• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

In after Baud. Damn.

President Musk and Trump are both poorly raised, coddled 8 year old boys.

We can show the world that autocracy can be defeated.

We’ve had enough carrots to last a lifetime. break out the sticks.

The line between political reporting and fan fiction continues to blur.

She burned that motherfucker down, and I am so here for it. Thank you, Caroline Kennedy.

If you voted for Trump, you don’t get to speak about ethics, morals, or rule of law.

Balloon Juice, where there is always someone who will say you’re doing it wrong.

Marge, god is saying you’re stupid.

Disagreements are healthy; personal attacks are not.

There are more Russians standing up to Putin than Republicans.

How any woman could possibly vote for this smug smarmy piece of misogynistic crap is beyond understanding.

So many bastards, so little time.

Trumpflation is an intolerable hardship for every American, and it’s Trump’s fault.

This blog will pay for itself.

Never give a known liar the benefit of the doubt.

Let’s bury these fuckers at the polls 2 years from now.

Not rolling over. fuck you, make me.

People identifying as christian while ignoring christ and his teachings is a strange thing indeed.

Damn right I heard that as a threat.

Nothing says ‘pro-life’ like letting children go hungry.

Speaking of republicans, is there a way for a political party to declare intellectual bankruptcy?

The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.

Yeah, with this crowd one never knows.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Domestic Politics / MSNBC-Telemundo Town Hall: Clinton vs. Sanders

MSNBC-Telemundo Town Hall: Clinton vs. Sanders

by Betty Cracker|  February 18, 20169:11 pm| 369 Comments

This post is in: Domestic Politics, Open Threads, Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

Mom and Dad are fighting again (by proxy)! Anyone watching, or are we all primaried out? Bonus pet pic / meme:

image

Open thread!

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Authors In Our Midst: The Cabin
Next Post: Open Thread — Whited Sepulcher Edition »

Reader Interactions

369Comments

  1. 1.

    Baud

    February 18, 2016 at 9:13 pm

    Not watching. I just realized it was on a couple of minutes ago.

    Glad to see you are able to post again.

  2. 2.

    Baud

    February 18, 2016 at 9:16 pm

    That photo is dark. Did Cole take it?

  3. 3.

    gene108

    February 18, 2016 at 9:17 pm

    Posted this in a dying thread a couple of FP posts below. Thought it was interesting (emphasis mine):

    Anyway, here’s a list of Bill’s liberal accomplishment from a 1995 article:

    LEGISLATION

    1. Increased benefit levels and eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit–the biggest antipoverty measure enacted since the 1960s.
    2. Restored tax progressivity with higher rates on wealthiest taxpayers.
    3. Enacted gun controls, including the Brady Bill and restrictions on assault weapons.
    4. Passed the National Voter Registration Act (“motor-voter” bill), previously vetoed by Bush.
    5. Passed the Family and Medical Leave Act, vetoed by Bush.
    6. Restored First Amendment political rights for federal employees, vetoed by Bush.
    7. Passed crime prevention measures and new funding for community policing in crime bill.
    8. Targeted Chapter I funds to school districts with large numbers of poor children.
    9. Passed a child immunization program that provides free vaccines to six million additional children, covering over 90 percent of American two-year-olds by 1996.
    10. Passed legislation establishing national academic standards (Goals 2000).
    11. Enacted voluntary national service and education prepayment program for youth.
    12. Federalized college loan program.

    SNIP

    DEFICIT REDUCTION AND TARGETED FUNDING INCREASES

    17. Cut federal deficit in half.
    18. Increased Head Start funding by 20 percent, expanding coverage by 100,000 children.
    19. Increased coverage of Women, Infants and Children nutrition and health program (for pregnant and postpartum women) by 300,000 families, and broadened food stamp aid by an additional $2.5 billion over the next five years.
    20. Doubled the budget for aid to the homeless, to $1.5 billion a year.
    21. Expanded housing project grants, including aid to first-time home buyers and permanent extension of low-income housing credits.
    22. Increased funding by 12 percent for legal services for the poor after years of Republican attempts to abolish the Legal Services Corporation.
    23. Doubled training funds for dislocated workers, to $1.1 billion a year.
    24. Expanded AIDS public health services, including full funding of the Ryan White program.

    SNIP

    ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS

    25. Repealed abortion counseling “gag rule.”
    26. Revoked import ban on RU-486.
    27. Stepped up consumer protection through Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Food and Drug Administration.
    28. Revived antitrust enforcement, including first retail price maintenance cases since Carter.

    SNIP

    34. Ended blacklist of fired air traffic controllers.
    35. Stepped up response to equal opportunity complaints.
    36. Toughened enforcement of Community Reinvestment Act, requiring banks to make loans in poor neighborhoods.
    37. Adjusted census undercount to increase federal aid to urban areas.
    38. Appointed most diverse cabinet ever, including five blacks, two Hispanics, and five women.
    39. Introduced new antidiscrimination rules and procedures for gay civil service employees.

    There’s more at the link.

  4. 4.

    Betty Cracker

    February 18, 2016 at 9:18 pm

    @Baud: It is a crappy and dark photo. But if it was clearer, Daisy wouldn’t bear such a strong resemblance to Zuul!

  5. 5.

    Baud

    February 18, 2016 at 9:18 pm

    @Betty Cracker: Zuul is still a cutie.

  6. 6.

    Baud

    February 18, 2016 at 9:20 pm

    Oh god, this is the town hall that Chuck Todd is moderating. Not only am I not watching, I may need to burn my TV.

  7. 7.

    JPL

    February 18, 2016 at 9:22 pm

    I just don’t feel the bern. I was streaming but when asked about how to prevent racial profiling, and his answer was go to my web site.. well. I just don’t get it. Maybe the rest of his answer was better, but I decided to click off instead. Rubio gave a better answer.

  8. 8.

    chrome agnomen

    February 18, 2016 at 9:22 pm

    @Baud: if only chuck todd were actually in your TV.

  9. 9.

    Baud

    February 18, 2016 at 9:24 pm

    @JPL: I hate when any candidate says go to my website. It’s maybe acceptable in a closing, but never in response to a question. And I’m not picking because they all do it.

  10. 10.

    Baud

    February 18, 2016 at 9:26 pm

    If you want to learn more about Baud!, swipe right on Tinder.

    ETA: Fixed directionality.

  11. 11.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    February 18, 2016 at 9:26 pm

    Bernie’s going first. Chuck Todd is being his annoying self and Bernie is smacking him down pretty effectively. “Hey, I’m not a dictator! I will need some help from the Congress.”

    Bernie is being pretty measured in his answers to questions from the audience. But he just went into a rant straight out of one of his stump speeches – a lot less measured.

    He is getting a lot more applause, etc., when he’s in his ranty mode, but he seems a lot more “presidendtial” (to these eyes) when he’s being more measured. I think he’s more effective when he’s not giving a canned answer that he’s given hundreds of times before.

    I’ll probably feel the same way about HRC’s answers too… :-/

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  12. 12.

    Mr Stagger Lee

    February 18, 2016 at 9:26 pm

    Happy Birthday George Kennedy 91 years old. Glad to know he is still around.

  13. 13.

    TaMara (BHF)

    February 18, 2016 at 9:28 pm

    I am seriously not going to survive primary season.

  14. 14.

    muddy

    February 18, 2016 at 9:29 pm

    @Betty Cracker: She looks to have been rudely awakened.

  15. 15.

    Applejinx

    February 18, 2016 at 9:29 pm

    I’m primaried out, but interesting that all of a sudden we get MOAR PRIMARIES…

    I’m all Sgt. Esterhaus at this point. ‘Let’s be careful out there’.

    The real enemy is busy battling Donald Trump for power. Can you believe we should be rooting for TRUMP as the lesser of Republican evils? Mindboggling, yet there it is. The others are worse.

  16. 16.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    February 18, 2016 at 9:30 pm

    @JPL: The rest of his answer wasn’t bad, but leading off with that was certainly an own-goal. I heard a bit of annoyance in his voice when he started the answer, but maybe that was just me.

    The “go to my website” bit should always be the end of the answer, not the beginning.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  17. 17.

    a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)

    February 18, 2016 at 9:32 pm

    @chrome agnomen: The real life world would be a much better place.

  18. 18.

    Betty Cracker

    February 18, 2016 at 9:32 pm

    @Applejinx: Gotta agree with you there; better Trump than unspeakably evil Cruz or media-darling-in-waiting Rubio.

  19. 19.

    Adam L Silverman

    February 18, 2016 at 9:33 pm

    @Betty Cracker: If she asks, you are a god.

  20. 20.

    magurakurin

    February 18, 2016 at 9:33 pm

    Primaried out. Waiting for March 2. There will be a lot more clarity after that. I suspect that certain segments of the intertubes are going to be like a wake on that day though.

  21. 21.

    Adam L Silverman

    February 18, 2016 at 9:34 pm

    @Baud: Without that answer, Dr. Carson wouldn’t have anything to say at a debate.

  22. 22.

    Adam L Silverman

    February 18, 2016 at 9:35 pm

    I’m watching TJ the boxer do the Westminster Agility Competition.

  23. 23.

    jl

    February 18, 2016 at 9:37 pm

    I’m primaried out unitl after March 1. Then will be interesting to see how Dem candidates adapt.

    I might tune in for the Baud! 2016! segment. He is always very concise and mercifully very brief.

  24. 24.

    jl

    February 18, 2016 at 9:38 pm

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: thanks for your brave service, and your report.

  25. 25.

    Mike in NC

    February 18, 2016 at 9:40 pm

    @Mr Stagger Lee: 183 credits per IMDB. Loved him in Naked Gun, Dirty Dozen, and so many other roles.

  26. 26.

    Germy

    February 18, 2016 at 9:41 pm

    Mundane view-master:
    http://liartownusa.tumblr.com/post/138978888405/bakersfield-california-1977-78-view-master-reel

  27. 27.

    The Dangerman

    February 18, 2016 at 9:42 pm

    The real enemy is busy battling Donald Trump for power.

    I still don’t think Trump realllllllly wants to be President; he likes the fellating he’s getting as a candidate, but Presidentin is hard work.

    Sooner or later, this act of performance art will self destruct …. intentionally.

  28. 28.

    Calouste

    February 18, 2016 at 9:42 pm

    Kinda OT, but Kasich just torpedoed his chances, however small they were, by stating “Put me down in the pro-pope column, This man has brought more sense of hope.”

  29. 29.

    Germy

    February 18, 2016 at 9:43 pm

    The correct answer should be “Go to my website. I’ll wait.”

  30. 30.

    Adam L Silverman

    February 18, 2016 at 9:43 pm

    @The Dangerman: As soon as the Pope puts all Trump branded properties under interdict, all will be well.

  31. 31.

    Aleta

    February 18, 2016 at 9:43 pm

    @Baud:

    more about Baud!, swipe right on Tinder

    With so many advanced “hobbies,” where will you find time to preside?

  32. 32.

    boatboy_srq

    February 18, 2016 at 9:43 pm

    @Adam L Silverman: Makes you think maybe he shouldn’t have run, and kept his grift a strictly civilian endeavour, no?

  33. 33.

    Iowa Old Lady

    February 18, 2016 at 9:44 pm

    I am completely primaried out. I want it to be over.

  34. 34.

    Baud

    February 18, 2016 at 9:44 pm

    @jl:

    . He is always very concise and mercifully very brief.

    “You’re an idiot, Chuck Todd. Go to my dark web site for the answer.”

  35. 35.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    February 18, 2016 at 9:44 pm

    @jl: :-)

    Hmm. Bernie just started talking about how he would address Islamophobia “directly” and the TV just locked up. Is there a message there??!?!?

    (sigh)

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  36. 36.

    Percysowner

    February 18, 2016 at 9:44 pm

    I’m a bit of a political junkie, so I’m watching. I’m not enough of a junkie to watch the Republican debates, but the Democrats I try to listen to everything they say. I’m leaning Hillary, but am open to Bernie, so I need to listen to both.

  37. 37.

    Germy

    February 18, 2016 at 9:44 pm

    Zsa Zsa Gabor turned 99 a few days ago. And Rose Marie (formerly Baby Rose Marie) still lives.

  38. 38.

    Baud

    February 18, 2016 at 9:46 pm

    @Percysowner: Good for you. Don’t let us tired old bums get you down. It is important.

  39. 39.

    Betty Cracker

    February 18, 2016 at 9:46 pm

    Good answer from Bernie on anti-Muslim rhetoric and immigration.

  40. 40.

    Adam L Silverman

    February 18, 2016 at 9:46 pm

    @boatboy_srq: He’s made a ton of money off of this segment of the grift. And so have his handlers. The people that find his life story compelling and aren’t willing to think deeply about how much of a buffoon he’s appeared in the primary will still do so. The rest of will continue to wonder if there’s something seriously neurologically wrong with him or, and perhaps more frighteningly, if he’s always been like this how in the world was he able to make it through medical school, let alone not kill every one of his patients.

