 AM EST
    link

    New New Labor rejects New Labor and third way policies that defined Tony Blair's terms.

    Can New New Democrats shove the DLC and Clinton era centrism to the kerb?

    New new drinking game (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 12:02:33 PM EST
    Take a shot every time Politalkix strains to associate something ... anything, with one of the Clintons.

    I put the over/under on everyone passing out by 10 posts.

    Parent

    Yman should get out more (none / 0) (#3)
    by Politalkix on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 12:16:55 PM EST
    The association was always there. Not invented by me.

    link

    "While the Democrats had never been avowedly socialist, they too went through a period of adjustment, casting aside the social welfare policies and close labor alliances of the New Deal. In their place came the centrist presidential candidate Bill Clinton and the New Democrats.

    "[W]e need to put government on the playing field, not to manage or direct markets but mainly to help create markets," said Clinton during the 1992 election. That business-friendly avowal was a far cry from Franklin Roosevelt's 1936 claim that the forces of "organized money...are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred."

    Sure enough, as president, Clinton actually helped to further aspects of the Reagan-Thatcher political project. His 1996 welfare reforms significantly reduced the size of the social safety net and made work a condition of receiving welfare. His Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, helped deregulate the financial industry, which in turn contributed to the 2008 financial collapse.

    But Clinton also shepherded his party back into the White House, where he presided over an era of economic prosperity. Tony Blair, the young, up-and-coming leader of the Labour party, was watching. In fact, Clinton wound up being the "spiritual godfather" to Blair's New Labour, according to the Guardian's Jonathan Freedland.

    By the time Labour emerged from the wilderness and Blair became Prime Minister in 1997, the party had made an even more dramatic rightward shift than the New Democrats and cast aside the last vestiges of its socialist past. "


    Parent

    The association in your first post ... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 12:23:39 PM EST
    ... was entirely invented by you.  Not that it would take you long to strain to find another article to try to link them - particularly one as generic as that one.

    C'mon, Politalkix ... don't be ashamed ... own your obsession.

    Parent

    Whatever! (none / 0) (#5)
    by Politalkix on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 12:36:07 PM EST


    Parent
    You know what? (2.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 02:18:21 PM EST
    I think I'd be more concerned about all the misogyny that Bernie supporters or self identified Bernie supporters were spouting all over the internet because if Sanders is the nominee a lot of women are going to be sitting home in 2016 and his supporters are doing him no favors trying to browbeat everybody with implying Bernie is Jesus and if you don't see how much like Jesus Bernie is then either you are an idiot or whatever instead of fantasizing that something that happened in Great Britain means something that is going to happen here.

    Parent
    Is this another DK thing, where you (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Anne on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 03:13:17 PM EST
    extrapolate to the entire range of Sanders supporters around the country what you're seeing at DK?

    Do you think it's better that if Clinton is the nominee a lot of men might be sitting at home?  

    Hillary Clinton has big problems with male voters

    The new Quinnipiac University poll shows Bernie Sanders drawing even in Iowa with the erstwhile front-runner. And his traction with "very liberal" voters is clearly a big part of it. He leads among them 59-29.

    But look a little deeper, and you'll also see that Clinton is also getting swamped among Democratic men. She trails among them 48-29, while leading among women by a similar margin, 49-35.

    A Marist College/NBC News poll of New Hampshire last week showed much the same thing. Clinton trailed Sanders overall by nine points, but among men by 24 points, 48-24. She led among women by six.

    In fact, in the latter poll, Sanders's lead was bigger among men than among "very liberal" voters.

    But...but...but...

    Parent

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 06:26:21 PM EST
    there would be upper income white liberal males sitting home. I'm not sure they would vote for any woman sorry to say.

    You know this kind of thing is pushed in the press. Everybody should be pushing back against the misogyny. So far the press seems to mostly have either treated Bernie like a joke or ignored him.

    And yes, it is a DK thing.

    Parent

    You aren't making a whole lot of sense, (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Anne on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 08:30:47 PM EST
    at least not to me.

    I do not for one minute believe that Clinton's terrible numbers with men (note: it's men, not just white men, and not just white male liberals - just men, across the political spectrum)can all be attributable to misogyny, or that "liberal men" are all knuckle-dragging women-haters who would never vote for one.

    I don't see the media making jokes about Sanders, especially not now that he's pulling ahead of Clinton in Iowa and NH.  They seem to be using him to keep up their attacks on Clinton, and for as long as that's working, I expect they will keep it up.

    I don't know why you keep using the DK community as some kind of standard-bearer for what the electorate is all about - well, except that it helps you keep up your own attacks on Sanders.

    The thing you seem to be missing is that Sanders resonates with Democratic voters because he's pushing an agenda they support.  He's much farther to the left than Clinton, and people like that about him.  They feel like there's finally someone in the race who speaks for them.

    The problem Clinton's having is getting her message out, because the media's much more interested in scandal-mongering and stirring the pot.  Meanwhile, Sanders gains ground.

    If she makes the mistake of going after Sanders as someone who won't be able to get the things done that he's giving speeches about, she's going to find herself in the same position she was in in 2008, when she tried that with Obama.

    I don't care who you support - but I do find it all kinds of annoying for you to keep using DK as some sort of authority for what's "really" going on with the voters.

    Parent

    I'm not (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 09:25:45 PM EST
    specifically talking about all men but when people start playing personality politics it certainly comes off as misogyny to me.

    The truth of the matter is that women are held to a different standard it seems. Biden voted for the IWR but is given a pass.

    I'm sure there are supporters that Bernie has that are supporting him because they like what he says better and that's fine but then you see people like Politkix above who constantly talks about how evil  Hillary is yet never has anything good to say about Bernie. Can't you support Bernie without Hillary even entering the conversation? Apparently for a some of these bloggers the answer is a resounding no.


    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#75)
    by Politalkix on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 09:36:04 AM EST
    I just posted links about Corbyn's victory (in articles that mentioned Blair era centrism was rejected) with a wish that a similar victory be replicated in America (Clinton era centrism and DLC be shoved to the kerb) through a victory for Bernie.

    Instead of focusing on issues or the linked articles, you and a few others decided to make the thread about me, "misogyny", "upper income white liberal males", personality politics and what not!

    I can understand why some Clinton supporters are doing it. They know that Bernie is better on the issues than HRC. So they resort to tired memes like "Bernie dies not have support of women and non whites", "Bernie can't get things done" and the usual name calling ("Clinton hater", "misogynist", etc).

    Parent

    Uhhhmmm, ... those aren't "memes" (none / 0) (#95)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 03:10:35 PM EST
    I can understand why some Clinton supporters are doing it. They know that Bernie is better on the issues than HRC. So they resort to tired memes like "Bernie dies not have support of women and non whites", "Bernie can't get things done" and the usual name calling ("Clinton hater", "misogynist", etc).

    Those are facts.  Do you need links?

    Parent

    To your point: (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by NYShooter on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 03:14:42 AM EST
    "The thing you seem to be missing is that Sanders resonates with Democratic voters because he's pushing an agenda they support."

    --------------------------------------

    May I add:

    Clinton "thinking about" reclassifying marijuana, says potential donor [Bloomberg].

    Sanders: "It is not acceptable that many young people have criminal records for smoking marijuana, while the CEOs of banks whose illegal behavior helped destroy our economy do not" [HuffPo].
    -------------------------------------------

    What these examples show is that political candidates, when they say things that resonate with average voters, or offer solutions that make sense to normal, every-day people, will have little problem in gaining their attention, and, maybe even, getting their support.

    Such a common sense, simple concept!

    And then, there's reading the embarrassing, infantile lunacy that passes for debate, or, conversation, here that makes me laugh every time I read a comment about those "clowns" in that other party.

    BTW, Anne, I'm not thinking about you with my comments above.

    But, I gotta say, leaving here was the best thing I've done for myself in quite a while.

    And, before all the geniuses here risk broken kneecaps in rushing to display their brilliance to me, don't bother, I know the way. But, thanks for asking, I'll make sure to not let the door hit me on my way out.

    Parent

    And DK is supporting HRC (none / 0) (#35)
    by Politalkix on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 06:36:16 PM EST
    and there are lots of pro-HRC and anti-Bernie diaries in DK.

    You do not have a frea_ing clue about what you are typing!

    Parent

    A lot of Bernie's (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 06:05:56 PM EST
    supporters are women.

    A fact that you seem to want to ignore.

    Personally, I can't see much difference between your ant-Sanders and left of the party rhetoric and Politalkix's anti-Clinton nonsense.


    Parent

    Totally agree, (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Zorba on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 06:20:47 PM EST
    MO Blue.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 06:27:48 PM EST
    there are and fortunately some of them are pushing back against the misogyny however unfortunately are also getting drowned out and talked over too.

    Mostly it's unfortunate for Bernie because he's done nothing of the sort.

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#33)
    by Politalkix on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 06:32:15 PM EST
    Bernie's supporters are mostly misogynists and racists according to Ga6th....

