His band leader, Jon Batiste is a real talent, Julliard and all, but underutilized as a musician and overtaxed as a straight-man.   Stephen Colbert is more of a Comedy Central type guy than a CBS talk show host.

 When able to watch late night, I start with Larry Wilmore, since the first five minutes do not overlap, then change to Colbert for his first five minutes.  This enables the best five minutes of Larry, who is quite good but his show mostly goes down hill with the usually unfunny comedians that join him in mostly lame skits or discussions.

 Larry, is a Sanders' supporter who can't seem to let go. Noted that Mrs. Clinton marched in the NYC Pride Parade behind the rainbow flag, each color symbolizing the changes in her positions on gay rights.  Not funny, according to his audience reaction, and not accurate, according to the record.

When I read blogs and comment sections representing the far left, sometimes the only thing that tells them apart from GOP-sites - even down to praising Donald Trump and preferring him to Hillary Clinton! - is their belief in Bernie Sanders.

Bill Clinton "secretly" meeting Lynch on the tarmac, to make a last minute plea/bribe/threat to stave off this imminent indictment? Please, that doesn't pass the sniff test for a grade B movie plot. Yet the questions linger, of course.

It's an Open Thread, Nate. (5.00 / 3) (#37)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 09:26:34 PM CST
And who appointed you hall monitor, anyway?

You know, in the old days we could actually have a debate about such things as ethics, the  Clinton's like of, appearances, etc., etc.

Of course, that's certainly no reason to get complacent and take this election for granted. The Democrats need to campaign hard, because there's a rare but very genuine opportunity to blow not just Trump out of the water, but also the entire GOP slate as well.

If Mrs. Clinton can manage to widen her lead prior to the party conventions, and / or narrow Trump's lead amongst white males, the entire Congress could very well be in play in the fall, as well as state legislatures in key battleground states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and even Arizona.

So if we're Mrs. Clinton and the DNC, we're campaigning our a$$es off, applying a full-court press and taking no prisoners in an effort to hold Trump's vote to under 40% in November. The potential ripple effects from such an accomplishment could be seismic.

All season I was noticing the framing of conversations in front of windows, especially in that room in the sept when the Sparrow was talking with the various people he was working. Mainly a way to let in natural looking light I suppose, but it also added a real beauty to what otherwise would have been rather dull looking scenes.

I honestly don't think what Trump did today gets him a single vote.   Especially from the MSNBC audience.   I do think it scares a a lot of people.  I have said for a while I knew people who were flirting with the idea of supporting him.  Almost all of this people are no longer flirting.  And it's because of him saying stuff like that speech today was filled with.   I have seen fascination turn into incredulity into alarm.

Party unity is a trouble spot for Trump.  Just 74 percent of Republicans back him over Clinton, down from 82 percent in May.  For comparison, Mitt Romney lost despite garnering 93 percent support among Republicans in 2012. In addition, just over half of Republicans would prefer a different nominee (51 percent someone else vs. 48 percent Trump).  And while most GOP voters describe Trump as intelligent, more than 7-in-10 feel he's hot-headed and obnoxious.  More on that later.

The point of my post is that parts of Florida are almost certain to vote Republican while other parts almost certain to vote Democratic.  I am not sure how many anti Trump TV ads would be aired in places like Broward and Miami-Dade and by the same token anti Clinton ads in Tampa, Jacksonville, or NW Florida.

I travel the length of the state on a regular basis and notice a huge difference in attitudes in different places.

Out of your butt.  That's what I thought.

First the most glaring problem: The State Department doesn't award arms deals without any input. Arms deals are governed by the Foreign Military Sales Act and the Arms Exports Control Act which is implemented by way of Executive Order 11958 which delegates authority to Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, requiring explicitly that they "shall consult with each other and with the heads of other departments and agencies, including the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of the United States International Development Cooperation Agency, and the Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, on matters pertaining to their responsibilities." Finally, the act establishes a Congressional review process to monitor the arms deals.

So had Hillary wanted to `reward' CGI donors ... she'd have had to get quite a few other people to sign on to those unjustified increases.

SNIP

When you zoom in, it becomes clear, the value of the donation has no relationship to the routine awarding and re-awarding of global arms contracts that change subject to a nations needs and the global threat landscape.

These donations either aren't bribes, or they are and Clinton doesn't understand how bribes work.

And if she doesn't understand how bribes work, she's immune to bribery.