  41. 41.

    Germy

    February 18, 2016 at 9:48 pm

    @Adam L Silverman: What disturbed me was the typo engraved on his wall. “poverb” Why didn’t anyone catch it, or is that a traditional “old” spelling, or is he an ignoramus?

  42. 42.

    Anne Laurie

    February 18, 2016 at 9:50 pm

    The Guardian is liveblogging both the Dem townhall and the simultaneous CNN Repub version.

    When dedicated commentors on a dedicated political blog like BJ can’t bear to watch any longer… I think that’s pretty much a sign that there’s been enough bad-dog-and-no-pony shows.

  43. 43.

    Betty Cracker

    February 18, 2016 at 9:51 pm

    Now Bernie is explaining the difference between democratic socialism in Sweden vs. Chavez’s Castro-flavored socialism in Venezuela at the prompting of Jose Diaz-Balart.

    @Percysowner: Gotta admit I enjoyed that last Republican debate more than any I’ve ever seen, and I’ve been watching since Reagan vs. Mondale! I just hate all the GOP candidates so much, and they were tearing each other down. It was beautiful.

  44. 44.

    Adam L Silverman

    February 18, 2016 at 9:51 pm

    @Germy: Have you seen my spelling in posts and comments?

    I’m amazed that no one caught it, though my guess is his guests have too much class to mention it to him and embarrass him over it. That whoever did the piece screwed it up and didn’t catch it is bad. The only thing I can think is it was done by a young relative or a young patient as a gift, so the mistake was by a kid and there’s enough emotion and sentiment behind it that the error just makes it that much more special.

  45. 45.

    Mr Stagger Lee

    February 18, 2016 at 9:53 pm

    @Germy: WOW! Forgot all about Rose Marie.

  46. 46.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    February 18, 2016 at 9:53 pm

    Hey I used the Zuul thing here just yesterday. I claim trend-setter status.

  47. 47.

    Adam L Silverman

    February 18, 2016 at 9:53 pm

    @Betty Cracker: What is frightening was when I suggested dueling pistols in the middle of the last debate because it was in SC, I was kidding. I wasn’t expecting Governor Bush to go out and tool up a couple of days later.

  48. 48.

    Baud

    February 18, 2016 at 9:53 pm

    @Anne Laurie:

    What really got me down is the fact that every debate and town hall seemed to go over the same turf, and all you heard were the same stock answers to the same questions. Maybe this one is better.

  49. 49.

    Baud

    February 18, 2016 at 9:54 pm

    @Betty Cracker: The last GOP debate was epic.

  50. 50.

    Germy

    February 18, 2016 at 9:56 pm

    @Mr Stagger Lee: She was quite a vocalist in her childhood.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvymiQNyDfA

  51. 51.

    Betty Cracker

    February 18, 2016 at 9:57 pm

    @Bill E Pilgrim: It must have been you that reminded me, then; I knew I’d read some reference to Zuul recently but couldn’t remember where.

  52. 52.

    Germy

    February 18, 2016 at 9:59 pm

    a compilation of the saddest Jeb moments, ending with his mother admitting he isn’t her favorite:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yHckRTkcZg

  53. 53.

    SiubhanDuinne, Annoying Scoundrel

    February 18, 2016 at 9:59 pm

    I am watching it, but unfortunately it is muted. Later I’ll be able to listen to it, but not watch. This is my bifurcated life.

    (I just posted on Facebook: FEELIN’ THE BERN. VOTED FOR HILLARY. NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. I am expecting to be unfriended by a dozen or so people.)

  54. 54.

    Germy

    February 18, 2016 at 10:01 pm

    @SiubhanDuinne, Annoying Scoundrel:

    I am watching it, but unfortunately it is muted.

    Unfortunately? Or the best way to watch it?

  55. 55.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    February 18, 2016 at 10:02 pm

    @Betty Cracker: Okay you’re forgiven. Just kidding, always happy to see a Zuul reference.

    There is no José Jiménez , only Zuuul.

    Edit: Wow, I just Googled some of those old routines, they were even more offensive than I thought. Yipes.

  56. 56.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    February 18, 2016 at 10:03 pm

    I wonder what Bernie said to Chuck when they broke for a commercial before HRC comes out. Chuck was cracking up…

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  57. 57.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    February 18, 2016 at 10:03 pm

    Kirk Douglas is still with us, I believe. Checked the internets, 99 last month. And I think Olivia de Havilland is still outlining her sister.

  58. 58.

    schrodinger's cat

    February 18, 2016 at 10:04 pm

    When you said there is no Daisy, I thought you were referring to the one in DA.

  59. 59.

    Anne Laurie

    February 18, 2016 at 10:05 pm

    Ooo…

    Richard Wolffe
    From the CNN Republican town hall:

    Jeb Bush made an impassioned plea for more brain research (“a moonshot”) to deal with drug addiction and autism, among other things. “We need to discover the brain!” he says, putting his finger on an unusual feature of the Bush male brain: their exceptional capacity for mangling the English language.

    Bets on which other candidate uses ‘discover the brain’ in an attack ad first?

  60. 60.

    Kay

    February 18, 2016 at 10:05 pm

    That was an anti-privatization-of-public-lands question. I’m not sure Bernie got it completely :)

  61. 61.

    Germy

    February 18, 2016 at 10:07 pm

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Doris Day is still among us.

  62. 62.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    February 18, 2016 at 10:08 pm

    @Kay: I wouldn’t be surprised if the acoustics were horrible in that room. Bernie had to cup his ear and ask people to repeat themselves with several people.

    But Bernie might have been trying to finesse the issue too, so as not to upset voters who think the BLM is the devil incarnate, or something. But I think that’s less likely.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  63. 63.

    Mandalay

    February 18, 2016 at 10:08 pm

    Slimy guy in a $1,200 suit tells Jeb how drugs ruined the lives of his friends, and invites Jeb to tell us how awful drugs are.

    A kid not old enough to shave invites Jeb to tell us all how much he loves his wife.

    I’d sooner watch someone selling bed linen on a shopping channel than see any more of CNN’s swill. Beyond awful.

  64. 64.

    Kay

    February 18, 2016 at 10:09 pm

    Chuck Todd says not voting on a nominee is the same as not allowing a vote because of a (theoretical) filibuster.

  65. 65.

    BillinGlendaleCA

    February 18, 2016 at 10:09 pm

    @Baud:

    I may need to burn my TV.

    Feeling the Bern?

  66. 66.

    SiubhanDuinne, Annoying Scoundrel

    February 18, 2016 at 10:10 pm

    I don’t mean this as lookist, but Hillary looks fantastic. She should wear that hot pink fuchsia color a LOT.

    Tuck Choad, OTOH …. What is with the weird beard (or is it weard beird?) and those bro glasses? Sorry, it just all looks strange.

  67. 67.

    Adam L Silverman

    February 18, 2016 at 10:11 pm

    @Kay: This is what happens when you drop out of college because the BA in political science is too hard and become a journalist instead.

  68. 68.

    magurakurin

    February 18, 2016 at 10:12 pm

    @Betty Cracker:

    Now Bernie is explaining the difference between democratic socialism in Sweden vs. Chavez’s Castro-flavored socialism in Venezuela

    Jesus wept. Sanders will get demolished in the general. So, he’s gonna go with I’m a nice socialist like Sweden not a bad one like Chavez/Castro. Unfortunately for him that hasn’t always been his opinion. He is fucking doomed.

  69. 69.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    February 18, 2016 at 10:13 pm

    “We need to discover the brain”

    Jeb Bush, polite zombie.

  70. 70.

    jl

    February 18, 2016 at 10:13 pm

    @Adam L Silverman: You serious? That is slanderous shit you are spouting.

    Edit: in order to avoid slander myself. I have worked with and taught PoliSci students who are brilliant, but other on the other hand.

    Edit: OTOH, the implication is that an undergrad polisci dropout is who the corporate media goes to for a ‘numbers guy’? That is a bad sign.

  71. 71.

    Kay

    February 18, 2016 at 10:13 pm

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:

    Oh, I;m glad they exist, anti-privatization-of-public-lands people. I was like “see that? I suspected that”

  72. 72.

    gogol's wife

    February 18, 2016 at 10:14 pm

    @Germy:

    The music is great.

    I saw that clip where Trump calls him a tough guy dubbed into Russian on a Russian news show. Really funny.

  73. 73.

    gogol's wife

    February 18, 2016 at 10:15 pm

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    No one’s going to mention Norman Lloyd, 101?

  74. 74.

    Kay

    February 18, 2016 at 10:15 pm

    @magurakurin:

    Truthfully he’s gotten a little better at explaining it. Posing it as a question “you know what it is? it’s Social Security!” is smart.

  75. 75.

    Betty Cracker

    February 18, 2016 at 10:15 pm

    Ooooo! Hillary just said Bernie is a Demmie-come-lately!

  76. 76.

    Adam L Silverman

    February 18, 2016 at 10:16 pm

    @jl: Nope, he majored in polisci and minored in music, but didn’t graduate. He was there for four years, 90-94, but didn’t finish. And is listed among George Washington University’s prominent, non-graduated alunmi:
    http://alumni.gwu.edu/prominent-alumni-school-non-degree-students
    Says something about a university when they make an alumni page for famous people that didn’t finish their degrees. Also, it abuses the meaning of alumni.

  77. 77.

    Mandalay

    February 18, 2016 at 10:16 pm

    The Democratic Party squeals that Republicans rig the outcomes of elections, but they are not exactly amateurs themselves…

    After the contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, Sanders has a small 36-32 lead among delegates won in primaries and caucuses. But when superdelegates are included, Clinton leads 481-55, according to the AP count. It’s essentially a parallel election that underscores Clinton’s lopsided support from the Democratic establishment.

  78. 78.

    magurakurin

    February 18, 2016 at 10:17 pm

    @Betty Cracker: so what. He is. Deal with it.

  79. 79.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    February 18, 2016 at 10:17 pm

    Hillary gave a good answer on the Apple encryption stuff. She said she’s not an expert, it’s a hard problem with legitimate concerns and issues on each side, but she would work to bring people together to try to figure out a solution.

    There was just some bough-ha-ha where she was yelling “It’s True! It’s True!” at the audience in response to some yelling/cheering. I’ll have to see what that was all about…

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  80. 80.

    jl

    February 18, 2016 at 10:18 pm

    @Adam L Silverman: Chuck Todd, music? He should play some tunes, might do better at his job. (Edit: CNN headlines of the world, accompanied by master musician and world tunester Chuck Todd. Was he performance major or what?)

    Is this town hall any good? maybe I should tune in.

  81. 81.

    BillinGlendaleCA

    February 18, 2016 at 10:18 pm

    @Baud: I played the tRump-jeb? part for the kid on Monday. She watched and said “Oh My God”.

  82. 82.

    Adam L Silverman

    February 18, 2016 at 10:18 pm

    @jl: It is unclear why he didn’t graduate. If you go to the famous alumni (who aren’t really alumni because they didn’t) graduate link I just posted in comment 76, you’ll notice just below Chuck Todd’s name is Brian Williams. My guess is he was already interning for NBC and he figured if Williams could do it, so could he. He clearly knows very little about stats or anything else.

  83. 83.

    Betty Cracker

    February 18, 2016 at 10:19 pm

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: That was when she countered Todd’s observation that Sanders criticized Bill Clinton and Obama by saying maybe he (Sanders) just didn’t like Democrats since he wasn’t one himself until quite recently.

  84. 84.

    Adam L Silverman

    February 18, 2016 at 10:21 pm

    @jl: I’m now watching Young Auntie” on El Rey Network’s Salute to the Women of Shaw Studios (Women of Chinese Martial Arts Cinema) mini-marathon, so I have no idea. The Trail of the Broken Blade starts in ten minutes.

  85. 85.

    Kay

    February 18, 2016 at 10:21 pm

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:

    They asked her about Obama criticizing Dem Presidents (Obama, Clinton) and she said something about how Sanders wasn’t always a Democrat. I’m not actually clear why they booed that much. It didn’t seem out of bounds to me.

    It’s a funny crowd. They don’t want these two taking shots at each other. They booed Sanders when Sanders went after Clinton too.

  86. 86.

    jl

    February 18, 2016 at 10:22 pm

    @Adam L Silverman: George Romney, L Ron Hubbard, Todd, and Brian Williams all attended GW University? I smell a conspiracy of some sort, surely deep and deadly.