    Do not know what gets served at Clinton rallies to come up with this sort of nonsense.

     

    Parent

    I never (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 07:00:35 PM EST
    brought race into the discussion. You're the one calling Bernie supporters racists not me. I was solely speaking of the misogyny.

    Do you ever have anything positive to say about Bernie? I mean Mo Blue and Anne are sj usually pretty positive when it comes to talking about what Bernie is saying but all you do is whine about Hillary.  

    Parent

    Yes, you did! (1.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Politalkix on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 07:10:11 PM EST
    You said "upper income white liberal males sitting home"

    When you said "white", you brought race into the discussion.

    You and MO Blue are champions when it comes to the "whine". Please stop projecting your talent on me.

    Parent

    So that's (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 07:17:30 PM EST
    the same as calling someone a racist? Well, I had no idea. You're the one stating that upper income white liberals are racists. I was simply making a statement about demographics.

    Parent
    So (1.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Politalkix on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 06:21:31 PM EST
    "DLC and Clinton era centrism" becomes "anti-Clinton nonsense"?

    MO Blue, I knew that you were a fraud when you spouted your "liberalism". Just showed yourself for what you are and what I always knew you to be.

    This is what HRC herself said as she sought to rally her most loyal supporters link

    "I've been accused of being a moderate," Clinton said. "I plead guilty."

    Parent

    You sprout anti-Clinton rhetoric (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 06:42:23 PM EST
    At every opportunity. Rather than distort what I have written, why don't you own up to your own hate filled agenda.

    BTW, I support Bernie Sanders but that support does not translate into me supporting dishonest people like you who go out of their way to distort information in order to slime HRC.

    Grow up. Your ability to sling personal insults does add any creditability to your comments. You never had much creditability to begin with but you continue to throw what little remains with your crusade against Hillary.


    Parent

    Grow up MO Blue (1.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Politalkix on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 06:51:25 PM EST
    You could not bring yourself to vote for BHO and spent many years posting hate filled rants about him and being proud of the fact that you did not vote for him. That is what "hate" is! Go and look at yourself in the mirror.

    In the last couple of days (in a span of a few months), I posted a couple of posts about HRC after her foreign policy speech and Corbyn's victory. That becomes a "hate filled agenda" to you! Double standards?

    You are a fraud, MO Blue. You really are!

    Parent

    You are an ass. You really are (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 11:03:42 PM EST
    You have always been an ass. People might actually have a wee bit of respect for you if you owned your opposition and argued your position using real issues and facts rather than distorting the truth and hurling insults.

    But then again that would require you to have the ability to tell the truth. A skill that you have always lacked. Your comments are consistently filled with insults because you lack the knowledge and skill to debate a subject using factual information.

    I have always death with issues using real data to support my position.  I disagree with President Obama on many issues. No question about that. But i have always used actual data to support my opposition.

    You OTOH  have always death in juvenile insults, lies and erroneous information. Your writing is that of a whiny 5 year old who lays on the ground kicking his feet and screaming until they turn blue.

    Parent

    Your frustrations (1.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Politalkix on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 12:44:05 AM EST
    about HRC floundering are clearly evident in your verbal diahorrea.


    Parent
    Try taking a class in (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 05:44:33 PM EST
    understanding basic English.

    Let me type this real slow so that even you might actually comprehend the meaning of the  words that I write.

    Once again, I support Bernie Sanders for president in 2016. I do not support HRC; therefore, I experience no frustration where she is concerned. Her foundering only means that the chances of my preferred candidate winning are increased.

    Your participation in any thread where people are trying to rationally discuss political issues turns that thread into a slime pit full full of your lies, distortions and personal attacks on other commenters in the thread. You really are pitiful.

    Parent

    Try to learn English and also learn counting (1.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Politalkix on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 07:45:53 PM EST
    by enrolling in elementary school. I started the thread (Post # 1). All you people joined afterwards. I do not want to mock what you imagine to be "rational discussion of political issues" but the thread does reveal your low standards and your slimy modus operandi.

    Parent
    You are retyping lies once again (none / 0) (#107)
    by Politalkix on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 07:26:01 PM EST
    Do not know why you think that will help.

    Parent
    Exactly how many troll ratings (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 10:26:40 PM EST
    have you gotten in this thread? At last count, I think it was 13.

    You have even been one of the few people to ever get a troll rating from Peter. You must be so proud.

    Keep up the good work and you might set the TL record.

    Parent

    You are a perfect (none / 0) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 08:45:19 PM EST
    example of the Bernie supporter who trolls all over the internet turning people off of Bernie. The same Bernie trolls that are all over Hillary's facebook page spouting the same nonsense the wingnut welfare crowd is spouting.

    Parent
    Oh, come on, Ga... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Anne on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 09:04:22 PM EST
    at some point, you're going to need to acknowledge that there are legitimate criticisms of and objections to Hillary Clinton that have nothing to do with Bernie Sanders.  I know for myself, my criticism of her would exist even if she were running with no opposition.

    That there may be a bunch of Sanders supporters at DK who are getting ugly about Clinton is dispositive of nothing, and the fact that you keep using it is getting tiresome.

    Make the case for Clinton, if that's who you're supporting.  But for the love of God, please stop speaking in bumper stickers and catch phrases: they aren't selling Clinton as much as they're making you - and her - look like you're playing not to lose instead of playing to win.

    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 09:18:09 PM EST
    I'm not saying there aren't legitimate criticisms of her but there also are legitimate ones of Bernie too. I mean when you've got Bernie supporters still buying into the email stuff then I really have to question where their minds are at.

    Oh, I've posted plenty of positive stuff but it's just too toxic right now. I'll be glad when the voting occurs so we can start actually talking about real stuff.

    Parent

    The same mindset (none / 0) (#117)
    by Politalkix on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 09:18:37 PM EST
    that Ga6th, Yman, etc display is very much in existence among HRC's closest advisors, i.e. any criticism of her is based on hatred, misogyny and with a motivation to get her. It promotes an atmosphere of paranoia and sycophancy and makes her do stupid and self destructive things.

    Parent
    Reading comprehension (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 07:02:52 AM EST
    Not your strong suit, huh?  But I'll spell it out for you, since you're having issues.  There are perfectly legitimate criticisms of her.  Then there are your ridiculous, specious, hate-filled, CDS-induced, hypocritical rants.

    Got it?

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 10:17:46 PM EST
    not every criticism of Hillary is based on misogyny but a lot of it sure seems that way. When you're not sticking to issues and playing personality politics it comes off as misogyny. Hillary does not seem to be worried and she has internal polling.

    It seems that Bernie is hauling Cornel West around these days. How destructive is that?

    Parent

    What is your issue with West? (none / 0) (#134)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 07:26:29 AM EST
    That he was so vocal in his criticism of Obama?

    Or is there something else?

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 11:21:14 AM EST
    not the criticism of Obama in general but what he actually said. It sounded pretty vile. C'mon you criticize Obama without being vile. We do it around here all the time.

    Parent
    What does that have to do (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 11:40:50 AM EST
    with Sanders?  I could understand it if West's comments were about Clinton, but they weren't.

    Parent
    Sanders (none / 0) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 11:50:57 AM EST
    picked him to be a part of his campaign.

    Parent
    Not responsive. (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 12:40:17 PM EST
    You still haven't said why it's so terrible, other than that West has been pointedly critical of Obama.

    Parent
    I find it more than a little ironic (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by CST on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 12:46:52 PM EST
    That someone who has been critical of Obama to date is upset with someone being critical of Obama.

    From the left no less.

    Oh well.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#167)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 12:50:28 PM EST
    my point is not that he was critical but the words he used. They are pretty vile IMO.

    Parent
    Since (none / 0) (#166)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 12:48:54 PM EST
    I don't what to repeat what he said I will just like to a diary that has all the statements link

    Apparently West is pretty detested in the African American community.

    Parent

    You mean, the DK AA community, (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 01:31:29 PM EST
    I think.

    Haven't we been over this before - how just because you see it at DK doesn't mean it translates to the entire universe of whatever demographic is under discussion?

    I'm aware of what he said about Obama.  News flash: Obama's not running for anything - Clinton is.

    If you want to make the case that Cornel West will be turning off potential AA voters, not helping to get out that vote, then make that case - but don't keep using DK to do it.  Read something else for a change and see what you learn.

    Parent

    There are (none / 0) (#179)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 01:54:20 PM EST
    links. I actually thought about bypassing GOS and looking for the direct statements.

    Parent
    Yeah - it does (none / 0) (#130)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 06:58:45 AM EST
    Particularly when your posts consist of such garbage as "A vote for HC is a vote for ME war!", and particularly in the context of your history of CDS-induced rants.

    Anything else you need help understanding?

    Parent

    Corbyn . . . (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 07:04:15 PM EST
    is going to lose in an absolute rout

    Parent
    But (none / 0) (#110)
    by Politalkix on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 08:41:36 PM EST
    his opponents already lost in an absolute rout against him (despite Tony Blair campaigning against Corbyn)and the next election is not due till 2020.
    We will have to wait and see what happens. However at this time (as always), I do not have much respect for the Nabobs of conventional wisdom.


