home

Friday Night Open Thread

From the AP, here's what happened today with the presidential hopefuls of both parties.

Bernie Sanders has never run for national office as a Democrat. Donald Trump has never run for office, let alone as a Republican. Jack Shafer at Politico calls them the "Political Parasites of 2016."

Trump isn’t the only political parasite on the hustings this season. Bernie Sanders, who never ran as a Democrat before this election, has likewise attempted to colonize the gastrointestinal tract of a major party in hopes that it will eventually deposit him at the White House. True to his parasitical nature, Sanders loves the idea of the party but has little interest in actually supporting it. He has raised only $1,000 for the Democratic Party’s fundraising alliance, while Hillary Clinton, who is many things but assuredly not a parasite, has raised $26.9 million.

I don't really get why Chris Christie's endorsement is important. Reuters has this article on Christie's benefit to Trump. I wonder what position Trump has promised him if he wins the election.

In other news, the Guardian has a very interesting article on how both the media and terrorists have adapted and made use of new technologies to capture viewer attention.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Houston Republican Debate: Will Sparks Fly? | Dem Primary South Carolina >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The reason Chris Christie's endorsement (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Fri Feb 26, 2016 at 09:14:04 PM EST
    is important is it knocked Rubio and Cruz right out of the newsfeed 72 hours before Super Tuesday.

    It's also the first (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 09:37:42 AM EST
    Big establishment endorsement.

    Parent
    Aren't David Duke (none / 0) (#46)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 03:01:46 PM EST
    and Sarah Palin big Republican establishment endorsements?  One ran for governor on the Republican ticket, and the other was a Republican governor.

    Parent
    Reciprocity (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by CMike on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 01:43:17 AM EST
    Jack Shafer writes:

    True to his parasitical nature, Sanders loves the idea of the party but has little interest in actually supporting it. He has raised only $1,000 for the Democratic Party's fundraising alliance, while Hillary Clinton, who is many things but assuredly not a parasite, has raised $26.9 million.

    Then again, as a result of their association with the Democratic Party in the last sixteen years the Clintons have earned $153 million for themselves as celebrity speakers (assuming it was for their celebrity that they were so lucratively engaged).

    And to hear Trump tell it without any contradiction I've heard, he's ponied up plenty enough cash to Republicans over the years for him to argue that he's long been the host in the relationship. That, and he carried plenty of water for them, which party wasn't complaining about, on the birther issue.

    Sounds to me that Shafer is in a panic over the realization that change can't be a good thing for him- he's had a pretty good thing going for himself for a while.

    The Clintons (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by jbindc on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 05:20:28 AM EST
    Have raised far more.  That $26.9 million Hillary has raised for Dems is just this election cycle.

    Parent
    Ans exactly what are you insinuating? (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 11:43:46 AM EST
    CMike: "Then again, as a result of their association with the Democratic Party in the last sixteen years the Clintons have earned $153 million for themselves as celebrity speakers (assuming it was for their celebrity that they were so lucratively engaged)."

    Jack Shafer's not panicking about anything, although I very much disagree with and dislike his characterization of Sen. Sanders as parasitic. But you sure seem to be.

    Okay, so the Clintons have earned an average of $9.5 million annually in honorariums over the last 16 years. So what! Were you to ever enjoy the opportunity to do the same, would you appreciate it if others implied some nefarious wrongdoing or underhanded quid pro quo arrangement on your part -- and all without offering any direct evidence to that effect? I seriously doubt it.

    You know, for people who've so vehemently professed to loathe the Republicans, some of Bernie's supporters certainly do love to emulate and repeat their baseless talking points about the Clintons, whenever they think it convenient.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Guess you think (3.67 / 3) (#43)
    by CMike on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 01:37:10 PM EST
    there wasn't anything wrong with Justice Scalia taking all those for-free trips. To show you what a distant land I come from, I remember when President George H.W. Bush expressed dismay that Ronald Reagan upon leaving office headed over to Japan for one little ole million dollar plus appearance fee.

    How times have changed. You're telling me that some people are public servants and, apart from their career, are very popular in their own right? Hopefully they'll bring back a version of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous for interested Democrats, the ones hoping to get trickled down on. It's a neo-liberal world after all, just ask Hillary Clinton former chair of the DLC American Dream Initiative. [LINK]

    As to my point, I won't insinuate, I'll be explicit: we're living in a class based system corrupted by money. The Clintons' first loyalty is to the class they've worked to join. They will protect its wealth, status, and privileges conveniently convinced that's what is best for everybody. In the words of Magaret Thatcher, "There is no alternative" [LINK] to this present state of affairs.