  87. 87.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    February 18, 2016 at 10:23 pm

    Hillary said something like “that’s why I’m working as hard as I can to wrap this up as soon as I can…” in part of an earlier answer. Now she just said “that’s why we need a Democratic Senate…”. It’s good that she’s making the explicit connection. Bernie said he will need help from the Congress to get things done, but he didn’t go the extra step to say that people need to vote for Democrats down the line. I hope he starts doing that going forward…

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  88. 88.

    Adam L Silverman

    February 18, 2016 at 10:23 pm

    @jl: And none of them graduated. Of course all of them are, or were, laughing all the way to the bank, so what do I know?

  89. 89.

    jl

    February 18, 2016 at 10:24 pm

    Broke down and tuned in just in time to hear HRC do her (to me) most annoying ‘mommy is really angry at you dang kids’ voice.

    But, interesting question on HRC’s previous position on Central American kid refugees. But is she filibustering the Q? Ok, she gets to substance.

  90. 90.

    JCJ

    February 18, 2016 at 10:25 pm

    @Anne Laurie:

    But I thought we wanted MOAR DEBATES!!!!11!!!

  91. 91.

    Calouste

    February 18, 2016 at 10:25 pm

    @Mandalay: Funny that, the establishment of a party supports someone who has been a prominent member for about 4 decades over someone who only joined last year. Do you really wonder why?

  92. 92.

    debbie

    February 18, 2016 at 10:25 pm

    @JPL:

    I think all politicians say that to show they’re relevant because they use social media. Not that they know how to use it, but they do use it.

  93. 93.

    Cacti

    February 18, 2016 at 10:25 pm

    @magurakurin:

    so what. He is. Deal with it.

    If Hillary lost (again), I have zero doubts that she’d keep on being a committed member of the Democratic Party.

    If Bernie lost, not so much.

  94. 94.

    Wrb

    February 18, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    So where are people actually able to watch this? I can’t find it.

  95. 95.

    jl

    February 18, 2016 at 10:27 pm

    Gawdam transcript question?
    OK, my luck I tune in for that garbage.

    I’ll give this thing one more question.

  96. 96.

    Weaselone

    February 18, 2016 at 10:27 pm

    @Mandalay:
    You know, Bernie works with some of those super delegates in the Senate. Others aren’t too far away in the House and still others are from the state he represents.. He had and has the opportunity to get their support. That he has not gotten the support of what in many cases are his coworkers should be on him, not the DNC. It’s not as if this whole superdelegate things was instituted last year.

  97. 97.

    Kay

    February 18, 2016 at 10:27 pm

    @debbie:

    I think MSNBC blew this. There was a planted hostile question to Sanders and now here’s one for Clinton. They shouldn’t let people do that.

  98. 98.

    jl

    February 18, 2016 at 10:29 pm

    Stupid follow-up. Surely there are many better audience questions than that. I suppose MSNBC felt it had to throw in some dogs. (Edit: sorry for slander against dogs)

    Edit: Working to break down ALL the barriers. Is HRC making that a theme? She should. That line is a little inspirationy, IMHO.

  99. 99.

    Smiling Mortician

    February 18, 2016 at 10:30 pm

    According to the Guardian liveblog linked upthread, Bernie says: “I chose to run proudly in the Democratic primary and caucus process and I look forward to winning that process, but clearly as a nation I think that we flourish when there are more opinions out there.”

  100. 100.

    debbie

    February 18, 2016 at 10:31 pm

    @Kay:

    That is what politics has become: an endless stream of set-ups and plants. I just saw a clip of that weepy kid asking Kasich for a hug. Good grief!

  101. 101.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    February 18, 2016 at 10:31 pm

    Chuck Todd has taken the Friar Tuck approach to the heartbreak of hair loss.

    Hey, to each one’s own.

  102. 102.

    Betty Cracker

    February 18, 2016 at 10:33 pm

    @Cacti: I don’t think either one of them would change a bit after a loss. Hillary has always been more party-oriented and would remain so. Bernie would caucus with the Dems in the senate as he always has.

  103. 103.

    Mandalay

    February 18, 2016 at 10:34 pm

    @Calouste:

    Funny that, the establishment of a party supports someone who has been a prominent member for about 4 decades over someone who only joined last year. Do you really wonder why?

    Not at all, and I’ve repeatedly posted that Bernie can’t expect equal treatment when he refuses to become a Democrat.

    But the deck is so egregiously stacked in Clinton’s favor behind the curtain that it seems worthy of comment. Everyone’s vote counts, but the superdelegates’ votes count a gazillion times more.

  104. 104.

    jl

    February 18, 2016 at 10:34 pm

    Oh for God;s sake. Did MSNBC chose all the BS questions with BS premises for the audience? HRC turning it nicely, so as not to rudely insult a prospective voter for asking a BS question with a BS premise. (Edit: IMHO, the guy’s line about 21st century versus old fashioned financing is a tell that the guy has been feed, and he swallowed some PP centrist BS)

    I hope Sanders gave a similarly strong performance.

  105. 105.

    chopper

    February 18, 2016 at 10:34 pm

    @Germy:

    Poverbs is my favorite book of the Bibble.

  106. 106.

    Kay

    February 18, 2016 at 10:34 pm

    @debbie:

    an endless stream of set-ups and plants

    I think it was always like that but you’d think with these big expensive media teams they could be a little savvier.

    “I would like to ask Secretary Clinton why SHE’S A LIAR with this prepared statement that is not a question” :)

  107. 107.

    Cacti

    February 18, 2016 at 10:34 pm

    @Weaselone:

    You know, Bernie works with some of those super delegates in the Senate. Others aren’t too far away in the House and still others are from the state he represents..

    When you’ve been in Congress 25 years and you can’t get members of your caucus to support you, maybe the problem isn’t everyone else.

  108. 108.

    gwangung

    February 18, 2016 at 10:35 pm

    @Weaselone:

    It’s not as if this whole superdelegate things was instituted last year.

    And it’s not like someone’s campaign manager didn’t help put the concept together.

    (Folks made fun of Clinton’s team not knowing the rules in 2008; I don’t think it’s fair to make a complaint when she’s learned her lesson and works the rules in 2016)

  109. 109.

    jl

    February 18, 2016 at 10:37 pm

    HRC good expressing her opposition rising retirement age for social security.

  110. 110.

    Betty Cracker

    February 18, 2016 at 10:41 pm

    @Kay: Yeah, it’s pretty transparently a set-up. At least they aren’t taking YouTube questions. I hate that. It’s like they (the media outlets) think putting up a grainy YouTube question makes them look all cutting edge and social media-ish. FFS. It’s not a new thing.

  111. 111.

    magurakurin

    February 18, 2016 at 10:41 pm

    @Mandalay: It’s a political party nomination. Non-members of the party are open to vote in some primary elections and long time party leaders have a level of influence which reflects their position in the organization. The super delegates have been around for a long time and have been constituted in various forms and under various rules. Anyone who doesn’t like the nomination process is free to begin a life in politics, become a Democratic party leader/insider and change the process. You know, similar to the way life long Democratic Party insider, Tad Devine, did when he was instrumental in instituting the current super delegate system in 1982.

    So, so, so tired of the noble outsider act from the Sanders campaign.

  112. 112.

    PsiFighter37

    February 18, 2016 at 10:41 pm

    I just watched clips of the Saturday GOP debate just now. Wow, no kidding – that was a complete shitshow. Great entertainment, but hard to believe one of these idiots will have a 45%+ shot at being president.

  113. 113.

    Seebach

    February 18, 2016 at 10:41 pm

    @Cacti: No, he’d probably go back to being a Socialist, as if party loyalty is the paramount concern when there are actually issues and voting.

  114. 114.

    J R in WV

    February 18, 2016 at 10:42 pm

    @Adam L Silverman:

    I went to college in Carlisle, for 2.5 semesters, then got a draft notice, never went back. But they treat me like an alum.

    I get the same begging letters a real alum gets!

  115. 115.

    seaboogie

    February 18, 2016 at 10:43 pm

    @Baud:

    If you want to learn more about Baud!, swipe right on Tinder.

    Baud-acious! 2016! And we are all members of the “Baud-y Politic”.

  116. 116.

    CaseyL

    February 18, 2016 at 10:43 pm

    So many people are sick and tired of the primaries, and we’ve only had… what, three so far?

    I’m not watching, mostly because I can’t stand the MSM moderators. I wish we had real debates, allowing the candidates to talk directly to one another. Actually talk and discuss, I mean; not yell insults like the GOP the other night. (Last night? It all blurs…)

    ETA: Last Saturday? The GOP train wreck was Saturday? Man, I am really not tracking time well.

  117. 117.

    BillinGlendaleCA

    February 18, 2016 at 10:45 pm

    @jl: What did you do this time jl?

  118. 118.

    Cacti

    February 18, 2016 at 10:46 pm

    @Seebach:

    No, he’d probably go back to being a Socialist, as if party loyalty is the paramount concern when there are actually issues and voting.

    I agree, Bernie’s only interested in being a Democrat as long as his political career has something to gain from it.

    The moment he loses, he’ll go back to being better than the rest of us. Real mystery about why the lack of endorsements. ;-)

  119. 119.

    jl

    February 18, 2016 at 10:47 pm

    @BillinGlendaleCA: Stayed sober and then tuned into another primary thingamjig?

  120. 120.

    Gex

    February 18, 2016 at 10:48 pm

    @Mandalay: This is a line of attack I’m tired of. First of all, Bernie is newly a Democrat, only joining recently in order to make this run. The Democratic party does not owe him a complete rewrite of their nomination process because it makes him sad. He signed up to compete in the Democratic primaries that have rules and processes that evolved over years. He’s entirely welcome to put in the work to create his own party and nomination process if he wants to.

    Or, alternatively, since these same issues came up in 2008, he could have joined the party and worked on changing the process.

    He doesn’t even want to go the Ron Paul way, which as we recall in 2012 involved Ron Paul supporters favored working on getting the delegates they needed over going for flashy, but less meaningful “wins.”

    All of these options are/were available to Bernie. He and his supporters are choosing option D – whine about it. As though it is entirely reasonable to wait until results start coming in, discover they aren’t favoring you, THEN wanting a rules change.

    Given that this same thing happened in 2008 and Obama STILL became the nominee, it is really too soon for all the crying.

    Edited to note that Bernie is apparently now a Democrat, not an Independent.

  121. 121.

    Seebach

    February 18, 2016 at 10:48 pm

    @Cacti: I’m glad Clinton trolls are only at this level.

  122. 122.

    Betty Cracker

    February 18, 2016 at 10:49 pm

    Hillary is telling more stories lately. That’s a good thing. She’s always had an impressive command of policy, but at this event, she’s making them more real by talking about real people she’s met. Smart strategy.

  123. 123.

    Cacti

    February 18, 2016 at 10:50 pm

    @Seebach:

    I’m glad Clinton trolls are only at this level.

    Weren’t you talking this morning about how only Bernie can save us from the Muslim death camps Clinton would surely open?

  124. 124.

    magurakurin

    February 18, 2016 at 10:50 pm

    @Gex: And they aren’t rejecting the 55 superdelegate votes they have already. Those are pure I guess. Only Clinton’s 350+ are tainted by insider corruption and rot.

  125. 125.

    Adam L Silverman

    February 18, 2016 at 10:51 pm

    @J R in WV: Dickinson?

  126. 126.

    jl

    February 18, 2016 at 10:52 pm

    @Gex: Sanders is posting here as Mandalay?
    The link quotes the Sanders campaign as blowing off the superdelegate issue, as he should if he is a good politician.

    @Mandalay: Hey, Sanders, your health care proposal roll out sucked.

  127. 127.

    Marc

    February 18, 2016 at 10:53 pm

    @magurakurin: It would be a complete disaster for the party if a candidate won a majority of the delegates awarded by actual votes and lost the nomination because of unelected delegates.

    That’s why superdelegates are an idiotic idea: their deployment in any consequential way would massively backfire on whomever they supported. This was stupid in 2008, it’s stupid now, and the party should ditch the idea. Clinton / Sanders has zero to do with it.

  128. 128.

    jl

    February 18, 2016 at 10:55 pm

    HRC said ‘Bully Pulpit’! Creeping Sandersism! Help her, help her!

    Edit: OK, I like HRC’s campaign style more and more as campaign goes on. Really have no preference now other than electability in the general. Questions I’m hearing not interesting enough to me to listen more. I’ll catch the clips later.

  129. 129.

    Seebach

    February 18, 2016 at 10:55 pm

    @Cacti: No, I said Bernie is making Clinton compete on the left wing and preventing her from immediately triangulating issues from the GOP, which she is so eager to do with her talk of new Iran sanctions and the like.

  130. 130.

    Cacti

    February 18, 2016 at 10:56 pm

    @Marc:

    It would be a complete disaster for the party if a candidate won a majority of the delegates awarded by actual votes and lost the nomination because of unelected delegates.