    Parent
    rotfl (none / 0) (#113)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 08:46:52 PM EST


    Parent
    I can't (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 09:14:36 PM EST
    find anything on the approval of socialism in Great Britain but I did find that the socialist president of France recorded the lowest approval rating here

    Parent
    Speaking of Jeremy Corbyn... (none / 0) (#136)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 09:17:05 AM EST
    ...seems as if the illustrious Donald Trump retweeted something from a man claiming his father would vote for Trump.  The pic of his father was actually Corbyn.  LINK

    Would it be too much to ask that Presidential candidates know what the F is going on in the world.

    Parent

    Labor party earthquake (none / 0) (#6)
    by Politalkix on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 12:55:19 PM EST
    link

    The result represented an extraordinary rebuke to Labour's more centrist establishment, especially to former prime minister Tony Blair, who had campaigned vigorously against Corbyn and who argued that his selection would mean the party's "annihilation."

    But interventions from Blair and other party heavyweights apparently did little to halt Corbyn's momentum, and may have even backfired. As the summer campaign progressed, Corbyn evolved from a fringe candidate who barely made it on the ballot to a grass-roots phenomenon who, white-haired and rumpled at 66, stirred the passions of a new generation of Labour activists.

    Corbyn's rise echoes that of another senior-citizen socialist who has come out of nowhere this year to rattle his party's center-left establishment. Like Corbyn, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has been waging a surprisingly effective insurgency against better-known rivals, including a woman trying to make history.

    "Echoes" - heh (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 01:23:32 PM EST
    Well, except for the fact that Corbyn's won.  Probably good you didn't reinforce the obvious by including the next sentence:

    But while Sanders is still fighting uphill in his effort to dethrone Hillary Rodham Clinton as the Democratic Party's nominee for president, Corbyn's once-quixotic-seeming campaign ended Saturday with an emphatic win.


    Parent
    The interconnectedness (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by KeysDan on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 02:47:17 PM EST
    between Jeremy Corbyn and Senator Sanders is passion and fervor of the supporters--based in Corbyn's case,  on the disarray of the Labour Party in the wake of the hapless Ed Milbrand and his defeat in the general election at the hands of Cameron and  the Conservatives.

    The passion and fervor of the Sander's supporters need to  concentrate more on building up their candidate than tearing down his opposition.  They will need the experience if Senator Sanders should win the Democratic nomination. A cue can be taken from the senator himself, who presents his views without directly attacking, or impugning, the integrity of other Democratic contenders.

     Corbyn's task and the indulgence of his supporters will be to offer a shadow government and governance  that makes sense to the general electorate.  All to be done while unifying the Labour Party, balancing labor unions and ill-feelings of the defeated Blairites.  And, all to be done in the face of a Tory press that will be determined to further wedge and rupture Labour factions and wage war on socialism. A war that will be joined by Conservatives to blur and distort the differences between socialism and communism.  

    In my view, the parallels to observe and lessons to be learned are that the selection of a Democratic candidate through the primary process must not result in a win that is fractured, only to go on to yield a sure-fire loss in the general election.  The Republican conga line is funny, but not a joke.

    The Labour Party is not the Democratic Party--it holds the presidency .All energies are needed to repel the Republican onslaughts--those to Mrs. Clinton, and those soon to come to Senator Sanders (or Biden).   Sanders supporters, perhaps, if they care to,  can divert some of their anti-Clinton fervor to becoming informed by the inevitable attacks on Jeremy Corbyn's socialism. .

    Parent

    True, but it's not going to hapeen (none / 0) (#15)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 02:58:32 PM EST
    ... in the case of Politalkix.  He can't stand Hillary.

    Parent
    I absolutely cannot wait (5.00 / 7) (#120)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 09:54:09 PM EST
    for TL to get moved in to her new place, so she can return to her role of Kindergarden Kop over these unnecessarily personal, endless back-and-forth "so's your mother"-style comment battles, which are so unilluminating to the rest of us.

    Parent
    Your'e probably right, (none / 0) (#17)
    by KeysDan on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 03:02:08 PM EST
    but maybe he has a cousin out there, somewhere.

    Parent
    Clinton supporters (none / 0) (#19)
    by Politalkix on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 03:20:14 PM EST
    are doing great damage to their candidate by calling any criticism of her as "misogynist" or motivated by "hate".

    Parent
    Sweeping overgeneralizations (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Towanda on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 06:27:11 PM EST
    are unwise, as they redound on the writer.  The cure is the usage of qualifiers.

    That is, it's probably so that "a couple of" or "some" Clinton supporters point out misogyny -- and it is that, and it is out there, on other blogs -- in "some" criticism of their candidate.  

    That's politics; that's human nature; that's credible.  

    But your sweeping overgeneralization is not only unsupported; it also is unsupportable. And that makes your comment entirely lacking in credibility.  

    Parent

    And Clinton haters ... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 07:32:03 AM EST
    ... are doing a disservice to their credibility by denying the obvious.

    BTW - Who said "any criticism of her as "misogynist" or motivated by "hate"?  Besides you, of course?

    Parent

    You (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 02:11:36 PM EST
    are ignoring the fact that Labor has been in turmoil ever since the collapse of 2008 when they are in control of Great Britain. Their problems more parallel what is going in on the GOP than the Democrats. The fact of the matter is Labor never figured out how to deal with the fact that the collapse happened on their watch much like the GOP here in America.

    Parent
    I'm, admittedly, no expert (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by NYShooter on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 03:01:35 PM EST
    on British politics. But, I believe that in America, in the eyes of voters, from the far Left to the far Right (and, everything in between) there is one issue that everyone, overwhelmingly, agrees upon:

    And, that is,
    If you are a "successful" American politician you have only one employer who will get your undying devotion & loyalty, and, he ain't the schlub who pulls the lever with your name on it on election day.

    For the Republicans we have Trump, Carson, & Fiorina leading the pack, none of who have ever been elected to any Government office......ever.

    For the Democrats we have Bernie (Socialist Pinko) Sanders causing such a big stir.

    And, we don't need a U.N. Interpreter to explain the message American voters are sending our illustrious "Leaders" in Washington.

    Parent

    We have (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 06:33:08 PM EST
    been here before with the summer of discontent that ended up not doing a whole lot. It was more like a summer fling. I guess we shall see whether it continues or fizzles.

    Parent
    Auburn seems like a fraud (none / 0) (#9)
    by ragebot on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 02:04:29 PM EST
    At least their QB is so far.  Johnson has matched a record for INTs in the first two games and has a few more minutes in the fourth quarter to break the record.

    FSU's Cook seems to be the real deal.  Have to say the zebras in that game screwed the pooch.  Cook was the vic of an obvious uncalled horse collar and the replay delays caused grief for those non football fans who wanted to watch the US Open and instead were treated to garbage time in the FSU win.  

    PSU looks to win its first game but I am still not sold on Hackenberg.

    Gotta say I am basically waiting for the Ducks to visit Sparty.  My bet is the ducks quack under pressure.

    Wins a win, but maybe Sean White should (none / 0) (#21)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 04:02:03 PM EST
    get a shot

    Parent
    New York (none / 0) (#20)
    by Steve13209 on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 03:29:04 PM EST
    Glad Upstate New York football helped you today BTD.

    10:44 3rd: Ohio State 14, Hawaii 0. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 04:57:47 PM EST
    I must say, the Rainbow Warriors' spirited defensive effort is likely surprising a lot of people right now, including me. They just forced the Buckeyes to go 3-and-out to start the second half. I have few if any illusions about how this will ultimately turn out -- but hey, sometimes strange things happen, and conventional wisdom is smacked right upside the head.

    9:07 4th: Ohio State 24, Hawaii 0. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 05:44:35 PM EST
    Just too much muscle for the Buckeyes, against a Hawaii defense that's been out on the field for 71 plays thus far. They're finally wearing down.

    Parent
    ND is trying to immitate Auburn (none / 0) (#24)
    by ragebot on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 05:55:28 PM EST
    Not sure how this one will turn out but they are down by a point to UVa with under two minutes left.

    Seems like ND pulls it out (none / 0) (#25)
    by ragebot on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 06:01:33 PM EST
    only 12 seconds left

    Parent
    Looks like UT is for real (none / 0) (#27)
    by ragebot on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 06:07:22 PM EST
    17-0 over OU early and they look strong.

    Well, maybe not. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 02:34:50 AM EST
    They lost, 31-24.

    Parent
    UT blew its biggest lead (none / 0) (#67)
    by ragebot on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 08:37:20 AM EST
    in history in dropping its game with OU.  I really don't like any of these teams, but have to say leading by 17 points early looked good to me.   Blowing a 17 point lead did not look so good.