    Parent

    I gave you the "5" (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Feb 28, 2016 at 05:53:35 AM EST
    for talking back to our "Donald"

    BTW, since you mentioned Margaret Thatcher, some students at Kent University (UK) are trying to scare up interest in erecting a 250-foot statue of the Iron Lady, to be built mainly of "uncompromising" iron.  At that scale her handbag will be 30-feet high.  Her handbag will be polished bronze: they hope to "dazzle the eyes of lefties."

    Parent

    I've stated here before that ... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 03:16:39 PM EST
    ... that the acceptance of honorariums for addressing an organization's gathering is simply not an issue with me.

    As far your conflating the Clintons' speaking fees with the late Antonin Scalia's free trips are concerned, you're comparing apples and oranges, because the Clintons entered into such agreements as private citizens, while Scalia was a sitting Supreme Court justice on the public payroll.

    And with regard to the latter, I would only note that there is no official code of personal and / or professional conduct for Supreme Court justices. Therefore, as to whether or not their acceptance of gifts or personal appearance at a certain political gathering constitutes a conflict of interest, the justices have reserved for themselves the right to be the sole and final determinants of those issues.

    Does it concern me? Yes. Do I wish it were otherwise? Of course. But that said, I consider it a big waste of my time to worry inordinately about those matters over which I have very little if any say and cannot affect personally. Some things simply are as they are and you have to move on, or else you'll risk driving yourself to distraction and paralysis.

    Personally, I think some people like to make a big issue of honorariums whenever it becomes obvious that their other arguments aren't working. As I noted above, the Clintons are private citizens who are receiving remuneration in exchange for a service.

    Suffice to say that the acceptance of honorariums by public speakers is not against the law. Further, the act itself doesn't even necessarily imply that the person accepting them is therefore subscribing to the agenda of the organization that's offering them, despite your politically motivated protestations to the contrary.

    You've certainly the right to your own opinion about the Clintons, and you can object to Mrs. Clinton's candidacy for whatever your reasons and vote for whomever you desire. But you don't get to casually impugn another's ethical integrity at your convenience, without offering any substantive evidence to support your contention other than your own personal certitude. Nor do you get to define for everyone what is acceptable conduct in the public realm, and what isn't.

    So, I suggest that you get over yourself.

    Parent

    There is no problem (none / 0) (#71)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 06:48:08 AM EST
    Whatsoever with private citizens collecting honorariums. More power to them, it is capitalism on display.......Until...

    The individual is a political entity and has just narrowly lost the presidential nomination, and fully intends to run again.

    Then those honorariums are a fee for access, potential access. Madame Secretary knew she was running for President again, or at a minimum, a good likelihood to. There is the problem.

    Just check the donations to the Clinton Foundation, by people and countries with issues before the State Department. It always was, and is about access and influence.

    Parent

    By association with the dem party you mean (none / 0) (#40)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 01:08:48 PM EST
    being high office holders and party members. Pretty sure the dem party considers having high office holders of great benefit to the party. It is a mutually beneficial relationship, not parasitic.

    Actually I think the GOP has benefitted from Trump too, though they will never admit that none of their other loser candidates stand a chance in November.

    Parent

    "the party" (none / 0) (#58)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Feb 28, 2016 at 06:01:56 AM EST
    And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your Party can do for you -- ask what you can do for your Party.

    The original was written by Kennedy with his long time adviser, Ted Sorensen.

    Parent

    Republican Majority Leader (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 10:26:50 AM EST
    On the Republican front runner-


    Normally at this point in the election cycle the GOP would be gearing up for attacks on their anticipated Democratic rival for the White House. But party leaders are so distraught at the idea of the blustery businessman heading the ticket, that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has taken to advising candidates to keep their distance from Trump.

    According to the New York Times, McConnell is assuring Senate candidates running for reelection that they should feel free to run ads against Trump if they feel he is hurting their own campaigns. According to senators attending private lunches with the Majority Leader, McConnell is taking the approach that Trump will lose badly in the general election and that senators should sell themselves as a bulwark against a Hillary Clinton presidency.