    That’s why superdelegates are an idiotic idea: their deployment in any consequential way would massively backfire on whomever they supported. This was stupid in 2008, it’s stupid now, and the party should ditch the idea. Clinton / Sanders has zero to do with it.

    Shame on you Tad Devine.

  131. 131.

    Cacti

    February 18, 2016 at 10:58 pm

    @Seebach:

    No, I said Bernie is making Clinton compete on the left wing and preventing her from immediately triangulating issues from the GOP, which she is so eager to do with her talk of new Iran sanctions and the like.

    Hmmm…no, I believe you used the exact words “death camps”.

  132. 132.

    Seebach

    February 18, 2016 at 10:59 pm

    @Cacti: Yes, I said he was keeping her from immediately going toe to toe with Trump on the proper size for Muslim Death Camps.

    That’s ridiculous of course, her Muslim slaughter will be done entirely via drone, I’m sure.

  133. 133.

    mclaren

    February 18, 2016 at 11:00 pm

    Meanwhile, at a recent campaign speech Jeb Bush spluttered: “It’s all decided, I mean we don’t have to go vote I guess, it’s all finished. I should stop campaigning maybe, huh? Let’s just—it’s all done! That’s not how democracy works, right?”

    Yes, Jeb, actually that is how democracy works.

    Go home.

    It’s over.

  134. 134.

    Mandalay

    February 18, 2016 at 11:01 pm

    @magurakurin:

    long time party leaders have a level of influence which reflects their position in the organization

    That’s meaningless babble.

    Sanders has won comfortably more of the vote in Iowa and NH, yet if nobody had voted for Sanders he wouldn’t be much worse off than he is right now.

  135. 135.

    Cacti

    February 18, 2016 at 11:01 pm

    @Seebach:

    Yes, I said he was keeping her from immediately going toe to toe with Trump on the proper size for Muslim Death Camps.

    Yep, that was it.

  136. 136.

    Seebach

    February 18, 2016 at 11:03 pm

    @Cacti: Hey Haim Saban is paying for some slaughter, she gotta pay who brung her

  137. 137.

    Marc

    February 18, 2016 at 11:04 pm

    @Mandalay: They wouldn’t be foolish enough to overturn real election results. It’s just a charade that they should get rid of.

  138. 138.

    Cacti

    February 18, 2016 at 11:04 pm

    @Seebach:

    Remember little Bernfeeler, everyone else is a troll but you. ;-)

  139. 139.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 18, 2016 at 11:05 pm

    @Mandalay: There have only been two primaries.

  140. 140.

    Jeffro

    February 18, 2016 at 11:05 pm

    @mclaren: It’s almost like, for some reason, he thought he was going to be able to waltz in and be the nominee.

    almost like Brinks Trucks had something to do with it, or something…

  141. 141.

    Emma

    February 18, 2016 at 11:07 pm

    @Seebach: I just figured out who you are. You’re the dumbass guy at the party who thinks he’s going to get attention by being obnoxious.

    Intellectual puzzle solved. Bored now.

  142. 142.

    Seebach

    February 18, 2016 at 11:09 pm

    @Cacti: y’know, not liking Clinton makes you a Sanders supporter by default. It’s not like there are other options. They were cleared away so Clinton could be coronated. It would be nice if there was more of a choice, but the anointed one has to have her time.

  143. 143.

    BillinGlendaleCA

    February 18, 2016 at 11:10 pm

    @Omnes Omnibus: It just seems like alot more.

  144. 144.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 18, 2016 at 11:11 pm

    @Seebach:

    They were cleared away so Clinton could be coronated.

    Evidence?

  145. 145.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    February 18, 2016 at 11:11 pm

    @Mandalay: Sanders has won comfortably more of the vote in Iowa a

    I guess “comfortably” is subjective enough a term to make that… an opinion

  146. 146.

    BillinGlendaleCA

    February 18, 2016 at 11:11 pm

    @Jeffro:

    almost like Brinks Trucks had something to do with it, or something…

    They got stuck in a traffic jam on I-95.

  147. 147.

    ellennelle

    February 18, 2016 at 11:12 pm

    @Weaselone:

    a, bernie has not been running for prez for the past decade.

    b, hillary has, and moreover has been lining up the SDs for almost a year now.

    c. add to that the DNC establishment pressure, and voila! it’s…. inevitable!

  148. 148.

    Seebach

    February 18, 2016 at 11:12 pm

    @Emma: I didn’t know it was supposed to be a puzzle?

    In return, you’re free to point out Sanders’ big donors and the corrupt things he’s going to do for them.

  149. 149.

    BillinGlendaleCA

    February 18, 2016 at 11:13 pm

    @Omnes Omnibus: It was DWS, obviously. Who needs evidence?

  150. 150.

    mclaren

    February 18, 2016 at 11:13 pm

    @Betty Cracker:

    Hillary has become an enormously better campaigner than she was 8 years ago. This puts the lie to the assertion that people are who they are and they don’t change. Hillary was a disastrous campaigner back in 1993 when she put forward Clinton’s universal health plan — she had the political instincts of a rock. Fast forward to 2008 and Hillary was a stiff but effective campaigner. She came within shouting distance of snatching the nomination from Barack Obama, a newcomer with few credentials.

    Now fast forward to 2016. Hillary is a smooth and polished campaigner with genuine warmth. Her ads have been pitch-perfect so far, nary a flaw in any of them. She projects a sense that she’s actually committed to real change. Not as radical as Bernie Sanders’ vision of change, but still, she’s convincing when she says she wants to improve things. Most impressive of all? Hillary very carefully avoids explaining how she’s going to enact any of her policies when the Republicans in congress are so fanatically committing to obstructing any Democratic president.

    I think dancing around that issue represents by far the most skillful and professional achievement of her campaign in 2016.

  151. 151.

    Cacti

    February 18, 2016 at 11:14 pm

    @Seebach:

    y’know, not liking Clinton makes you a Sanders supporter by default. It’s not like there are other options. They were cleared away so Clinton could be coronated. It would be nice if there was more of a choice, but the anointed one has to have her time.

    I know, right?

    Your tendency to see a conspiracy in everything and refer to candidate Clinton in GOP terms had me thinking lost Paultard for a while now.

  152. 152.

    BillinGlendaleCA

    February 18, 2016 at 11:14 pm

    @ellennelle:

    b, hillary has, and moreover has been lining up the SDs for almost a year now.

    It could be that being a long time member of the Democratic Party might just help a bit with that.

  153. 153.

    PhoenixRising

    February 18, 2016 at 11:15 pm

    @Murci:

    It would be a complete disaster for the party if a candidate won a majority of the delegates awarded by actual votes and lost the nomination because of unelected delegates.

    Is…there a possibility of that happening though? This is not a math issue but a behavioral one.

    8 years ago, Hillary had a LOT of super-delegates committed before IA, but as Obama won more support from actual voters, they shifted their endorsements first then changed their commitments. Almost as if the superdelegates were (mostly) elected officials in state and local parties who responded to their constituents.

    A party that put people in those roles who aren’t responsive to voters but instead behave as elites who get to pull the strings…would not be a Democratic party I’d want to support.

    I’m not endorsing the system as-is; I don’t know enough about why & how it was put into place, as a recently minted Democrat (Nov. 10, 2000) to have an opinion. I wasn’t entitled to one before that date and ever since it’s been ‘whatever, just get me a candidate to work for who isn’t stupid, crazy or both because WTF GOP’.

    But others may be able to chime in?

  154. 154.

    Seebach

    February 18, 2016 at 11:16 pm

    @Omnes Omnibus: Maybe it’s not true? Maybe we just didn’t have any top tier candidates this year. Yikes.

  155. 155.

    mclaren

    February 18, 2016 at 11:16 pm

    @PsiFighter37:

    I just watched clips of the Saturday GOP debate just now. Wow, no kidding – that was a complete shitshow. Great entertainment, but hard to believe one of these idiots will have a 45%+ shot at being president.

    They don’t.

    The next president will be a Democrat.

    Never in my life, even in the 1964 shitshow fail parade where the Repubs nominated Barry Goldwater, have I witnessed such a pack of total demented idiot losers vying for the nomination of a major party.

  156. 156.

    magurakurin

    February 18, 2016 at 11:16 pm

    @Cacti: To be fair to Devine, he isn’t the one whining about the supers. He is saying Clinton’s lead doesn’t matter because the supers can (and will) change their votes. But Tad has been around the block enough times that it can’t be him that does the inoculation on this point. He’s a hired gun and he’s doing what he’s paid for. Like he did for Viktor Yanukovych. These days Devine is all about taking down the 1% but maybe Tad was never actually invited to Yanukovych’s home

    .It was long known that Victor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s newly toppled president, had a fairly nice crib. Customs documents revealed a while ago that the wood panelling alone on the palace’s staircases cost around $200,000. But what no one could have expected was just how nice a crib it was.

    I guess the first rule of political consulting is the same as for transporting, “never look in the package.”

  157. 157.

    dslak

    February 18, 2016 at 11:17 pm

    Clinton is cheating by taking advantage of connections and knowledge of the system to increase her chances of winning. Ignorance is strength!

  158. 158.

    Nate Dawg

    February 18, 2016 at 11:17 pm

    Talked to my best friend in San Francisco. He’s a bernfeeler, though weak, and said basically, “well, it’s not gonna affect me much anyway.” To which I responded — EXACTLY.

    I would wager that Sanders is gaining support in areas that are liberal enclaves, and when HRC swings through the deep red shithole states, she’ll crush him.

    Also, HRC beat Sanders in California and Texas in 2008. I don’t see Sanders doing better than Obama in those two places. Without those, and the South, he has nothing. The Western caucuses are going to be a side-show.

    Super Tuesday can’t come soon enough.

  159. 159.

    Seebach

    February 18, 2016 at 11:18 pm

    @Cacti: Ron Paul? I don’t vote Republican, sorry.

  160. 160.

    mclaren

    February 18, 2016 at 11:18 pm

    @Marc:

    It would be a complete disaster for the party…

    Dude. Chill.

    Next president will be a Democrat.

    The only disaster any political party is going experience is the sinkhole of abject dementia and abyssal failure into which the Republican party is falling, flailing and thrashing and bursting into crispy puffs of flame like a nest of ants that has dropped into a red-hot barbecue grill.

  161. 161.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 18, 2016 at 11:19 pm

    @Seebach: That’s right; the choice is binary.

  162. 162.

    chopper

    February 18, 2016 at 11:19 pm

    @mclaren:

    according to you Jeb! is supposed to walk away with the GOP nom. what gives?

  163. 163.

    Cacti

    February 18, 2016 at 11:19 pm

    @Seebach:

    Ron Paul? I don’t vote Republican, sorry.

    If you say so.

  164. 164.

    Seebach

    February 18, 2016 at 11:20 pm

    @mclaren: W Bush got close enough to steal it. Never overestimate the intelligence of the American people.

  165. 165.

    Nate Dawg

    February 18, 2016 at 11:21 pm

    @Cacti: Oh come on. I’m supporting Hillary, and it irks me as well that she cleared the field.

    It’s bad for party building, and just plain presumptuous. What if she had a stroke and dropped out?

    We’d have *no* choice but Bernie, and that is genuinely scary.

    Sometimes, the things people say about the Clintons have some basis in reality.

  166. 166.

    BillinGlendaleCA

    February 18, 2016 at 11:22 pm

    @Nate Dawg: I can see Bernie doing better than Hilz in CA, but she’ll do better in NY and IL.

    @mclaren:

    Next president will be a Democrat.

    I don’t share your confidence, I wish I did.

  167. 167.

    mclaren

    February 18, 2016 at 11:23 pm

    @chopper:

    according to you Jeb! is supposed to walk away with the GOP nom. what gives?

    Eh?

    Show me where I said that.

    I have standing bets with several Democrats that Jeb Bush will not be the Republican nominee.

  168. 168.

    gwangung

    February 18, 2016 at 11:23 pm

    @Nate Dawg: Though I have to wonder…would it have made any difference if the field wasn’t cleared. Given the limp performance of O’Malley, who couldn’t get differentiate himself enough from Clinton, I’m wondering if a larger field would have made any difference.

  169. 169.

    SFAW

    February 18, 2016 at 11:24 pm

    @Germy:
    That was awesome, especially the sad violin.

    I think the only way to add to it would have been a voice-over by Marvin (from the original Hitchhiker’s, I haven’t seen any of the reboots).

  170. 170.

    Seebach

    February 18, 2016 at 11:25 pm

    @gwangung: Elizabeth Warren? The antisexism of Clinton with the policy of Sanders? Yeah that would have been a nightmare.

    We dodged that fucken bullet

  171. 171.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    February 18, 2016 at 11:26 pm

    @Seebach: Warren supports all of Sanders’ policies? Free college? Single payer? “Revolution”?