    Parent
    Final: Toledo 16, No. 18 Arkansas 12. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 08:00:33 PM EST
    Sorry, BTD. No way should the Razorbacks have been a 23-pt. favorite today, even at home in Fayetteville. Look for them to likely fall clear out of the Top 25 after that impotent performance.

    well, we won the only important game . . . (none / 0) (#44)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 08:25:45 PM EST
    The Mercer Island football team won against Kentridge . . .

    It matters cause two MI cheerleaders were nice enough to pose gracefully for me on game day before the game at a local restaurant . . .

    ha!

    Good News (none / 0) (#46)
    by FlJoe on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 08:31:19 PM EST
    for Hillary
    "There is no question that former Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision -- she appropriately could have done so even if she were working on a government server," write the Justice Department attorneys, representing the State Department in the brief.
      Big news on the e-Ghazi front right? Wrong, mostly crickets from the media.  Apparently good news for Hillary equals no news to the jounal-clowns. This s**t is getting sickening.

    As you (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 09:44:16 PM EST
    see nothing is going to convince the wingnut welfare circuit. They are going to continually move the goalposts. It's just like the birthers. Nothing is going to convince them. They have their conspiracy theories and unless someone justifies their conspiracy theories it's not the "truth".

    Parent
    DOJ's brief (none / 0) (#47)
    by ragebot on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 09:24:22 PM EST
    was submitted to a judge who may, or may not agree with it.

    It should not shock anyone that lawyers for DOJ are taking the position they do since the case is about DOJ/SD not wanting the emails released and those filing FOI requests wanting the emails released.

    The problem Hillary/SD/DOJ have is none of Sid's emails were included in the 30k emails she claimed were work related.  Once Gucifer released Sid's emails the cat was out of the bag.  That was what started the FOI requests.

    Maybe Hillary thinks her emails to Sid were personal and not work related, but that is a hard row to hoe.

    Parent

    "none" is not accurate (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by ding7777 on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 12:09:37 PM EST
    The problem Hillary/SD/DOJ have is none of Sid's emails were included in the 30k emails she claimed were work related
    .

    the true number is 9 complete messages and parts of 6 others.  

    And Gowdy has these "15" for quite some time now so why doesn't he release them so we can judge for ourselves if they had anything to do with Benghazi

    Parent

    Because apparently, (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Zorba on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 01:55:42 PM EST
    Trey Gowdy has not yet consulted with ragebot, the ultimate arbiter of what Hillary should release.   </snark>

    Parent
    The doj (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 09:41:39 PM EST
    submitted that but the other person is the crackpot who sued his own mother and was kneeling and screaming in front of the White House for Obama to give up the Koran.

    We all know Judicial Watch is part of the wingnut welfare circuit.

    And I love how the goal posts are moved yet again. First of all oh, it's the Obama administration that is investigating this. It can't be partisan. Now it's oh, the judge has to decide we can't trust the DOJ. But hey like I said it's the wingnut welfare circuit. I'm sure Klayman will find some other nonsense in collusion with Gowdy apparently to try to tie up in courts.

    Parent

    Are you trying to claim (none / 0) (#52)
    by ragebot on Sat Sep 12, 2015 at 10:58:39 PM EST
    the emails to Sid were personal emails and Hillary did not have to turn them over as work related?  Once Gucifer released those emails it was obvious there would be multiple FOI request from places like Reuters and AP to name just two.

    The content of Sid's emails related to Hillary's actions as SOS, not to mention Sid was being paid by the Clinton foundation and was advising Hillary.

    Gucifer is claiming he has thousands of more emails from Hillary and will release them.  Given his track record maybe the best thing Hillary could have done is not delete the emails in the first place.

    Parent

    She (none / 0) (#60)
    by FlJoe on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 06:50:58 AM EST
    did preserve and turn over some of the Blumenthal  emails
    In her early months in office, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in contact with unofficial adviser Sidney Blumenthal more often and on a wider range of topics than was previously known, a set of about 3,000 Clinton emails released Tuesday night by the State Department revealed.

    The DoJ brief clearly and unequivocally states Hillary was following protocol, maybe the judge will rule against the protocol but in no way can any wrong doing be pinned on her.

    The propriety of her personally separating private and government communications is one of the "questions" that has been asked about this fake scandal. Now that this "question" has been definitively answered, the press ignores it and haters like you  stick your fingers in your ears and shout your conjuring words "Blumnenthal", "Gucifer" and gasp "Clinton Foundation".

    Why can you not concede a single point without resorting to wild speculation to refute known facts?

    Parent

    The facts are (2.00 / 3) (#65)
    by ragebot on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 08:26:12 AM EST
    Hillary is the only SOS that maintained a personal email server with inadequate security measures (Gucifer did release Sid's emails and claims he has more Hillary emails).  When confronted about it Hillary claimed it was so she would only have to carry a single hand held device, something later proved to be false.

    But the elephant in the room is Hillary seems to think she (or her agents) are the ones who should be able to determine what is, and what is not, work related and only she has the authority to delete them.

    Hillary's supporters keep claiming the effort to get to the bottom of what Hillary deleted is limited to Hillary opponents.  The truth of the matter is every major media outlet has filed FOI requests and the SD is years behind in fulfilling these request.  The result is court suits which are just now hitting the court dockets.

    As you point out Hillary/SD did release some relevant emails.  The question is was Hillary telling the truth about only deleting personal emails.  The only real way to answer this question is to release all the emails.  Something that may well happen if they were only deleted and the server was not wiped.

    Parent

    No - those aren't "facts (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 09:11:17 AM EST
    Hillary is the only SOS that maintained a personal email server with inadequate security measures (Gucifer did release Sid's emails and claims he has more Hillary emails).  

    How has it been shown that her security measures were "inadequate"?  You realize he didn't hack into her account, don't you?

    When confronted about it Hillary claimed it was so she would only have to carry a single hand held device, something later proved to be false.

    No, it wasn't.

    See how that works?  You make a specious, unsupported claim and then someone just denies it.

    But the elephant in the room is Hillary seems to think she (or her agents) are the ones who should be able to determine what is, and what is not, work related and only she has the authority to delete them.

    Probably because they are the ones who have aithority to determine what is work related and which ones aren't, deleting the non-work emails - like millions of other federal workers do on a daily basis.

    Parent

    Damned if she did, damned if (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Anne on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 09:29:46 AM EST
    she didn't: that we know for sure, don't we?

    If she'd been on the state.gov system and also had her own personal account, it wouldn't have satisfied the ragebots - or the media - if she had asked that all her state.gov e-mails be released. They would further have demanded to know what work e-mails she had deleted, with the implication that there just had to be some sort of nefarious intent to cover up something.

    Then, they would have demanded access to the personal ones, as well, with the implied accusation that there couldn't possibly only be personal e-mails on it, that this must be where she tried to hide anything that would make her look bad (not to mention the possibility of reading some juicy stuff, right?).

    If she'd claimed to only be on the state.gov system, how much time would have been devoted to finding the "secret" personal account she had, because "everyone" has a personal e-mail account, don't they?

    And this is part of why it annoys me that she finally gave in and "admitted" she'd made a mistake by having her own system, because just as we all predicted, it didn't end the inquisition.  

    If there's a Clinton involved, nothing ends the inquisition, ever; how SHE doesn't know this after years and years of this, I don't have the foggiest idea.

    Which is why I don't know why she didn't just say "Fk all of you" when it started and just kept saying it.  Or, as Charlie Pierce has suggested, she could just show the media the big bag that no longer has any fks in it, because she no longer has any to give.

    Parent

    A lot of people are missing the fact (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by mm on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 12:14:08 PM EST
    that the vast majority of the emails that are being made public do not even qualify as Federal Records.  Secretary Clinton could have deleted most of them and would have been totally within her rights, yet she allowed every single one of them to be made public in an effort to be totally transparent and open.  Yet she gets no credit for this.

    5 FAM 443.2 Which E-Mail Messages are Records
    (TL:IM-19; 10-30-1995)
    a. E-mail messages are records when they meet the definition of records in the Federal Records Act. The definition states that documentary materials are Federal records when they:
    --are made or received by an agency under Federal law or in connection with public business; and
    --are preserved or are appropriate for preservation as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the Government, or because of the informational value of the data in them.
    b. The intention of this guidance is not to require the preservation of every E-mail message. Its purpose is to direct the preservation of those messages that contain information that is necessary to ensure that departmental policies, programs, and activities are adequately documented. E-mail message creators and recipients must decide whether a particular message is appropriate for preservation In making these decisions, all personnel should exercise the same judgment they use when determining whether to retain and file paper records.


    Parent
    None of (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by FlJoe on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 10:26:18 AM EST
    your assertions are facts
    Hillary is the only SOS that maintained a personal email server with inadequate security measures
    Colin Powell used a server with questionable or at least unknown security(AOL?). Reportedly Gucifer did hack Powell's e-mail, along with Blumethal's. There is zero evidence the Hillary's server was hacked.