    Pointing out that he still won easily when President Bill Clinton was reelected, McConnell reportedly told colleagues that the party will drop Trump "like a hot rock" if he is the nominee

    I think this is the place where the sidewalk ends.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 11:01:58 AM EST
    McConnell is hoping that Republicans are actually going to show up if Trump is the nominee. The ones here that are not Trump fans are threatening to not show up. It's also not 1996 anymore and the issues are different now than they were then and we've since had George W. Bush as president which completely trashed the GOP.

    Seems kind of hard to sell yourself as a bulwark against a Hillary Clinton presidency if Hillary carries your state.

    Parent

    Donald (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 11:06:33 AM EST
    Doesn't give a sh!t about the future of the Republican Party.

    Parent
    Of course (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 11:47:33 AM EST
    he doesn't but it seems neither do his voters. Which puts things in a strange perspective.

    Parent
    We underestimate the GOP at our (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by caseyOR on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 11:15:05 AM EST
    peril. I see nothing to date that makes me think Republicans will stay home in November rather than vote for Trump. They are certainly turning out for the primaries and caucuses.

    So far this primary season Republican turnout has exceeded that of the Democrats. Why aren"t Democrats crowding the polls to vote for either of these two candidates? Where is the enthusiasm?

    If the Democratic candidate is to win in November, Democrats must flock to the polls to vote. Big turnout is needed for the win.

    So far, and I know it is early in the game,we are not seeing the massive, cheering crowds of Democratic candidate supporters carrying that enthusiasm to the polls.

    This is not a good sign.

    Parent

    I'm with you Casey, (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by NYShooter on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 12:44:12 PM EST
    I watched a focus group last night run by that court jester, Frank Luntz. Very informative.

    The question, or rather, the answer, that sent chills up my spine had to do with, "what factor was most important to them in voting for Trump?" And, the answer wasn't the usual, "he's his own man, he tells it like it is, blah, blah."

    No, Beating Hillary was, BY FAR, the most important reason to vote for Trump. Man, I never saw such blood curdling hatred for an opposing candidate in my life! They ROARED out as one, all in unison, leaping out of their seats, eyes bugged open bigger than saucers, projectile spit blasting out of their mouths.

    Luntz recoiled in "mock" terror. But, in spite of the nervous smile on his face, the sudden shock was unmistakable.

    Hating Hilary has been a given for some 30 years, but, what they showed last night went a few steps beyond just hate. I tell you, if you had sympathy for Obama for what he's been subjected to in Congress, that poor lady is gonna see Southern hate, on steroids, the likes of which I doubt has ever been seen before in our Congress.  

    Parent

    I live just ten minutes north of Ann Arbor (none / 0) (#59)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Feb 28, 2016 at 06:59:18 AM EST
    Many consider Ann Arbor a liberal stronghold.

    But there's a hugely (white - I might as well say it) "conservative" demographic in the Township where I live, just ten minutes north of downtown Ann Arbor.  The "blood curdling hate" you heard in Luntz' anti Clinton group is the same venom I can hear in people's voices here when they talk about Obama.  They're itching, drooling and foaming like rabid dogs, for a chance to throw out the lib'ruls.

    The mass Trump-rising that's likely to occur in November means that all those local "conservatives" will show up at the polls.

    What makes it worse is that a lot of them are lined up against me and my political compatriots on a local land preservation issue.  All you need is an (R) after your name to get elected to the local Boards.  

    We're actually a mixed alliance, educated conservatives and educated liberals.

    But they've got the advantage because they're willing to lie about everything.  They lie about their motives.  They lie about their records.  They lie about what they did - on camera - in the previous meeting.  They'll do all this while wearing big cross pendants hanging around their necks.  This is The Donald's - and the Republican Party's base.  It's amazing to watch.  

    Parent

    Your (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 28, 2016 at 07:13:02 AM EST
    last paragraph exactly describes what happens here in GA. Likely the truth is that the GOP has caught the Dixie Influenza all across the nation. They are the same these days it seems no matter the state.

    Parent
    I for (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 11:46:40 AM EST
    one do not underestimate them just making an observation. Apparently Hillary does not underestimate even Trump because she has been doing oppo research on him for quite a while taking him more seriously that even the GOP has been apparently.

    You are correct they are turning out for primaries. I'm not sure how much that relates to a general election though.