  172. 172.

    Frankensteinbeck

    February 18, 2016 at 11:27 pm

    @Nate Dawg:

    it irks me as well that she cleared the field.

    How, exactly, do you think she did that?

  173. 173.

    PhoenixRising

    February 18, 2016 at 11:27 pm

    Seriously y’all my 16yo asked me why we have Republicans earlier.

    This was a few moments after I explained to her what the GOP candidates’ preferred abortion restrictions would mean (‘if a guy overpowered you and got you pregnant you’d have to have the baby, because it would be illegal for [your aunt] to give you medicine to make you not pregnant anymore’ was concise but hard to understand because it makes no fucking sense).

    And I was hard pressed to come up with an answer that relates to the country I live in, not the one I wish I lived in. ‘Why are there people who think these things in elected office?’ is a poser.

  174. 174.

    Seebach

    February 18, 2016 at 11:27 pm

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: She thinks banks are a threat and not a speaking opportunity.

  175. 175.

    mclaren

    February 18, 2016 at 11:28 pm

    @Seebach:

    W Bush got close enough to steal it.

    W. Bush had a far-right-tilted Supreme Court backing him up. Plus, Dubya came off like Aristotle compare to the six stooges running for the Republican nomination this time.

  176. 176.

    slag

    February 18, 2016 at 11:28 pm

    @Kay: It’s interesting how Obama is frequently doing the job of the press by explaining to the American people how American politics works while the press is frequently doing the job of the politician by feigning outrage and playing dumb. Weird.

  177. 177.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    February 18, 2016 at 11:29 pm

    @Seebach: Huh. That’s not even close to what you said, but as you demonstrated this morning, you are a fucking moron.

  178. 178.

    aimai

    February 18, 2016 at 11:29 pm

    @Nate Dawg: That’s pretty nuts, you know? How is any presidential candidate responsible for making sure that the party has an alternative if they drop dead? Sanders self selected into the role of candidate and other people could have done so too. The party didn’t prevent them from running.

  179. 179.

    chopper

    February 18, 2016 at 11:29 pm

    @mclaren:

    right here:

    Jeb will be the Republican nominee. He could kick a pregnant woman in the stomach during one of the debates and the moderaters would praise him for his “refreshing refusal to follow the old tried-and-true hackneyed sound bites of Washington politics.”

  180. 180.

    Jacel

    February 18, 2016 at 11:30 pm

    @Kay: The framing of a federal land question (at least one I heard) was a little jumbled, but I think Bernie addressed the actual point of it, which was that since there’s now resistance to the idea of federal management of land, what would he do as President to live up to sustaining responsible use of federally managed land. I don’t think the question was in any way objecting to federal involvement.

  181. 181.

    Cacti

    February 18, 2016 at 11:31 pm

    @Seebach:

    Elizabeth Warren? The antisexism of Clinton with the policy of Sanders? Yeah that would have been a nightmare.

    We dodged that fucken bullet

    Warren underperformed Obama by more than 225,000 votes in solid blue Mass. during the 2012 election.

    The idea that she would have been a force of nature POTUS candidate in 2016 isn’t borne out by her actual political chops shown to date.

  182. 182.

    Seebach

    February 18, 2016 at 11:31 pm

    @mclaren: America is a trash country filled with the world’s biggest idiots, cowards, and immoral monsters. Why do you think anything good can happen here? We re-elected a warmongering torturer.

    Trump is more than we deserve.

  183. 183.

    Nate Dawg

    February 18, 2016 at 11:31 pm

    @gwangung: A presidential race raises the profile for back-benchers, and gives them the opportunity to test their message in a national election. This will be important in 2020, 2024.

    @Frankensteinbeck: Do you not think she did? She has a sycophant in charge of DNC, who rigged the debate schedule to be lean and unwatched. She lined up donors and party elites long, long in advance, and then used the aura of inevitability and entitlement to make a case against anyone getting in. I wouldn’t be shocked to learn that she made a positive case to a potential rival (Warren, McCaskill, perhaps), but that will never be known. You must be really, really naive if you think that an open election nets 1 actual establishment candidate by coincidence.

  184. 184.

    gwangung

    February 18, 2016 at 11:32 pm

    @Seebach: Hm. I had the impression Warren was like, “The Presidency? ARE YOU KIDDING??? Why the hell do you think I want to do THAT?”

  185. 185.

    chopper

    February 18, 2016 at 11:33 pm

    @Seebach:

    America is a trash country filled with the world’s biggest idiots, cowards, and immoral monsters.

    and also wonderful examples of humanity such as yourself.

    Trump is more than we deserve.

    some of us at least.

  186. 186.

    Scotian

    February 18, 2016 at 11:33 pm

    It seems to me rather obvious Sanders will only stay a Democrat as long as he is the Presidential candidate, else why would he still be running for the 2018 Senate seat in Vermont as an Independent? If he really was serious about being a Democrat he would have also made the change in designation there too, but as this link states he apparently has not done so.

    https://gobling.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/bernies-running-for-re-election-too/

    I’ve been watching with befuddlement at the complaints of team Sanders about how the superdelegates are almost totally siding with Clinton, as if the fact she spent her adult life working for the party while he only joined after a quarter century a few months ago so as to run for the nomination carries no real weight or make any real difference between the two. I do find it somewhat telling that none of his fellow Senators seem to be willing to side with him in the superdelegate choices to date, since he supposedly is as good as a Democrat because he votes and caucuses with them there.

    Why should the Democratic party be required to rewrite its rules just for the Sanders campaign to make it easier for them? I just find that incredibly arrogant myself. For example I’ve been hearing about how Sanders won Iowa in the popular vote after demanding they release such, this despite my understanding of that process making it impossible for anyone to make that claim because there is no such record for such in the Iowa caucusing system. Why the need to make this sort of thing up when the process shows something different?

    Anyway, the main point being I simply see Sanders as a Democrat of convenience not of conviction, and if it is that clear to me, a Canadian up in Nova Scotia, I have to think it is for many within the Party itself and a major hurdle Sanders has to overcome, and a real problem as this moves into States where the loyalty to the party is greater and the bulk of the party membership is of the moderates and conservative Dems who are also a part of that party as opposed to the hard core far left and liberals that have been the main part of the Sanders “revolution” to date. The Democratic coalition is just that, and Sanders has to show he can really appeal to a much broader part of that coalition than he has to date, and so far, I’m not seeing that element of the Party feeling the Bern. If anything I get the vibe they are disturbed at the Berning down the party/house instead.

    Ah well, the next couple of weeks will finally start to really answer whether Sanders has that broad support and is viable as the candidate, or whether the Clinton side has been correct all along about the fundamental shallowness of the Sanders message and revolution. Sure there is intensity, but is there truly depth, that is the question that really goes to the heart of the electability question I submit.

  187. 187.

    SFAW

    February 18, 2016 at 11:33 pm

    @chopper:

    Poverbs is my favorite book of the Bibble.

    Is that the King James Bibble? Or was it perhaps the Ishka Bibble?

  188. 188.

    Seebach

    February 18, 2016 at 11:35 pm

    @chopper: When did I ever claim to be exempt from the damnation we’ve wished upon ourselves?

  189. 189.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 18, 2016 at 11:35 pm

    @Cacti: Has she ever shown the slightest interest in running for the job? Not that I have seen.

  190. 190.

    Nate Dawg

    February 18, 2016 at 11:35 pm

    @aimai: STRAW MAN ALERT.

    It’s not anyone’s responsibility to make sure they have rivals. That is perfectly consistent with being irked that Clinton actively cleared the field.

    Again, to repeat, to the HRC backers here who can’t tolerate even the barest of criticism–she didn’t do anything illegal, nor even that unseemly. It’s just irksome that she cleared the field, and quite a gamble too.

    I would have preferred a real choice between two actual Democrats, instead of this nonsense.

    That said, she’s not taking *anything* for granted this time, and I’m glad she’s on our team.

    She may be shady, but I’m glad she’s going to be shady FOR US*.

    *(for the most part)

  191. 191.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    February 18, 2016 at 11:35 pm

    @Nate Dawg: The Republican field, this cycle and the last, was lousy with people who ran for president to sell books, boost their speaking fees, collect names and chits for future lower level candidacies. What stopped any Democrat– besides two barely-dems, Webb and Chaffee– from doing the same.

    Claire Fucking McCaskill?

  192. 192.

    Cacti

    February 18, 2016 at 11:36 pm

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Has she ever shown the slightest interest in running for the job? Not that I have seen.

    Same here.

    Never even so much as a cagey non-denial.

  193. 193.

    Frankensteinbeck

    February 18, 2016 at 11:36 pm

    @Nate Dawg:
    I am not sure it’s even physically possible for her to ‘clear the field’, as witnessed by the fact that two other people are in the race. If you are saying they stayed out because she’s done a better job of preparing and they thought they couldn’t beat her, I’m not sure what you expect her to do differently. ‘Clear the field’ implies she took action to make them unable to enter, but what you’re describing sounds like she’s just the best campaigner and they decided not to get their asses handed to them like O’Malley is. So, what is she supposed to do? Not run? Tell donors ‘Oh, no, it’s not fair, go give that other guy money.’?

  194. 194.

    mclaren

    February 18, 2016 at 11:37 pm

    Just a friendly reminder to the hectic and worried among you:

    You’re the crew who assured us that doom was upon us at the end of last year when the debt ceiling “crisis” loomed. I told you to chill, it was a non-problem.

    The more excitable among you showered me with the usual shitstorm of invective.

    At the end of the day, who was right?

    You’re also the people who ran around like sow bugs under a burning magnifying glass shrieking that the supreme court would shut down the ACA. Even Cole became hysterical and starting shrieking that canard. I told you to chill, it was not going to happen.

    Once again we got the usual pissing contest. Unfortunately for you folks, if you want to get into a pissing contest with me, you’d better grab your scuba gear.

    Once again…at the end of the day, who was right?

    This election is yet another non-problem. We do have plenty of problems right now. Reining in America’s out-of-control military-industrial soft coup, in which the U.S. military/national security complex and its parasitic weapons contractors have effectively taken control of the U.S. budget and U.S. policy after 9/11. Reforming America’s broken health care system. Fixing our collapsing higher eduction system, now financed by a hopeless Ponzi scheme enforced by draconian bankruptcy laws that make it impossible to discharge college debt. America’s crony capitalist monopoly system of kakistokleptocracy, which used to be something resembling a regulated free market, and is now just a legalized loansharking scheme bloated up to obscene scale. Global warming. The coming robot-driven collapse of capitalism, where everything is mostly free and no one has a job.

    Yes, we have lots of problems facing us.

    But the next presidential election is not one of them.

  195. 195.

    mclaren

    February 18, 2016 at 11:38 pm

    @Frankensteinbeck:

    ‘Clear the field’ implies she took action to make them unable to enter…

    Well, obviously Hillary is going to deploy her ninja sniper squad if things get tough enough.

    (rolls eyes)

  196. 196.

    Seebach

    February 18, 2016 at 11:38 pm

    @Nate Dawg: Give it up man, Hillary Clinton is perfect. So perfect she’s way better than Obama, who stole her birthright from her eight years ago, and yet is somehow also the best president ever now and needs Clinton to carry on his legacy? I don’t really get it but

  197. 197.

    Cacti

    February 18, 2016 at 11:38 pm

    @Frankensteinbeck:

    I am not sure it’s even physically possible for her to ‘clear the field’, as witnessed by the fact that two other people are in the race. If you are saying they stayed out because she’s done a better job of preparing and they thought they couldn’t beat her, I’m not sure what you expect her to do differently. ‘Clear the field’ implies she took action to make them unable to enter, but what you’re describing sounds like she’s just the best campaigner and they decided not to get their asses handed to them like O’Malley is. So, what is she supposed to do? Not run? Tell donors ‘Oh, no, it’s not fair, go give that other guy money.’?

    That’s why I find the “cleared the field” protests a load of crap.

    People cleared themselves for fear of losing.

  198. 198.

    Seebach

    February 18, 2016 at 11:40 pm

    @mclaren: But there is no problem with the financial system. Reforming American capitalism will not end sexism, after all.

  199. 199.

    Nate Dawg

    February 18, 2016 at 11:40 pm

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: As has been documented numerous times, HRC had locked up endorsements, donors, and party levers long in advance of the primary, such that the *only* people to run against her were moon-shot whack-a-loons.

    You want to ask who would run? There are plenty of candidates that might have tried their hand, had their been any air. We will NEVER KNOW because HRC cleared the field.

    Biden, Klobuchar, Warren, McCaskill, Hickenlooper. Any of these persons: https://democraticgovernors.org/

  200. 200.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 18, 2016 at 11:40 pm

    @Nate Dawg: How did she clear the field? If people weren’t willing to run against her, how is that on her?