    When confronted about it Hillary claimed it was so she would only have to carry a single hand held device, something later proved to be false.
     Wrong again
    Clinton's device of choice during her time as secretary of state, the Blackberry, did not actually adopt a system to carry multiple email addresses in  secure fashion until 2013, after she had left office.

    and the

    elephant in the room is Hillary seems to think she (or her agents) are the ones who should be able to determine what is, and what is not, work related and only she has the authority to delete them.
    That "elephant" was shot dead by the DOJ brief which was my original point that you refuse to concede.

    Then argle, bargle "process" arguments, FOIA, media, SD, years behind....

    Then you finally get down to the meat of your arguments  

    The question is was Hillary telling the truth about only deleting personal emails.
    Well that's pretty much a question you could ask of any government employee past, present and future. There is never any 100% guarantee that anybody is not doing some double dealing on some "private" channels, high level government officials included(see entire Bush admin).

    You of course always answer your own question with "of course Hillary can not be trusted" without a shred of evidence except some made up facts.


    Parent

    Link? (none / 0) (#63)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 08:13:11 AM EST
    The problem Hillary/SD/DOJ have is none of Sid's emails were included in the 30k emails she claimed were work related.  Once Gucifer released Sid's emails the cat was out of the bag.

    You know this how, exactly?  The committee released many such emails (provided by HC to the State Department) but was questioning only 9 emails (and parts of 6 others) provided by Blumenthal, the contents of which haven't been released.

    Parent

    The current suit (none / 0) (#66)
    by ragebot on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 08:34:43 AM EST
    before the courts is the result of a FOI request to DOJ not providing Sid's emails with the claim they did not exist and a little after that Gucifer released Sid's emails.

    This court case has nothing to do with any "committee" it is because Judicial Watch was the first of many FOI requests the SD has not fulfilled.

    I am not saying Judicial Watch is without an agenda, just that once Judicial Watch caught the SD with its pants down there was a flood of FOI request from the media.

    Since the original request there have been some of Sid's emails released.  The question still is have they all been released.  Judicial Watch may have started tilting at windmills, but once multiple big media sources started making FOI requests the flood gates were opened.

    Parent

    Don't really care (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 08:43:26 AM EST
    ... about whatever you're trying to claim now.  Plus, that sentence is indecipherable:

    The current suit before the courts is the result of a FOI request to DOJ not providing Sid's emails with the claim they did not exist and a little after that Gucifer released Sid's emails.

    I'm looking for a link that supports your claim:


    The problem Hillary/SD/DOJ have is none of Sid's emails were included in the 30k emails she claimed were work related.  Once Gucifer released Sid's emails the cat was out of the bag


    Parent
    Problem (none / 0) (#81)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 10:33:10 AM EST
    Is now no one believes that Hillary only deleted personal e mails. The Blumenthal e mails were missing from what Hillary gave to the State Department. Which is why every right wing news organization like the NY Times and Washington Post, Reuters and AP have FOIA requests in to the State Department, and Federal judges are involved in these requests.
    Even though Hillary has FINALLY apologized for setting up a e mail system specifically designed to circumvent the FOIA process, it has been determined that her analysis of business and personal was flawed.
    Which is flaming the next requests to recover all e mails off of the server and a independent source review them to determine business/personal.
    http://tinyurl.com/o3e7r7c
    http://tinyurl.com/nffwhya


    Parent
    Prove (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by mm on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 12:08:35 PM EST
    That the Blumenthal emails that he provided the committee and were missing from the ones the SD gave the committee were Federal Records and were not personal.  Blumenthal was a personal friend not a SD employee.

    And what the hell has any of this to do with Benghazi?

    In June, the committee spent a day grilling the journalist and former Clinton White House aide Sidney Blumenthal. The purported subject of the hearing was a series of emails about Benghazi that Blumenthal sent to Hillary Clinton, a personal friend, when she was secretary of state. The committee session quickly devolved into a political fishing expedition, with Republicans posing more than 160 questions about Blumenthal's relationship and communications with the Clintons, more than fifty about the Clinton Foundation, and only four about security in Benghazi. The committee looks also to be the source behind the New York Times' catastrophically inaccurate front-page story in July alleging a criminal referral to the Department of Justice about Clinton and her emails. The committee's leader, Republican Representative Trey Gowdy, has said that the committee's report won't be completed until (surprise, surprise) 2016, in the middle of the presidential race. In the rich history of Washington scandal mongering, we have seen few investigations more cynical and nihilistic than this one.


    Parent
    Problem is ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 03:17:30 PM EST
    ... that doesn't address the point I raised with Ragebot, which was his false claim.  And maybe you should learn to speak for yourself before you start speaking for everyone.

    BTW - You can't even get the apology right without twisting it into a lie.

    Parent

    Lol (none / 0) (#118)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 09:29:54 PM EST
    The lie was "I used this because I only had one device", which has been proven to be a lie. Hillary had multiple devices, Blackberry, IPAD.

    Anyone with any sense knows that this was done so Hillary had full control of access to her e mails. The State Department had outstanding FOIA requests for over a year before finally asking all the former Sec States for their e mails.

    What other conceivable reason could there be to have all State Department government e mails run through a private e mail address, to a server in your house.
    Hillary's polling numbers reflect the public's trust as everyone (except die hard Hillary supporters) acknowledge that this server design was specifically to give Hillary control over her e mails which prevented the State Department from complying with FOIA requests.

    Parent

    She had the right to decide (none / 0) (#98)
    by Anne on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 03:35:01 PM EST
    which e-mails to retain and which to delete - just like every other State Department employee - so why are you acting as if there's something nefarious afoot because she isn't accommodating your - and the media's - insatiable hunger for dirt?

    And she didn't apologize for setting up a system in order to circumvent FOIA - more than a little dishonest of you to frame it that way.

    Finally - please learn to format your links so others can see where they go before deciding whether to click on them; I will not click on tinyurl links.

    Parent

    you're way off (none / 0) (#87)
    by mm on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 12:24:16 PM EST
    Mr. Blumenthal, in fact, was so prolific in his messages to "H," as he addressed her, that he seems to be the person she heard from by email the most outside her department. Of the 4,368 emails and documents, mostly from 2010, that were posted on the State Department website on Monday night in response to a court order, a search found that 306 involved messages from Mr. Blumenthal to Mrs. Clinton or vice versa
    .

    Parent
    The problem is you believe something that (none / 0) (#102)
    by ding7777 on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 06:18:15 PM EST
    is not true.

    The problem Hillary/SD/DOJ have is none of Sid's emails were included in the 30k emails she claimed were work related

    Of the 4,368 emails and documents, mostly from 2010, that were posted on the State Department website on Monday night in response to a court order, a search found that 306 involved messages from Mr. Blumenthal to Mrs. Clinton or vice versa.

    Parent

    Tennis, anyone? (none / 0) (#89)
    by lentinel on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 01:51:31 PM EST
    I don't know if anyone here is interested in tennis, but if you are, I really recommend watching Roger Federer play while we still have the opportunity to do so.

    There is something in the way that he plays that defies description. It is on some other plane. I can't define it, but even the weathered commentators have been using words like, "breathtaking".

    He seems to see things that others don't.

    I can only describe him in terms that recall the way people used to describe the play of chess master Bobby Fischer. A different dimension.

    Tonight he plays against Djokovic. (Around 4PM)
    I don't know how he will do against him.
    But whether he wins or loses, it is practically guaranteed that he will make some points that will astonish you.

    In my opinion...

    Lentinel, unfortunately the rain (none / 0) (#101)
    by fishcamp on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 05:50:29 PM EST
    Has postponed the tennis match.  They do play very late in NYC, so maybe if the rain passes they will play.  Just saw where the winners of both the ladies and men' tournament each receive $3.2 M, and the finalist receives $1.6.  Wow!

    Parent
    FYI, the match has resumed. (none / 0) (#105)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 07:19:48 PM EST
    Djokevic won the first set, 6-4.

    Parent
    No joy in Mudville... (none / 0) (#128)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 06:39:14 AM EST
    Except for the second set, it looked as if Djokovic managed to shut down Federer. It's like watching something being short-circuited.

    I've seen that happen to him before in recent years, unfortunately.

    It was Federer's play in the semi-final (and throughout the tournament thus far) that had that magic, and what led me to post about it, but it did not continue into the final.

    There were a few great plays, but, all in all, it was frustrating viewing.

    I'm not going to make any more sporting recommendations, that's for sure.


    Parent

    Roger Federer has nothing to be ahamed of. (none / 0) (#184)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 04:28:53 PM EST
    Like Serena Williams, his overall record as a player speaks for itself. The man should rightly be considered one of the greats of his sport.

    That said, Federer's own career-best season was nine years ago in 2006, when among other accomplishments he became the first male player since Rod Laver in 1969 to appear in the finals of all four Grand Slam events, winning three of them.

    I watched part of the match last night, and I think that at 28 years old Novac Djokovic is clearly in his prime as a player, whereas Federer at 34 is likely approaching the end of his own career within the next couple of years.

    That six-year difference in ages does offer Djokovic a slight advantage in head-to-head matchups right now, and likely accounts at least in part for what happened yesterday.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    You made me think (none / 0) (#186)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 05:12:44 PM EST
    that what I am trying to express is that Roger Federer has expressed something as an athlete which I think few attain.