    I will make a judgment on the enthusiasm thing when we actually get down to two candidates. I think that will give us a clue.

    Parent

    There (none / 0) (#23)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 11:49:28 AM EST
    is some evidence out there
     From the recent Bloomberg "SEC" survey

    If Donald Trump is the Republican nominee and Hillary Clinton is the
    Democratic nominee in the general election, would you...?
    Vote for Donald Trump for President    66
    Vote for Hillary Clinton for President 9
    Vote for a different candidate for President 14
    I wouldn't vote in the general election 4
    Don't know 6
    (Likely Republican voters)

    That's 4% of Republicans in very red states who will stay home, and a even more devastating 9% crossing over to Hillary. This and other polls have shown a lot of "never support for president" sentiment out there(20% for this poll)
    .
    IMO there is a non-negligible, unshakeable segment of Republicans who would never vote for Trump.


    Parent

    There is (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 12:03:29 PM EST
    however I would like for them to stay home instead of show up because I want the down ticket candidates to suffer. So I'm basically doing my part by encouraging these people to find something else to do on election day. Some are saying they'll show up to actually vote but won't vote for Trump and will write in a candidate.

    Parent
    Think back to the South Carolina loyalty pledge (none / 0) (#11)
    by CoralGables on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 10:36:23 AM EST
    to support the Republican nominee that the GOP said Trump had to sign. What the Republican establishment failed to mention is the loyalty oath is for thee and not for me.

    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 10:50:08 AM EST
    I guess we could expect him to run against the republican majority?

    Great news.

    Parent

    I (none / 0) (#12)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 10:48:39 AM EST
    keep telling you that plenty of Republicans will be willing to sell Trump down the river next fall.

    Even now the ads are writing themselves. "Trumps a con man" robotically looped for about twelve seconds with a water break spliced in, works for me.

    Parent

    This is a campaign ad (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 10:52:22 AM EST
    For Donald.   Are you kidding me.  Everyone in America is imagining what would happen if it was Turtle Boy Mitch against Donald.

    Admit you would like to see that.    Admit it.

    Parent

    Also think (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 11:01:51 AM EST
    This might be Mitch trying to get out in front of a bunch of endorsements that will come with ST if not before.

    Parent
    The (none / 0) (#19)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 11:22:28 AM EST
    point being the Republican race has degenerated to blatant character assassination, perfect fodder for the Democrats in the fall. This battle between the "Con Man" and the "Choke Artist" will not soon be forgotten, and the Democrats will surely make sure that the labels stick no matter who wins.

    Parent
    Another SCOTUS name-drop (none / 0) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Fri Feb 26, 2016 at 09:27:37 PM EST
    Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is related by marriage to House Speaker Paul Ryan, and was previously confirmed in the Senate by unanimous consent.

    The editor of SCOTUS-Blog mentioned (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 26, 2016 at 11:51:35 PM EST
    Judge K. B. Jackson as a good choice a week or so ago. I met her a few years back and tend to agree. At 45, she would probably be one of the youngest of the plausible candidates. Amusing twist, apparently her husband's brother is married to Paul Ryan's sister (or something like that), and Ryan strongly supported her nomination as a federal trial judge.

    Parent
    Al Franken (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 09:57:34 AM EST
    Says there will be a hearing

    Parent
    And finally (none / 0) (#3)
    by CoralGables on Fri Feb 26, 2016 at 09:30:14 PM EST
    as I sign off to sleep in preparation for tomorrow morning's 20 mile run...polls in South Carolina close at 7pm ET tomorrow evening. I'll predict CNN calls the race for Clinton by 7:02pm.

    As a Clinton supporter, I have to say.... (none / 0) (#5)
    by magster on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 12:16:22 AM EST
    Bernie is not a parasite on par with Trump. He's done Clinton and the party a favor by putting up a good fight.

    Rubio is KILLING Trump (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 11:56:02 AM EST
    On CNN in a stump speech. If he keeps this up, I see a race. I don't see Trump as inevitable. I had no idea Rubio had such speechifying abilities.

    His tagged line today is Friends Don't Let Friends Vote for Con Artists.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#26)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 12:04:11 PM EST
    but he needs a little work on the timing(of course) of his insult comedy shtick.  Now he's back to the rapid fire canned talking points, lots of energy though.  