  201. 201.

    gwangung

    February 18, 2016 at 11:41 pm

    @Nate Dawg: That doesn’t quite follow directly from my speculation. How good of a test run is it if you sink without a trace before the first primary?

    And I think “lining up donors and party elites long, long in advance” is precisely what ANY candidate does to be successful. That’s not evidence of “clearing the field.”

    Clinton would have formidable in any conceivable situation as an experienced campaigner with international experience and long term work for the party. I think it’s equally likely that potential challengers took a look at that, did some soundings and concluded that they weren’t ready to challenge that yet.

  202. 202.

    SFAW

    February 18, 2016 at 11:41 pm

    @chopper:

    Why bother with him? As has become clear, whenever anyone calls bullshit on any of his pronouncements, he misdirects and tries to distract to some other issue, and eventually starts speaking in Tongues (figuratively speaking). The Elizabeth Warren idiocy is just the most recent example.

    I do admire your intestinal fortitude, however.

  203. 203.

    Frankensteinbeck

    February 18, 2016 at 11:41 pm

    @Cacti:
    It’s also not a ‘coronation’ if she wins because she kicked everybody’s ass so hard they didn’t even make a showing, and it’s not a ‘coronation’ if she has a serious competitor (even one who is currently losing badly, like Sanders) that she wins over.

  204. 204.

    Cacti

    February 18, 2016 at 11:41 pm

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    How did she clear the field? If people weren’t willing to run against her, how is that on her?

    It was mean and unfair that other Dems found her too formidable?

  205. 205.

    Nate Dawg

    February 18, 2016 at 11:43 pm

    @Cacti: Yes, that is what CLEARED THE FIELD means.

    I’m not saying she got all Vince Foster on her potential rivals.

    I’m merely irked that she so deftly used every resource available to her to make her nomination extremely likely.

    That said, I’m *glad* she has that fighting spirit. She’s on our side after all.

    Still, I preferred 2008 where there was a genuine debate among actual peers, rather than this Bernie sideshow with Chaffe – Webb asterisk candidacies.

  206. 206.

    chopper

    February 18, 2016 at 11:43 pm

    @SFAW:

    I do admire your intestinal fortitude, however.

    i had some fiber with dinner.

  207. 207.

    SFAW

    February 18, 2016 at 11:44 pm

    @Seebach:

    Oh, quit whining, you candy-ass. You remind me of Jeb’s pathetic “please clap” whine.

    Yet another piece of evidence that your a Republican troll.

  208. 208.

    Seebach

    February 18, 2016 at 11:46 pm

    @SFAW: I don’t get how I’m the Republican troll when you’re the one defending the candidate with Republican talking points? Can’t people on the same side disagree over tactics?

  209. 209.

    SFAW

    February 18, 2016 at 11:47 pm

    @Nate Dawg:

    We will NEVER KNOW because HRC cleared the field.

    As she possibly did in 2008.

  210. 210.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 18, 2016 at 11:47 pm

    @Nate Dawg:

    I’m merely irked that she so deftly used every resource available to her to make her nomination extremely likely.

    You are irked that a politician was good at politics? I am confuzzled.

  211. 211.

    Jacel

    February 18, 2016 at 11:48 pm

    @jl: I remember several decades ago when CBS was on the market and Garrison Keillor humorously announced he was the new owner of the network. He described plans for changes in the broadcasts, including adding a band to the CBS Evening News. Some days there’s more news of interest and other days you have to hype something up to fill the news hour. So on those days, when they finished all the news stories worth reporting, the CBS anchor would turn to the band and say, “Hit it!” for the remainder of the show.

  212. 212.

    gwangung

    February 18, 2016 at 11:49 pm

    @Nate Dawg:

    Yes, that is what CLEARED THE FIELD means.

    No. It doesn’t.

    I’m merely irked that she so deftly used every resource available to her to make her nomination extremely likely.

    Funny, I call that being competent.

  213. 213.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    February 18, 2016 at 11:50 pm

    @Nate Dawg: What was it that scared them off that didn’t scare Martin O’Malley?

  214. 214.

    SFAW

    February 18, 2016 at 11:51 pm

    @Seebach:

    You’re a Republican troll because you can’t take responsibility for how inane, childish, and bullshit your “arguments” are, and when you get called on them, you do your whiny, petulant schtick.

    And I’m not supporting a Republican, I’m supporting whomever is the Dem nominee. And last I heard, Hillary is the only Democrat still in the race. Or has Bernie suddenly decided to join the Democrat Party?

    ETA: And the only persons spouting “Republican talking points” are Republicans. I realize the voices in your head tell you otherwise, but those voices are, shall we say, confused.

  215. 215.

    Nate Dawg

    February 18, 2016 at 11:52 pm

    Seems that a fair number of you are such ardent supporters that you can’t acknowledge that clearing the field might have negative consequences, because that would be anti-HRC, or something.

    I get how from her perspective, she’s just playing politics. (And doing well at it, yes yes yes, thank Dog this time!)

    From a different perspective, it could have negative consequences and is quite risky.

    I can support her while acknowledging that. It’s okay. HRC’s winning this election won’t be affected at all by my acknowledgement of this. This will not cause a chain reaction that would unravel the very fabric of the space-time continuum and destroy the entire universe!

    Promise.

  216. 216.

    Suzanne

    February 18, 2016 at 11:53 pm

    @Betty Cracker: Honestly, I know that there are definitely legitimate, valid reasons to not be for HRC, but I believe that at least 80% of the people that find her quote-unquote “unlikeable” just cannot handle when a woman is smarter than they are. (Note I am just talking about those whom us on her likeability, not her policy positions.)

    The Rethugs are okay with women if they’re crazy and/or stupid. They’re marginally okay with smart women as long as they stand back and don’t say much. But a smart, outspoken woman is A WITCH and must be BUUUUURNED!

  217. 217.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 18, 2016 at 11:54 pm

    @Nate Dawg: “Clearing the field” implies that she took some action to prevent other candidates from running. I see no sign of that.

  218. 218.

    Seebach

    February 18, 2016 at 11:54 pm

    @SFAW: Seems like you’re sore that Bernie isn’t a so-called “Democrat” while you’re candidate is talking Iran sanctions, why it isn’t necessary to break up banks, why immigrant families need to be split up, etc etc

  219. 219.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    February 18, 2016 at 11:55 pm

    @Nate Dawg: Seems that a fair number of you are such ardent supporters that you can’t acknowledge that clearing the field might have negative consequences
    No, you just haven’t made a convincing case.

  220. 220.

    Frankensteinbeck

    February 18, 2016 at 11:55 pm

    @Nate Dawg:
    People are irked because ‘cleared the field’ implies she took steps to prevent competition, which in turn implies cheating and an unwillingness to face people on an equal platform. There is no evidence of any of that, only that she competed so well that a lot of people did not bother. If you’re saying it’s a shame she’s such a good campaigner that only two people even bothered to try, I’m not going to shed many tears for that loss. Bernie, who did bother to try, is doing a fine job of providing a conversation over issues.

  221. 221.

    SFAW

    February 18, 2016 at 11:55 pm

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    It’s the Harrison Bergeron paradigm (or is it paradox?)

  222. 222.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 18, 2016 at 11:55 pm

    @Suzanne: We could build a bridge out of ‘er. I mean, infrastructure and all that.

  223. 223.

    Nate Dawg

    February 18, 2016 at 11:55 pm

    From a *party perspective”, it is best to have options. Options are good. For one candidate to gather the donors, endorsements, super delegates, and party levers (DNC, debate schedule, etc) before *any* votes have been cast is *not* exactly small-d democratic.

    Given this, that Bernie Sanders’ critique of her is so potent should really not be all that shocking. She is extremely vulnerable to this argument, and I expect Trump will make it effectively against her in the Fall (although, still lose).

  224. 224.

    SFAW

    February 18, 2016 at 11:58 pm

    @Seebach:

    I frankly don’t give a rat’s ass that Bernie has an I or a D after his name; you’re the only one who seems intent on calling the only actual Democrat in the race a “Republican.”

    OK, time for you to misdirect to some other bullshit talking point of yours. Go for it!

  225. 225.

    Frankensteinbeck

    February 18, 2016 at 11:58 pm

    @Nate Dawg:
    You act like they didn’t have a chance to gather those things.

  226. 226.

    Jacel

    February 18, 2016 at 11:59 pm

    @Betty Cracker: Hillary’s first steps of low key “listening tours” seemed like a great approach to set the more personal tone of her campaign. If I remember right, it was her listening events early last year in New Hampshire that flushed out the heroin problem as a topic of great local concern.

  227. 227.

    Nate Dawg

    February 18, 2016 at 11:59 pm

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Jim, I’m not going to go personally curate a reading list for you so that you’re caught up on basic facts that have been well documented for about a year now. You can do that yourself.

    @Frankensteinbeck: Okay, fair enough. Probably a semantic problem here. Clearing the field is not in any way “cheating”. It’s good politics from a CLINTON perspective. From a DEMOCRATIC perspective, it’s short-sighted.

    I’ll just rest my case by noting that David Axelrod and the Obama administration have publicly expressed annoyance at Clinton’s inability to gain traction. It’s fair to say that their annoyance would be mitigated if there were any other potential candidate gaining support, instead of a non-Democrat democratic Socialist. That is, they are expressing annoyance that she has a) cleared the field and b) is fumbling the ball.

    This isn’t just me, y’all.

  228. 228.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    February 19, 2016 at 12:00 am

    @Nate Dawg: She is extremely vulnerable to this argument, and I expect Trump will make it effectively against her in the Fall

    “Don’t vote for Hillary because she convinced people to support her”?

    Bernie’s charges that she’s a Wall St sell out, trump is already repeating.

    ETA:

    @Nate Dawg: You can do that yourself.

    Thanks, but I think what you’re arguing is… less than compelling.

  229. 229.

    Nate Dawg

    February 19, 2016 at 12:02 am

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Yes, that’s what I’m talking about. She had the donors wrapped up BEFORE the votes were cast. The donors are Wall Street. She is bought and paid for, and bought the election. That’s the critique (I don’t agree with it, don’t flame.)

  230. 230.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 19, 2016 at 12:02 am

    @Nate Dawg: Please remind me how many primaries have there been. Oh, and what were the expectations going into them? I forget.

  231. 231.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 12:02 am

    @Nate Dawg: Clinton supporters make supporting Clinton obnoxious! She’s probably our best option but the lack of ability to handle any criticism doesn’t bode well.

    “You just haven’t made any criticisms that are worth responding to,” uh-huh

  232. 232.

    SFAW

    February 19, 2016 at 12:02 am

    @Nate Dawg:

    That is, they are expressing annoyance that she has a) cleared the field and b) is fumbling the ball.

    Yeah, B and Axe called me the other night, said exactly that.

  233. 233.

    Nate Dawg

    February 19, 2016 at 12:04 am

    I just want someone to ask Bernie “How the FUCK are *you* going to accomplish more than Barack Obama did? Like really, man, really?”

    Everytime he runs against the “fake change” of the “establishment” (read: Obama), I want to barf. He’s spitting in the face of our hard fought gains (which he doesn’t value, obviously), and risking losing them altogether (which is not a big loss, because he doesn’t value them.)

    Not feeling the bern.

  234. 234.

    Nate Dawg

    February 19, 2016 at 12:06 am

    @SFAW: Did you not see Axelrod’s public tweet criticizing Hillary?

    Read between the lines. If her support was going ANYWHERE ELSE, there would be NO REASON to tweet that. The *only* reason they are annoyed is because she’s the ONLY viable democratic candidate. If it were another Democrat that was threatening her win, they wouldn’t give two shits. They have come out in support of Hillary before South Carolina, which is an unprecedented move for a sitting President to anoint a successor…..

  235. 235.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    February 19, 2016 at 12:06 am

    @Nate Dawg: @Nate Dawg: As has been documented numerous times, HRC had locked up endorsements, donors, and party levers long in

    I’ll just rest my case by noting that David Axelrod and the Obama administration have publicly expressed annoyance at Clinton’s inability to gain traction. It’s fair to say that their annoyance would be mitigated if there were any other potential candidate gaining support, advance of the primary,

    She had the donors wrapped up BEFORE the votes were cast. The donors are Wall Street. She is bought and paid for, and bought the election.

    Jesus, you’re all over the place

  236. 236.

    Anne Laurie

    February 19, 2016 at 12:08 am

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    What stopped any Democrat– besides two barely-dems, Webb and Chaffee– from doing the same.

    YOU FORGOT O’MALLEY!

    (Poor Marty. Maybe next time… )

  237. 237.