    It is a level of artistry.

    He is 34.

    But what I saw him do in the the semis was, as the announcer said, breathtaking.

    I am glad I saw Federer play yesterday. I should have expressed that. And there were some beautiful points.

    But I thought mostly of those who had not previously seen in him in action.
    They did not get to see what I had gotten to see over the last week - and over the last decade - from Federer.

    But really - we are talking about someone who currently is ranked number 2 in the world! Everyone else but Djokovik - no matter how young - are ranked below him.

    Parent

    And the hits just keep on comming (none / 0) (#91)
    by ragebot on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 02:05:21 PM EST
    Once again the latest poll show Hillary is going in the wrong direction and Sanders is increasing his lead in the first two tests.

    It also seems like Sanders is moving in the right direction in the South and Hillary is moving in the wrong direction.

    At some point it will dawn on even the most rabid Hillary supporter that something is wrong and Hillary needs to stop the bleeding.

    You must not (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 08:42:47 PM EST
    have seen the SC poll where Sanders is polling at 9% if you think he's doing great in the south.

    However there are other polling that contradicts that you guv poll which is strictly an internet poll and with Bernie's supporters probably being the more internet savvy of the two it should be no surprise that he does well in an internet poll.

    We still have debates and all kinds of stuff to go through.

    However I do know that Republicans are wishing hard for a Sanders nomination. However the history is that insurgent campaigns such as Sanders usually do well until close to time to vote.

    Parent

    Ga6th, I am not sure we can apply (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by caseyOR on Sun Sep 13, 2015 at 09:31:25 PM EST
    past experiences to these times. Over the last several years the country has suffered through the worst times since the Great Depression. Many people will never recover from the economic damage they have experienced.

    And through it all we have watched the perpetrators, the grifters and conmen, who drove the economy over the cliff, prosper. None of them is in jail. None of them. Our Tax dollars bailed them out. Our money was used by our government to save the very people who committed the crimes that brought us down.

    These are not normal times. People have had enough. People are angry. I am angry. Elizabeth Warren and, now, Bernie Sanders recognize and give voice to that anger. They speak for many many Americans, perhaps most Americans. Their message of fairness and accountability resonates with people.

    I would not count Bernie out. For the first time in my lifetime I think it is very possible that Bernie could get the nomination and get elected.

    Do not underestimate the anger of voters today.

    Parent

    People had once had enough in 1896, too. (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 01:02:46 AM EST
    caseyOR: "These are not normal times. People have had enough. People are angry. I am angry. Elizabeth Warren and, now, Bernie Sanders recognize and give voice to that anger. They speak for many many Americans, perhaps most Americans. Their message of fairness and accountability resonates with people."

    Likewise, the country had been suffering from a severe economic depression as a result of the Panic of 1893, and their concerns about fairness and accountability soon found a political voice in William Jennings Bryan, who became the Democratic Party's presidential nominee that year.

    But what such angry and strident populism ultimately ensured in 1896 was the election of an unabashed conservative imperialist, Ohio Gov. William McKinley, as president. Naturally, what soon followed were two ambitious but otherwise wholly unnecessary wars of conquest with Spain (1898) and the Philippines (1899-1902), as well as the attendant annexation of the Hawaiian Islands (1898) over the vociferous objections of the deposed Queen Liliuokalani and her people.

    When McKinley was running for re-election in 1900, it was only by a fortuitous happenstance that he came to choose New York Gov. Theodore Roosevelt as his running mate. The GOP brass were so mesmerized by TR's standing as a war hero during the late hostilities with Spain that they were willing to capitalize on that for electoral gain.

    In so doing, they failed to note that Gov. Roosevelt was actually a genuine economic progressive and social reformer. That realization soon became the GOP's worst nightmare, when President McKinley was subsequently assassinated by a political anarchist in Buffalo, NY in September 1901, and Roosevelt succeeded him in the White House.

    Suffice to say that we'll not be lucky enough to see any Teddy Roosevelts on the Republican Party ticket this time around. Hell, we're not even likely to get a William McKinley-type candidate at the top of that ticket. For all his considerable faults as an imperialist, at least McKinley understood and appreciated the basic art of governance. That's not so with today's GOP clown car.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Bernie Sanders is no William (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by caseyOR on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 12:29:18 PM EST
    Jennings Bryan. Thank god for that. IMO, Bryan was a terrible candidate. That aside, I think the Great Depression is a better comparison to today than the the Panic of 1893.

    I have not yet chosen a candidate. I want to support Hillary. There is a huge emotional pull there for me. Plus, I would love to stuff a Hillary win down the collective throat of the news media.

    That said, Bernie is speaking more to the issues, and more forcefully about those issues, that are important to most Americans. I want to see the Hilary who appeared after the New Hampshire primary in 2008. You know, the Hillary we saw after she dumped Mark Penn and that ghastly first campaign manager Patty whatshername.

    This is not unlike 1932. Had a Sanders type candidate been running, and had the nominating system been based on primaries instead of Party bosses, I think that Sanders type would have won the Democratic nomination and the election. FDR knew the mood and heard the voice of the country, the anger and fear, and he tailored his words and his actions to that voice and mood. He was ever mindful that at that moment in time, socialism looked mighty good to people.

    Parent

    The Panic of 1893 was much, much worse ... (none / 0) (#193)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 06:06:17 PM EST
    ... than our Great Recession of 2008, per capita. Its overall devastating effect on the U.S. economy was such that hundreds of major banks across the country failed outright, family savings were wiped out, and thousands upon thousands of businesses and farms were shut down. The unemployment rate in New York state approached 40% by some estimates; in Michigan it pushed 50%.

    Thanks to that economic collapse -- and it was a collapse, in every sense of the term -- certain parts of the country experienced starvation and famine, particularly in states of the Midwest and Great Plains, and as a not-prurient aside, a not-insignificant number of women subsequently took up prostitution in an effort to support their families. That's what fueled the populist anger in 1896 and the resultant political uprising against the political establishment.

    William Jennings Bryan himself was not a "bad candidate." The former Nebraska congressman was already nationally renowned as a gifted public speaker, and he freely took up the populist cause, defending the working and farming classes and attacking big business and industrial interests, whose continued malfeasance he portrayed as the primary source of much of the country's suffering.

    Bryan's riveting "Cross of Gold" speech at 1896 Democratic National Convention in Chicago stands out even today as one of the truly epic oratorical efforts in American political history. It served to unite the otherwise fractious Democratic delegates behind what had heretofore been considered a long-shot candidacy, and at only 36 years of age, Bryan remains the youngest presidential nominee of a major party in our country's history.

    But Bryan's populist candidacy also caused a split within the Democratic Party establishment itself, with "Gold Standard Democrats" led by 79-year-old Sen. John Palmer of Illinois breaking away and forming the National Democratic Party. Its members vehemently opposed Bryan's proposal to rid the country of the gold standard.

    Further, the National Democrats' efforts quietly received considerable funding from Republicans, who had hoped to split the Democratic vote in the upcoming general election. Senator Palmer himself did little to dispel the difference between them, and he even offered at one of his final campaign stops that "[if] this vast crowd casts its vote for William McKinley next Tuesday, I shall charge them with no sin."

    For their part, the Republicans themselves attacked Bryan as a dangerous religious fanatic and demagogue, who would impose national temperance and prohibition upon the country with his election. They further played upon Bryan's own statements about farmers being the backbone of the American economy, when he impetuously implied that the prosperity of industrial workers could only be ensured if the prosperity of the country's rural hinterlands were first secured:

    "Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again; but destroy our farms, and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country."

    To finance the GOP's fear mongering about Bryan, by which they portrayed him as willing to sacrifice factory workers in favor of greedy farmers, McKinley's campaign manager Mark Hanna hit up wealthy industrialists for campaign funding. He ultimately raised over seven times the amount given by ordinary citizens to the Democrats, who continued to rely upon an outmoded "pass the hat" system at campaign rallies as their primary source for campaign funds. The Republicans wielded this considerable financial advantage with great effect, especially in the booming industrial heartland of the eastern seaboard and Midwest, where McKinley eventually won 60% of the urban vote.

    That startlingly high percentage more than offset Bryan's clear advantages amongst voters in the country's rural and agricultural communities which, it must be remembered, still comprised the majority of our country's electorate in 1896. It ultimately proved decisive in an election that ended up being remarkably close; William McKinley took 51% of the popular vote to Bryans's 47%, and won 23 states to his opponents' 22.

    (If you wish to learn more about this rather pivotal event in U.S. history, I would recommend Paul W. Glad's sweeping account of the 1896 campaign and election, "McKinley, Bryan and the People" which was first published in 1964. I have a copy in my own personal library dating back to my college days, and that's my source for most of this information.)