    Parent
    IMO (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 12:15:12 PM EST
    the Rubiobot has nothing to lose at this point however none of that is going to fix Rubio's problems with the GOP base.

    The irony has been though that the angrier Rubio does and the more he sheds the I'm going to mimic Obama shtick the better he seems to do. LOL.

    Parent

    I (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 12:40:29 PM EST
    think the Rubio camp had no choice but to get into the mud pit with Trump, if for nothing else to keep his share of air free air time. I think it's working because the Rubio Trump clash is dominating the news cycle while Cruz is the forgotten man(although it might even help him in TX). I think it helps Rubio to improve his grasp on second place pretty much everywhere else and maybe open up a line of attack that finally works against Trump.

    Parent
    Agree (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 01:36:21 PM EST
    But he's right (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 12:21:48 PM EST
    The Republican base is about to vote in a full blown Con Artist. His delivery of the Trump life facts on Trump University.

    Parent
    You know though (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 12:36:40 PM EST
    Republicans don't recognize a con artist. So while you and I can see through all this I don't think Republicans are able to. They've been conned by so many people over the last few decades from Rush, Bush and numerous others that I think they have lost the ability to recognize what Trump is.

    Parent
    Funny thing is (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by CoralGables on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 12:45:12 PM EST
    If you lived in Florida you would know Rubio is a con artist.

    Parent
    I tend to think all (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 01:34:01 PM EST
    Current Republicans are con artists. But Trump IMO trumps all of them.

    Parent
    Yes, but I would (none / 0) (#44)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 02:54:44 PM EST
    recommend no one put all their chips on Rubio in the mud wrestling match with Trump.   Anyone who attacks Trump, as we have seen, had better be prepared--to get it back and then some. It's a sustained fight not a single volley.  And, Rubio needs to brush up on his spelling; he mocked Trump for a tweet that "misspelled" choke (as in choke artist), but it was not, in fact, misspelled.  Not the way to do it.

    Parent
    Pardon my ignorance of schoolyard insults (none / 0) (#45)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 03:01:13 PM EST
    But what is a 'choke artist'? Someone that chokes under pressure?

    Parent
    Yes, falters under (none / 0) (#47)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 03:06:54 PM EST
    pressure.  As in sports, e.g., golf, serially blows a shot when the chips are down.

    Parent
    This is really the first I've been (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 04:32:51 PM EST
    Interested in the mud match. When there was 13 of them...that was too ridiculous to waste time on. And that isn't to say that the match has become less ridiculous, but more watchable as the field has become whittled down.

    I don't know if Rubio is prepared, but he's swinging hard.

    I've been waiting for Trump boredom to set in. Doesn't his Trumpeters get fatigued by the same old awesome, great, the best, everyone's gonna love it, they love me? He did pull a new word out of his hair today though...it was bigly

    Parent

    Adventures of Tintin (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 12:07:26 PM EST
    Just noticed I set this to record today.

    If you've never seen it, it's worth the time. Not the story really.  Just the visuals.  I set it to record because I want to do some frame stepping.   Not the characters.   They are very simple.   But everything else.  In other words the stuff I used to do.   The world, the lighting and camera work.   Very beautiful.

    I would probably watch it with the sound down.

    Today at 3:30 on HDNet

    Forgot (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 12:08:29 PM EST
    Steven Avery's new lawyer has new evidence (none / 0) (#31)
    by McBain on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 12:25:36 PM EST
    that proves his innocence, or so she claims.  Right now, I'm hoping for a new trial.  Way too many unanswered questions...like, where did all the blood in the bedroom go?

    Avery's lawyer, Kathleen Zellner, was able to free wrongfully convicted Ryan Ferguson a few years ago.  I followed that frustrating case.  

    Don't even get me started on the Brendan Dassey case.

    so many people live on that property (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 01:03:42 PM EST
    To me, the ruling that the defense was not allowed to put forward other suspects during the trial was unfair. Maybe grounds for a new trial?

    With you on Dassey...that was just unbelievable. How those people can sleep at night is beyond me.

    Parent

    Hey, new House of Cards (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 04:55:34 PM EST
    March 4th.

    Parent
    Yes! That take-off is amazing (none / 0) (#50)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 05:09:29 PM EST
    Does your family watch 'The Americans"? New season starting soon and I am catching up on Amazon Prime - really think you all would love it!