    Nate Dawg

    February 19, 2016 at 12:08 am

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Not really. that last quote was a paraphrasing of someone else’s argument (Trump’s), not mine.

    Don’t argue in bad faith. It’s rather childish.

  238. 238.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 12:08 am

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Clinton fans, they eat their own for being insufficiently committed.

    I hope the Quinnipac polls are skewed.

  239. 239.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 19, 2016 at 12:09 am

    @Anne Laurie: Whatever one can say about O’Malley, he is not a barely Dem.

  240. 240.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    February 19, 2016 at 12:12 am

    @Seebach: I hope the Quinnipac polls are skewed.

    Actually, there have been a lot of problems with their sampling in the last couple years. But I suspect they’re correct in that Bernie does very well when no one runs against him.

    @Nate Dawg: Don’t argue in bad faith. It’s rather childish.

    It’s not bad faith, I genuinely find you completely fucking incoherent.

  241. 241.

    divF

    February 19, 2016 at 12:12 am

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:
    I am not worried about a Donald vs. Hilary battle. A few examples:
    – Donald will lose his shit when Hilary starts laughing at him.
    – Donald reminds every woman of a loud-mouthed, asshole, overbearing ex-boss / ex-boyfriend / ex-husband – the gender gap will peg the meter.
    – New Yorkers, to a large extent, detest The Donald, even right-wingers. That includes the ones who retired to Florida.

  242. 242.

    SFAW

    February 19, 2016 at 12:12 am

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    Jesus, you’re all over the place

    Hey, it’s not easy to manage multiple personalities! Or, as Dr. Ben Carson, world-renowned narcoleptic, calls it: “Quadrophenia.”

  243. 243.

    Nate Dawg

    February 19, 2016 at 12:14 am

    Just watching this townhall and noticing that Bernie Sanders says about *everything* “I fought against”

    TPP, NAFTA, Iraq, Guest Worker Program, etc.

    He’s literally the least successful member of the Senate by his own admission because he’s *failed* at stopping everything he’s fought against. That’s the impression, at least. Has he accomplished anything he’s proud of? I’d be curious to hear about that.

  244. 244.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 19, 2016 at 12:14 am

    @SFAW: This is one of the occasions where I prefer “Tommy.”

  245. 245.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 12:15 am

    @divF: But will the retired Florida voters understand how a ballot works this fucking time?

  246. 246.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 12:16 am

    @SFAW: Making fun of people with mental illnesses is really your stock in trade, huh?

  247. 247.

    Nate Dawg

    February 19, 2016 at 12:16 am

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: I think the cognitive dissonance for you is that I can a) support Hillary and b) criticize her risky backroom tactics.

    It’s a more sophisticated view than the rah-rah cheerleaderism you’re accustomed to, sure, but it’s not incoherent.

  248. 248.

    SFAW

    February 19, 2016 at 12:16 am

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    I don’t think Chafee is “barely” either, although I’m not sure “Go Metric!” is part of the official Party platform.

  249. 249.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 12:18 am

    @Nate Dawg: Sometimes it’s actually more important to be right than side with the winning team.

  250. 250.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 19, 2016 at 12:18 am

    @Nate Dawg:

    criticize her risky backroom tactics.

    What many of us are questioning is what is it that she did that was, in your opinion, a risky backroom tactic?

  251. 251.

    SFAW

    February 19, 2016 at 12:18 am

    @Seebach:

    Oooh, another “My arguments are silly, so I’m going to point at something else!” thing out of you. What a surprise.

    Or, as Shakespeare or someone else said: “Grow the fuck up.”

  252. 252.

    Nate Dawg

    February 19, 2016 at 12:19 am

    @SFAW: He was literally a Republican for most of his career and came from a local Republican dynasty.

    What is the mental illness where someone knows nothing but thinks they know everything? You might wanna self-diagnose.

  253. 253.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 12:20 am

    @SFAW: Nah it’s just been a thing I noticed with your “voices in your head” schtick that goes on. When’s the last time you volunteered in a mental hospital?

  254. 254.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    February 19, 2016 at 12:20 am

    @Nate Dawg: @Nate Dawg: It’s a more sophisticated view

    Oh, Puddinhead…

  255. 255.

    SFAW

    February 19, 2016 at 12:25 am

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    OK by me. Although sometimes I think the responses of certain commenter(s) here is a latter-day “The Punk And the God Hog Blogfather”

    But that’s because I’m an evil person who apparently makes fun of persons with mental illness.

    (By the way, Nate Dawg, apparently you suffer from mental illness? At least according to “Seebach.” I didn’t realize that, My apologies.)

  256. 256.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 12:25 am

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Haha, everyone who disagrees with you is mentally retarded. That’s funny like SFAW’s mental illness mockery is

  257. 257.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    February 19, 2016 at 12:27 am

    @Seebach: everyone who disagrees with you is mentally retarded

    Not a term I throw around, and neither should you, asshole.

  258. 258.

    SFAW

    February 19, 2016 at 12:27 am

    @Seebach:

    Doesn’t commenting here count?

    You may be the thinnest-skinned commenter we’ve seen here in a long while. Kind of ironic, with all your gratuitous, omnipresent “Hillary is a Republican” bullshit.

  259. 259.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 19, 2016 at 12:28 am

    @SFAW:

    But that’s because I’m an evil person who apparently makes fun of persons with mental illness.

    Well, yeah. You are a Jets fan, right?

  260. 260.

    Nate Dawg

    February 19, 2016 at 12:29 am

    @SFAW:

    (By the way, Nate Dawg, apparently you suffer from mental illness? At least according to “Seebach.” I didn’t realize that, My apologies.)

    That’s kind of you, thanks, but I don’t know Seebach, and s/he doesn’t know me. Not true, also, I think! :-)

    We can stay on topic and not get into tangential irrelevancies here. You didn’t offend me in the slightest.

    EDIT: Which is to say, I like BJ because it’s not an easily offended commenting crowd, so let’s keep it that way, @Seebach.

  261. 261.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 12:30 am

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Oh I’m sorry, what does “puddinghead” refer to? Or is that an acceptable way to put it? What are the correct, funny ways to say it where you don’t have to feel guilty about being a bigot?

    Or is his head made of delicious dairy treat? That would be the “literal” read

  262. 262.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 19, 2016 at 12:31 am

    @Seebach: Go read a book.

  263. 263.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    February 19, 2016 at 12:31 am

    @Seebach: Fuck off.

  264. 264.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 12:32 am

    @SFAW: For a charge that has no merit, it sure makes you have schitzophrenia! And anorexia! I have a medical book here LOL I can read big words

  265. 265.

    Nate Dawg

    February 19, 2016 at 12:32 am

    @Seebach: He was referring to a classic of American literature….

    And it was actually kind of cute, given the shit I had thrown at him a few lines up.

    Lighten up.

  266. 266.

    SFAW

    February 19, 2016 at 12:32 am

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    You are a Jets fan, right?

    In true New York fashion: What’s it to ya, pal?

  267. 267.

    PJ

    February 19, 2016 at 12:32 am

    @SFAW: It’s interesting that you call it the “Democrat Party”, which is something I’ve only heard Republicans say.

  268. 268.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 12:32 am

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: No, how did you mean “pudding head”? I’m curious. There may be a hidden meaning I didn’t catch wind of.

  269. 269.

    SFAW

    February 19, 2016 at 12:33 am

    @Nate Dawg:

    Not true, also, I think! :-)

    That was a given.

  270. 270.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 12:34 am

    @Nate Dawg: I agree that making fun of mental disability is cool when some old book did it first! We all can agree on cool things.

  271. 271.

    Nate Dawg

    February 19, 2016 at 12:35 am

    @Seebach: It’s free online here: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/102/102-h/102-h.htm

    You *are* trolling, right?

    Just so we’re clear–that isn’t a dig against ugly people…..just a dig against trolls.

  272. 272.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 19, 2016 at 12:35 am

    @Seebach: You may want to read the book before opining further.

  273. 273.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 12:37 am

    @Omnes Omnibus: I dunno, Mark Twain coined the term the “Gilded Age” and thought massive inequality of wealth was a bad thing. I’d hate to make Clinton supporters feel uncomfortable with his intemperate rhetoric.

  274. 274.

    SFAW

    February 19, 2016 at 12:37 am

    @PJ:

    About time someone picked up on that one! “Back in the day,” someone would have spotted that within one or two replies. (Well, that assumes anyone actually reads my replies, which may not be a valid assumption.)

    Anyway, I was doing it for Seebach’s benefit. Interesting that he took it all in stride, no comment like yours, all after pretending he’s not a Repub troll.

  275. 275.

    Jacel

    February 19, 2016 at 12:38 am

    @Nate Dawg: The 2008 Democratic presidential candidate field, at the time, brought tears to my eyes at the time of how good that group of people on the debate stage were. Everyone was proven in substantial public office. The debates, even with a slew of people (was it 8?) were illuminating. I was very proud to be a Democrat. I went in supporting Edwards, as I did in 2004 when he actually looked better. When he faded, I was rather surprised to find myself casting a primary vote for Obama. Compared to Clinton and others, Obama was new to me. But the primary process and the frequent debates had established him as my first choice out of a good field.

  276. 276.

    Nate Dawg

    February 19, 2016 at 12:39 am

    @Seebach: I love when Republicans pretend to be offended at social injustice to stir up shit.

    It’s like watching a blind man play darts. They don’t even know where the target *is*.

  277. 277.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 12:39 am

    @SFAW: Sure you were doing it to catch me. However, if you’re the actual Republican troll it would make sense why you would be so supportive of a neoliberal warhawk.

  278. 278.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 19, 2016 at 12:40 am

    @Seebach: Oh, I have the answer to your request from this morning. It isn’t numbers, but the number proving HRC isn’t a Republican in drag is 42. Happy to help.

  279. 279.

    Shortribs

    February 19, 2016 at 12:40 am

    @Anne Laurie:

    Jeb Bush made an impassioned plea for more brain research (“a moonshot”) to deal with drug addiction and autism, among other things.

    Not surprisingly, Obama is WAY ahead of Bush on this already: https://www.whitehouse.gov/share/brain-initiative

  280. 280.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 12:41 am

    @Nate Dawg: You were just attacked by rabid Clinton supporters yourself not ten minutes ago and now I’m a Republican. You do realize which candidate you’re arguing for, right? The one who won’t release her Goldman Sachs speeches until Sanders releases his Vermont County Fair speeches?

  281. 281.

    SFAW

    February 19, 2016 at 12:42 am

    @Seebach:

    Wow, now you can’t even construct a coherent sentence. Outstanding!

    And, genius, nowhere did I use the term “schizophrenia.” My response to Jim was probably a little too obscure for you, because it didn’t refer to anyone saying Hillary was a tool of the banksters or some such. I’d guess a fair number of the others here, however, got the Ben Carson ref.

    Or maybe you did, and are just playing stupid.

  282. 282.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 19, 2016 at 12:43 am

    @SFAW: Playing?

  283. 283.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 12:43 am

    @Omnes Omnibus: “in drag” wow, nice sexism. And I read Hitchhiker’s Guide too like 30 years ago. That’s dated.

    She’s not a party member of the GOP. She just shares their outlook on the world. Superpredators and such

  284. 284.

    Nate Dawg

    February 19, 2016 at 12:43 am

    @Seebach: I don’t base my political decisions on a comment section.

    I realize that shatters the entire premise of your endeavor here, but it’s the rational thing to do. Sorry.

    I’m voting for Hillary, and you should too. :-p

    EDIT: Also, rabid? You wanna see rabid, look at any leading Republican rally. This is just smack-talking among friends and fellow-travelers. Which you most certainly are not. Good-bye.

  285. 285.

    SFAW

    February 19, 2016 at 12:43 am

    @Seebach:

    No, you’ve always been a Republican, apparently. Reince would be hurt to hear you say you only became one 10 minutes ago.

  286. 286.

    SFAW

    February 19, 2016 at 12:45 am

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Oh, I have the answer to your request from this morning. It isn’t numbers, but the number proving HRC isn’t a Republican in drag is 42.

    Ah, but what was the question that resulted in the answer of “42”?

  287. 287.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 19, 2016 at 12:45 am

    @Seebach: You are, I submit, not very well informed.

  288. 288.

    SFAW

    February 19, 2016 at 12:47 am

    @Seebach:

    She’s not a party member of the GOP. She just shares their outlook on the world.

    You just keep getting sillier and sillier. Reince must be so proud.

  289. 289.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 12:48 am

    @Nate Dawg: I will if she can win the primary with her “I’m not inspiring and trying is too hard but here are some weak promises I may back out on if it becomes convenient to triangulate with the Republicans on increasing our involvement in the middle east or waging the drug war” schtick. I know that sells me on her “don’t hope and slight change” Obama playbook.