    On a personal note, I have already committed to Mrs. Clinton for the pragmatic reasons I've shared here earlier, and will not repeat. That said, I'll gladly and wholeheartedly support Bernie Sanders, should he be our party's nominee, and I refuse to say anything to denigrate either the man or his candidacy, because I believe he's doing our party a long-term favor. But I'm under no illusions about the 2016 campaign, which will likely be an uphill battle if Sen. Sanders is the Democratic standard-bearer.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I understand (none / 0) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 05:32:39 AM EST
    the anger but what I do not understand is it seems to be a lot of the same people who supported Obama in 2008. It seems to me a lot of it is disappointment in Obama. I figured in a lot of ways it was bound to happen. You can't promise people things and then turn your back on them once you are elected.

    There also was a lot of anger back in 2003 over the Iraq War but it didn't materialize into anything when it came to voting.

    Parent

    That is not my experience with (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by caseyOR on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 04:52:27 PM EST
    Sanders supporters. I know many people who supported Hillary in 2008 and now support Bernie. Times have changed.

    I do agree that there are people, I have no idea how many, who are supporting Bernie because they dislike Hillary simply because she is a Clinton and you know how those Clinton's are. And there are those who will simply never support a woman for president.

    Still, I do not think it is accurate to portray Sanders supporters as " a lot of the same people who supported Obama in 2008." Unless, of course, what you mean is people who supported Obama after he won the nomination.

    Parent

    No one minds criticism (none / 0) (#131)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 06:59:56 AM EST
    Your silly, ridiculous claims, OTOH, are an entirely different matter.

    With all the scandals (none / 0) (#141)
    by CST on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 10:44:19 AM EST
    Tom Brady is "angry Tom" this season.  If you've ever seen him after a loss you'll know what that means, they pretty much never lose 2 games in a row.

    The year after "spygate" the patriots went 18-1.

    My friends keep reminding me that we don't speak about that season, but the truth is, despite the heart-crushing "1", it was pretty special.

    On another note, I love the Steelers, went to college in Pittsburgh and they're my number 2 team in football.  But there's nothing I like more than watching them lose to the Pats, especially since a lot of my friends are still Steelers fans.

    I'm fully prepared for the $hitstorm that a pro-patriots post may incite, but I don't care.  

    Glad you have a team to root for, (none / 0) (#143)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 11:06:14 AM EST
    and Brady may have a "we'll show them" thing going, but he just doesn't seem to get that no matter how many more games the Belichick/Brady-led team win, the general assumption around the league will be that they cheated in some way to make sure they did.

    When the headsets failed on Thursday night, what was the first thing people assumed?  That they were cheating, again, rigging the equipment to put the other team at a disadvantage.  

    There's something sad about a team with enough talent to win playing by the rules not being confident enough to do so without cheating.

    But you don't care, so there's that.

    Parent

    the headsets (none / 0) (#145)
    by CST on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 11:09:13 AM EST
    are provided and run by the NFL.

    Maybe he just doesn't care.  Maybe I just like to watch good football.

    Parent

    That Wasn't the Point... (none / 0) (#149)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 11:21:19 AM EST
    ...the point was even though the NFL handles the headsets, the assumption was that the cheaters were cheating again.  

    If you read the spygate docs, one of the coaches took a ref into the booth to show him exactly when the headset would cut off, late in the game, when it was critical, and by some kind of miracle, critical 3rd down near the end of the game and the visitors headset went down.

    Just because the NFL handles the headsets doesn't in any way mean that the Pats aren't messing with the wireless technology.  All that needs to be done it to create electromagnetic interference(EMI) around either the transmitter or the receiver.  It would be relatively easy to do if one end is located in the same booth every week.

    Parent

    I Think They... (none / 0) (#144)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 11:09:04 AM EST
    ...pretty much covered it on every sports channel this past week.  No need to pile on, and while I find the entire organization contemptible, I respect and admire your devotion.

    One of my biggest pet peeves, is fair weather fans, and my #2 team, the Texans is bursting with them.  I once worked with a guy who told me his favorite team was the team that won the Super Bowl.  What do you even say to that.

    I hope Brady doesn't see #5, but that is not the same as unlikely.  I would think he has about a 50% chance of getting the immortal fifth ring, just depends how the AFC looks this year.  The Bills looked tough yesterday.

    Parent

    50% is high (none / 0) (#147)
    by CST on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 11:17:57 AM EST
    any year.  But I'd say there's a average chance he has one more in him at some point, I don't get the feeling this is his last year.

    It's easy to not be a fair-weather fan when your team is always competing.  The nice thing about being a Boston fan in general is there is always at least one team competing in some sport, so you never really feel the need to look elsewhere for some sports victories if one of your teams is going down.

    And yes, if there is one area where my morals are especially squishy it's anything to do with hometown sports teams.  I guess I draw the line with first degree murder, but he's in prison now so it's all good.

    Parent

    50% Was My Estimate... (none / 0) (#155)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 11:53:12 AM EST
    ...of Brady getting it, not this season in particular.

    Parent
    gotcha (none / 0) (#159)
    by CST on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 12:26:26 PM EST
    That makes a lot more sense.

    Even I'm not that optimistic.

    Parent

    Pro Football... (none / 0) (#142)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 10:56:50 AM EST
    ...how in the hell did Dallas pull it off last night.  These second to last drives by a team that is up are just so hard to watch.  Eli had some of the worse clock management I can remember and for Dallas to drive 70 yards without Bryant was remarkable.  I don't even know how to process Romo not collapsing in the 4th.

    Buffalo put a whopping on Indy, yeah.  Seems as if a guy committed suicide after the game in tailgate area.  So sad.

    My Packers handled the Bears, but have Seattle this week, and speaking of, Seattle lost to the St Louis.  The onside kick in overtime was odd, but to see 4th down and Seattle running the play most people think they should have ran in the SB, was awesome.  They didn't get it, which in an ironic sense, kinda of showed that maybe Caroll made the right call in the SB.  Their D looked faulty, hope the Pack can take advantage and finally beat them after 3 years.

    Speaking of Sherman, this is one of the funniest commercial I have seen.  It's got Brees, Sherman, Mathews, and Lynch.  It's a must see IMO.

    Ravens played a terrible game, (none / 0) (#146)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 11:11:40 AM EST
    and lost Suggs to an Achilles tendon tear in the process, but can I just say that Peyton looks done.  Usually, he's pretty sharp until the cold weather hits, but yesterday, he just looked awful.  Ravens defense got to him repeatedly, so much so that on one play, he dropped back, saw the rush coming, and just fell on the ground.  He overthrew his receivers, threw balls at the ground, his timing was off...not that the much younger Joe Flacco fared any better, but better pass protection will help Joe, and I'm not sure there's much that's going to help Manning.

    I think he's going to regret those DirecTV "high-voice Peyton" commercials, because yesterday, I told my husband I expected him at any moment to start high-voicing his audibles.

    He should have retired at the end of last season.

    Parent

    I Was Flipping Around... (none / 0) (#154)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 11:51:13 AM EST
    ...and I am unsure how Baltimore lost, every time I watched Manning looked rough and Flacco was connecting.  Manning's chest protector looked huge.

    Where did Rice end up, Texans were looking at him, but passed.  I think they should have taken him, he is hungry and IMO paid the price of his errors and we could have got him cheap.

    Tonight, double Monday Night games:
    Eagles Falcons 6:10 EST
    Vikings 49ers 9:20 EST

    Parent

    Sadly, but not surprisingly, the Bears (none / 0) (#161)
    by caseyOR on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 12:33:19 PM EST
    lost to the Packers. Jay Cutler is no good for this team. The Bears tried to trade him, but there were no takers. And since the club gave Cutler a big, expensive contract extension a couple years ago, we are stuck with him.

    Oh well, at least the Cubs have had a pretty good season. Much better than I had anticipated. So, there's that.

    Parent

    Cutler is another Jeff George.. (none / 0) (#175)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 01:36:00 PM EST
    great one Sunday, four interceptions the next. Almost as if he had some undiagnosed bipolar condition..

    Parent
    The Cowboys (none / 0) (#150)
    by jbindc on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 11:28:57 AM EST
    Did have some help from the refs on a crucial pass interference call that CLEARLY wasn't pass interference, and everyone knew it.  Next play - Cowboys score a TD.

    Refs got 7 points last night.

    Parent

    I Forgot About... (none / 0) (#156)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 11:57:11 AM EST
    ...that call.  One thing I didn't like is they didn't show the angle from the refs side.  While Collinsworth seemed to think it was obviously not a good call, not being able to see what that hand was doing made it hard for me to agree.

    Parent
    "This isn't even a real class, man." (none / 0) (#151)
    by jbindc on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 11:33:43 AM EST
    Must have been part of the University of North Carolina and their "paper class" scandal.  :)

    Parent
    Those Buffalo tailgate parties are (none / 0) (#176)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 01:40:21 PM EST
    a little unhinged. Too many people just getting absolutely hammered.. It's amazing there haven't been more tragic incidents..