    Parent
    LOL. (none / 0) (#51)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 05:10:14 PM EST
    the part about the 'take-off' is left in my text memory from something else. Ignore!

    Parent
    We do watch The Americans (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 05:53:50 PM EST
    Very addictive if you grew up during the Reagan Presidency. All of the induced paranoia brought to life in our old clothes surrounded by our old wall paper and avacado appliances

    Parent
    And the huge eyeglasses (none / 0) (#55)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 09:45:04 PM EST
    What were we thinking?

    Parent
    Do not forget the shoulder (none / 0) (#56)
    by caseyOR on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 09:55:12 PM EST
    pads. Those giant shoulder pads.

    Parent
    And then I'm rooting for Russians (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 05:59:51 PM EST
    Particularly the women, and dissin the FBI...those dirty dogs.

    Parent
    Yes, the FBI is certainly a unifying (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 07:40:01 PM EST
    force to end the Cold War. We can all hate them!

    Parent
    Donald and Goodyear (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 12:42:58 PM EST
    Are on the ground in AR.

    Winds are up.

    Who's (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 12:48:43 PM EST
    winning on the R side there these days?

    Parent
    You mean the state? (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 27, 2016 at 12:52:16 PM EST
    Who knows.  I never believed the polls that have Cruz ahead.

    Stay tuned.

    Parent

    Are you seeing the TrusTed lawn signs? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Feb 28, 2016 at 08:43:50 AM EST
    I am.

    Parent
    Not one (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 28, 2016 at 10:37:37 AM EST
    Not many presidential signs at all.  I get the feeling lots of people will vote for Donald who might not put a Trump sign in the yard.

    Parent
    I have seen (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 28, 2016 at 11:23:25 AM EST
    precisely one Cruz and one Trump sign within the last week. The Trump sign was in front of exactly the kind of house you would think his supporter would live in going by stereotypes.

    Parent
    A Farewell from Al Jazeera America (none / 0) (#62)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Feb 28, 2016 at 10:25:44 AM EST
    Goodnight, and good luck

    For Al Jazeera America online, no human tragedy could be reduced to a statistic or dismissed as the collateral damage of another's self-defense or an inevitable consequence of geography, politics, class, race, sect or ethnicity. Poverty, violence and environmental degradation are not immutable forces of nature; they are the product of choices made by those in power.



    Al Jazeera's closing header photograph (none / 0) (#63)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Feb 28, 2016 at 10:27:13 AM EST
    will jar the memories of anyone who ever bought a newspaper at the corner of State and Packard in Ann Arbor.

    Parent
    Turned on the NOOZE (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 28, 2016 at 12:23:20 PM EST
    MSNBC talking head discussing with reps from the two loser campaigns that they might be dead.
    MSNBC looks tired.

    But did you know he makes money off gambling??!!!?
    GAMBLING!  And strip clubs.  And and........and gambling!!


    DVRed the shows (none / 0) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 28, 2016 at 12:56:18 PM EST
    Just watching poor George try to embarrass Christie for endorsing Donald using his own words and, well, reality.

    They have this down.  George didn't lay a rhetorical glove on him.

    Shorter Christie.  Donald is going to be the nominee.  We don't want Hillary.   Pick a side.

     

    Parent

    A case for Elizabeth Warren (none / 0) (#68)
    by KeysDan on Sun Feb 28, 2016 at 02:39:27 PM EST
    to be nominated to the Supreme Court.  Similar to my thinking in a comment last week.

    Scalia Death forces Dow Chemical settlement (none / 0) (#69)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Feb 28, 2016 at 06:01:07 PM EST
    - Robert Cyran, The New York Times, 2-26-2016
    Scalia's empty Supreme Court seat has cost Dow Chemical $835 million.

    That is how much the chemical company is paying in a decade-old lawsuit that was heading to the top court. Dow decided the death of Justice Scalia, a conservative judge, changed the balance of the suit and settled.

    Dow's decision puts to rest the urethane price-fixing suit. Dow thought it had a good shot at setting aside a lower court's $1.06 billion award to the plaintiffs on the grounds that it violated class-action law.

    Justice Scalia's death threw a wrench into this calculation, however. Not only did Dow cite two cases with rulings written by Justice Scalia in its arguments to the Supreme Court, but a split vote -- now possible with four conservative judges and four liberals -- means lower court decisions stand.