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#157)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 12:01:22 PM EST
    poll on this subject:

            54% of voters nationally think the primary motivation of Gowdy's investigation is politics and hurting Hillary Clinton, compared to only 40% who think it's actually about getting to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi.
            62% of voters think that Gowdy should release his e-mails related to the investigation, compared to just 27% who don't think he should have to. There's a bipartisan consensus on the need for Gowdy to release his e-mails with majorities of Democrats (70/17), Republicans (58/35), and independents (53/33) all in agreement on the matter.
            Voters see it as a basic fairness issue- only 39% think it's reasonable for Gowdy to demand Clinton release her e-mails while declining to release his own, compared to 56% who think he's employing a double standard by his refusal to make his e-mails available.

    If I am Reading This Right... (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 12:04:45 PM EST
    ...take out the political motivation and Benghazi, and there is a maximum of 6% who could think this 'scandal' is about the actual emails as they relate to security ?  Wow.

    Parent
    Basically (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 12:37:05 PM EST
    the people who are obsessed with all this are the 39% of the country that is the GOP base. The rest of the country sees it for the political BS it is and the majority want Gowdy to release all his emails.

    Parent
    What the puck do people smoke down here? (none / 0) (#164)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 12:45:59 PM EST
    We joined our granddaughters for grandparents day at school this morning. My husband had to attend a function at work at 6:00am so he went to grandparents day in uniform. Another grandfather approaches him, shakes his hand and says Thank You for your services, and then proceeds to attempt to have a conversation with my husband about what a horrible Commander in Chief Obama is. They are nucking futz down here. Really? You think a uniformed soldier is going to talk $hit about the President of the United States? Are you high?

    I immediately jumped in between and said NO, the President is a fine Commander in Chief. It gave my spouse a moment to breathe too. He then looked sternly at the civilian grandfather and said, "You KNOW what my opinion is, HE'S MY BOSS!" Jesus Frackin Frick, God save the South because she's determined to burn her own house to the ground and dance in the ashes.

    Kim Davis is a Moron (none / 0) (#168)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    For the record, a lesbian couple got a license while Davis stood by, the only hicup, a malfunctioning printer.

    Does Davis think god is going to let her play these kind of silly semantics:

    "To affix my name or authoritative title to a certificate that authorizes marriage that conflicts with God's definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman violates my deeply held religious convictions and conscience," Davis said, reading from a prepared statement.
    LINK

    Yeah, since your name isn't on it you get a straight ride to heaven, never mind the people who you supervise and control are doing it.  Never mind the judge actually offered you this option and you said 'no thanks' because apparently at the time that would go against god.

    The office is issuing licenses to anyone who qualifies, just pointing out the bizarreness of her rationalization.  I would think if god isn't down with it, he is not going to be down with her standing by and letting her employees doing the dirty work for her.

    I wonder how safe her seat is, I am thinking there are going to be a lot of people on that ballot next time around.  It would be funny a gay person got the seat and refused to issue straight marriage licenses based on their personal beliefs.

    Kim Davis is a fraudulent (none / 0) (#181)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 02:14:31 PM EST
    clerk.   She is permitting her deputies to issue marriage licenses without her authorization and name with her understanding, and clearly,  hope, that the governmental licenses issued to couples have no legal standing and "are not worth the paper it is written on."

    Couples are paying the governmental fees,  obtaining licenses, and entering into civil marriages with their attendant legal and financial implications. Compliance with all laws,  in good faith, and with licenses obtained  from the duly elected official responsible for issuing valid and legal licenses to do so.

    Clerk Davis has taken a religious accommodation for herself and extended, in her religious hopes and legal opinion, an empty and unsolicited accommodation for her deputies.  And, all to the risk and possible detriment to those to whom her office processed marriage applications.  

     A malfeasant public official who should not be allowed to continue in office.  The heros and possible martyrs are those couples who have obtained licenses to marry from the office of Clerk Davis. A prayer vigil for the couples  to overcome the bigotry and authoritarianism of a misguided religious fanatic is needed.  

    The Clinton campaign needs a new and bold  strategy to counter the new political antics of Trump and the Trumpettes.  Maybe, Mrs. Clinton should attend the wedding of one of the couples issued a license by Clerk Davis' office.  

    Parent

    While I Agree... (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 03:15:11 PM EST
    ...Trump in particular is not on the side of Davis, he actually said several times that she has to obey the law.

    Also, we are talking about an extremely small sliver of the population that will have zero effect on the election, as in none of them are voting for D's.  Yesterday I read a good write-up about the silent majority(hate the term) of Christians who actually disagree with Davis and how most freedom of religion advocates believe this was bad for business.

    Just because the media loves this doesn't mean candidates should all shuffle to get a piece of the Davis pie.  It's not like Huckabee or Cruz have any chance of getting the nod, this is just how they get name recognition and procure funds.

    What I thought was really funny is the Huckabee/Cruz shuffle vying to get in front of the camera with Davis and farmer joe.  

    This the same day Cruz was suppose to be in Washington trying to stop the deal that would ensure Israel is destroyed.  Not my words.  But nope, his aspirations for President far outweighed his need to do the job in which he was elected and is paid to do.

    Parent

    It's getting spooky now... (none / 0) (#178)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 01:47:23 PM EST
    The Mets tried to give one away to the Braves yesterday, resting key players, playing atrocious defense, and were down to their last strike down 7-4 in the ninth.

    Then the baseball gods intervened...Lagares doubles by an inch off of Bourn's glove, Granderson draws a walk, and Murphy delivers the game tying three run bomb to straightaway center.  Score 3 more in the tenth, Mets 10 Braves 7 put it in the books.

    Magic Number is now at 11...Mets return home after the 7-0 road trip to face the Marlins tonight.  

     

    Bernie at (none / 0) (#182)
    by desertswine on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 02:19:35 PM EST
    Liberty In case you missed it.

    Maybe Bernie is trying (none / 0) (#187)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 05:19:09 PM EST
    to win the ultra conservative vote. It was described as the equivalent of Pat Robertson wading into a nudist colony.

    Parent
    I'd say that Bernie Sanders' appearance ... (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 07:10:24 PM EST
    ... at Liberty University today was the political equivalent of Daniel on the lions' den. He showed up and said many things that most LU students would otherwise prefer to never hear. He gave them some hard truth as he saw it, and challenged them in a way which few of them have ever likely experienced in their politically cloistered world.

    Sen. Sanders got little if any applause beyond that of the polite variety received upon his initial introduction, but he was clearly not there to troll for right-wing votes like Republicans do, whenever they come to Liberty U.

    Bully for him.

    Parent

    Bernie is planting seeds of cognitive dissonance. (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 07:37:05 PM EST
    Someday, some of those students will get it.  

    Parent
    Bernie is authentic and has solid convictions (none / 0) (#188)
    by Politalkix on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 05:35:43 PM EST
    Pat Robertson is not authentic. Authenticity appeals to people irrespective of their political beliefs.


    Parent
    The clip I heard sounded like Bernie may have been (none / 0) (#190)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 05:38:35 PM EST
    plagiarizing this speech

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#191)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 05:49:47 PM EST
    Pat Robertson is authentic by the definition. Just because we don't like his brand of authentic doesn't mean he isn't.

    Parent
    Please, I'm trying to eat... (none / 0) (#189)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 05:37:08 PM EST


    Parent
    Foreign policy (none / 0) (#192)
    by Politalkix on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 05:59:58 PM EST
    link

    Someone seems too stubborn or compromised to have learnt the lessons of 2008. Hoping that Bernie can make her pay for it once again.

    Her mealymouthed supporters that try to blur differences between her militant foreign policy and that of other Democratic candidates should be shown up for what they are.

    Bernie (none / 0) (#199)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 07:48:01 PM EST
    is not going to say one thing about it and may even agree with what she is saying.

    So you want Bernie to start attacking?

    Parent

    HRC's foreign policy is way to the right (2.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Politalkix on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 08:04:01 PM EST
    of what a Democratic candidate's FP positions should be. She should be called out for it. Yes, I want Bernie to highlight the differences and attack HRC's positions in a way BHO did in 2008.

    Parent
    "You Can't Go Home Again," Donald (none / 0) (#194)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 06:38:23 PM EST
    The Arnold has replaced The Donald as chief blowhard on the upcoming season of Celebrity Apprentice.

    There (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by FlJoe on Mon Sep 14, 2015 at 06:48:07 PM EST
    is certain sick synchronicity to this.

    Parent
    It was very gutsy and democratic (none / 0) (#201)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 15, 2015 at 12:31:34 PM EST
    in the best sense of Sanders to go into the conservative furnace of Mesach, Shadrach, and Abednego at Liberty U..

    The speech was maybe a little boilerplate, but Bernie had the good sense to hit the Falwellites where they live by quoting many Biblical social justice passages that Ole Jerry, Robertson, Dobson, Reed and Co have been studiously skipping over for years..

    Reminding all those at Liberty who need reminding that the essence of spirituality isn't "pie in the sky when you die" and being Rapture Ready..

    Saturday College Football Open Thread | 191 comments (191 topical)