    I can FEEL the halfhearted incrementalism if it doesn’t get in the way of my making cash on the side vibe.

  290. 290.

    Nate Dawg

    February 19, 2016 at 12:49 am

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    @Seebach: You are, I submit, not very well informed.

    @Seebach, Can I be you for a second and save you the effort?

    Here goes: “Making fun of those who aren’t well educated, eh? I guess that’s to be expected from someone who supports the candidate of the neoliberal elite.”

    See, you aren’t necessary. You can leave now.

  291. 291.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 12:49 am

    @SFAW: I have never been a Republican and do not support the Republican agenda. I find this non-negotiable, whereas your principles are apparently based on convenience.

  292. 292.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 19, 2016 at 12:51 am

    @Seebach: This is even older, but it is still brilliant. The age of a work of art has no effect on its value.

  293. 293.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 12:51 am

    @Nate Dawg: Neoliberal is key, but I feel you’re leaving out the warhawk part. Both are key to Clinton’s character. Obama was neoliberal but he’s nowhere as hawkish as Clinton. It’s the combination of both that’s just bad news.

  294. 294.

    Nate Dawg

    February 19, 2016 at 12:51 am

    @Seebach: Losing general elections and having all your principles thrown to the wind is rather inconvenient, though, you must admit.

    Convenience for the win, I say!

  295. 295.

    SFAW

    February 19, 2016 at 12:52 am

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    You don’t normally state the extremely obvious – everything OK?

    And — apropos of nothing in particular — why the hell is it 15 degrees warmer in Green Bay than in Mass? Won’t all the cheese melt prematurely?

  296. 296.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 12:53 am

    @SFAW: Silly is good, and I can accept this because it doesn’t involve mockery of mental illness. You’re learning how to be a decent human, and these are good steps to take before casting an important vote.

  297. 297.

    Nate Dawg

    February 19, 2016 at 12:53 am

    I remember when Al Gore was such a neoliberal warhawk that we needed to vote for Ralph Nader.

    It certainly kept America’s hawkishness in check. Sure did, yup yup yup!

  298. 298.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 19, 2016 at 12:54 am

    @SFAW: Fondue!

  299. 299.

    SFAW

    February 19, 2016 at 12:54 am

    @Seebach:

    I find this non-negotiable, whereas your principles are apparently based on convenience.

    Ah, yes, the well-documented Republican projection. You got it in spades.

    So do your checks come from the RNC? Or Jeb!’s campaign directly?

  300. 300.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 19, 2016 at 12:55 am

    @SFAW: My guess is libertarian.

  301. 301.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 12:56 am

    @Nate Dawg: No, the argument was that Bush and Gore was essentially Coke vs Pepsi. Neoliberal wasn’t really a popular term and hawkishness was more in terms of interventionism, like in Bosnia/Kosovo, than in launching unprovoked “preemptive” wars based on shady intelligence only incompetents and craven opportunists voted for.

    Being a hawk now is an entirely different beast. Also after the 2008 financial crisis being in favor of too big to fail banks also makes you look unprincipled.

  302. 302.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 12:57 am

    @SFAW: Jesus Christ, if I were a Republican I’d have better financing than fucking Jeb!. I only get my money from the finest Goldman Sachs donors.

  303. 303.

    SFAW

    February 19, 2016 at 12:57 am

    @Seebach:

    Yeah, whatever. Oh, was I supposed to get all het up over your weak attempt to insult me? Sorry to disappoint.

    Now toddle off and tell Reince (or Jeb!) what a big boy you are, and can they pleasePleasePLEASE give you your allowance.

  304. 304.

    Nate Dawg

    February 19, 2016 at 12:59 am

    @Seebach: Wait, did I say I was in favor of “too big to fail banks” or is some troll putting words into my mouth?

    Principles will only get you so far, kiddo. They won’t put food on our families, as Dubya would say.

  305. 305.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 12:59 am

    @SFAW: I only take my money from Goldman, like I said. Something I’m sure you appreciate. We’re very ethical when we take our money from Goldman.

  306. 306.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 1:00 am

    @Nate Dawg: You may not be, but your candidate certainly thinks breaking the banks up is useless. After all, it wouldn’t fix racism or sexism. So why even try?

    Why even try? Clinton 2016

  307. 307.

    SFAW

    February 19, 2016 at 1:01 am

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Fondue!

    I said “prematurely.” (Although, I have to confess, I guessed you would have responded with “Tuna Melt.” With freshly-caught Lake Michigan tuna, of course. Which is why I added the adverb.)

  308. 308.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 19, 2016 at 1:01 am

    @Seebach: Dude, you may not be a troll, but you are acting like one.

  309. 309.

    Nate Dawg

    February 19, 2016 at 1:02 am

    @SFAW: Silly is good, and I can accept this because it doesn’t involve mockery of mental illness. You’re learning how to be a decent human, and these are good steps to take before casting an important vote.

    This really should go in the Hall of Fame of trolling. Look at the form!

    And this was after recovering from a string of incoherent faux-“SJW” critiques that had fallen flat due to @Seebach’s ignorance about American literature.

    But it got right back up on that …. what animal do trolls ride around on? Well, it got right back up on that animal and kept at it.

    Bravo.

  310. 310.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 1:03 am

    @Omnes Omnibus: I may be a troll, but I’m not a fucking Republican. The Clinton circlejerk autoimmune disorder here kind of makes it impossible not to try.

  311. 311.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 1:05 am

    @Nate Dawg: ah, “social justice warrior”, the euphemism of the classiest misogynists and trolls. Now who’s the neo-reactionary?

  312. 312.

    Nate Dawg

    February 19, 2016 at 1:05 am

    @Seebach: Running on a platform of breaking up the big banks is useless, yes. That’s what Bernie Sanders is doing, and it is *indeed* useless. Clinton is savvy enough to know this, and so she doesn’t promise it. What she knows (that he doesn’t apparently) is that there are regulations that can be put into place to curtail the excesses of the financial sector without nationalizing the banks, which is, to be clear, a complete pipe dream.

    Sanders platform is “I FOUGHT AGAINST THAT”. What he doesn’t say is, he failed.

    Sanders 2016 — Not Too Proud to Lose

  313. 313.

    SFAW

    February 19, 2016 at 1:07 am

    @Nate Dawg:

    Almost makes one miss Reich to Rise.

    No, not really. At least, not the racist part. But RtR was so full of shit, and such easy pickings, and just as intellectually dishonest as Reince’s Newest Pet. (RNP?)

  314. 314.

    Nate Dawg

    February 19, 2016 at 1:07 am

    @Seebach

    @Nate Dawg: ah, “social justice warrior”, the euphemism of the classiest misogynists and trolls. Now who’s the neo-reactionary?

    Allow me to introduce you to quotation marks.

  315. 315.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 1:08 am

    @Nate Dawg: Ah, so she’s savvy! She’ll put those regulations back in place! The ones her husband helped remove!

    I’m so happy Hillary is going to undo the massive damage done by William Jefferson.

  316. 316.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 19, 2016 at 1:09 am

    @Seebach: If you want to offer an argument for Sanders or against Clinton, go ahead. Just don’t base it on shit you pulled out of your ass.

  317. 317.

    SFAW

    February 19, 2016 at 1:09 am

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    I may be a troll, but I’m not a fucking Republican.

    What was that line from Hamlet? It’ll come to me, methinks.

  318. 318.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 19, 2016 at 1:11 am

    @SFAW: When the wind is southerly, I know a hawk from a handsaw.?

  319. 319.

    SFAW

    February 19, 2016 at 1:11 am

    @Nate Dawg:

    Allow me to introduce you to quotation marks.

    Ya bastid! I fell for it. I must be a noob or something.

  320. 320.

    SFAW

    February 19, 2016 at 1:13 am

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Or shit from Shinola.?

  321. 321.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 19, 2016 at 1:15 am

    @SFAW: I don’t believe that is in the text of Hamlet. Maybe the Director’s Cut. I haven’t seen that.

  322. 322.

    Nate Dawg

    February 19, 2016 at 1:15 am

    @Seebach: Glass-Steagall is not the only way to curtail speculative banking. It’s a blunt instrument, sure, and I’d support it being reimposed, but it’s not the only way to skin the cat.

    But let’s do Bernie a minute, since you’ve nailed Hillary so well:

    I”m gonna KEEP FIGHTING against ALL THESE THINGS I’VE FOUGHT AGAINST and I can promise you I’ll have the Same Success Rate I’ve had in Fighting against things–zero percent–because there is absolutely no way in hell a Democratic Congress, much less a Republican one, will approve even a fraction of my platform. But don’t let that stop me from taking your money, crashing the Democratic party, and promising the moon to the young and hopeful.

    Bernie Sanders 2016 — Because Pipe Dreams Really Can Come True

  323. 323.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 1:15 am

    @Omnes Omnibus: What guarantee is there that Clinton’s cult of no personality will actually hold her to any of her promises? Their battle cry of “why bother” will surely take hold once the Republicans dig in and refuse to do anything. This is my major concern, assuming Clinton wins.

  324. 324.

    Nate Dawg

    February 19, 2016 at 1:16 am

    @SFAW: Collateral damage is to be expected. My condolences to your ears and eyes. :-)

  325. 325.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 1:18 am

    @Nate Dawg: Who says Bernie can even win?

  326. 326.

    mclaren

    February 19, 2016 at 1:19 am

    Because the shitstorm of frenzied envenomed verbal abuse aimed at me appears to have abated, here’s another cattle prod to stimulate the devotees of learned Democratic helplessness to shriek crazed insults at me:

    The intellectual bankruptcy of the Democratic Party is nowhere more evident than in the looming presidential candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Assumptions of the inevitability of her candidacy tend to ignore policy matters, focusing instead on her gender and her twenty years as a Washington insider. Many usually thoughtful people can find nothing more substantial to say in her favour than ‘it’s her turn.’

    …In slogging through it, one is reminded of why the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency is so dreary. … Nothing could more clearly illustrate the merger of economic and political power in the oligarchy that dominates American public life. Were Clinton to win, her victory would ensure the continuation of business as usual in Washington. The only change would be the return to power of the Clinton machine, an army of loyalists who have been milling about the capital for two decades but whose command has now shifted from Bill to Hillary. Despite their differing styles, the intent is the same: rewarding friends and punishing enemies, the latter with such precision that one of her staffers fears Hillary will come to seem little different from ‘Nixon in a pantsuit’.

    The sense of continuity is reinforced by the blizzard of worn buzzwords and market-researched phrases regurgitated by Clinton as she races round the globe…

    Source: “We came, we saw, he died,” Jackson Lear (review of volume 2 of Hillary Clinton’s autobiography in the London Review of Books), 5 February 2015.

    Meanwhile, Alex Pareen at Gawker has this to say about Hillary’s debate performance:

    At last night’s Democratic debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton invoked an unexpected figure: Henry Kissinger. “I was very flattered when Henry Kissinger said I ran the State Department better than anybody had run it in a long time,” she said, in an off-hand aside. It wasn’t an endorsement of Kissinger, or really much of anything. It was just a little brag that would have played well in a different room.

    The sort of room it would have played well in, really, is the sort of room in which the worst people in the country congregate. The fact that Clinton lapsed into speaking as if she were in that room is more or less why she’s having trouble, once again, convincing the Democratic electorate to nominate her for the presidency.

    Henry Kissinger, for the record, is a bad man, who waged a terrible and illegal war in Cambodia, supported a horrific right-wing strongman in Chile, and generally ran America’s foreign policy apparatus in the most amoral way possible, as a point of pride. However, in the bubble of elite American society, the bipartisan consensus, shared by politicians and members of the media alike, is that he’s simply a respected elder statesman.

    …Hillary Clinton exists in a world where “Henry Kissinger is a war criminal” is a silly opinion held by unserious people. Her problem? Lots of those silly and unserious people want to wrest control of the Democratic Party away from its current leadership, which is exemplified by people like Hillary Clinton.

    Source: “Hillary Clinton Has a Henry Kissinger Problem,” Gawker website, 5 February 2016.

    With Donald Trump blasting away at Jeb Bush for supporting endless unwinnable foreign wars that accomplished nothing but creating thousands of new terrorists while wasting five trillion dollars to accomplish nothing but create failed states, we now face the prospect that if Donald Trump is the nominee, he will be able to run against Hillary Clinton from the left.

    Seriously?

    You really want to go there, Hillary supporters?

    You really want to field a Democratic presidential candidate who can be successfully attacked from the left on foreign policy by the Republican presidential candidate…?

  327. 327.

    SFAW

    February 19, 2016 at 1:21 am

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    I don’t believe that is in the text of Hamlet. Maybe the Director’s Cut. I haven’t seen that.

    Actually, it’s the Tarantino reboot. In it, Hamlet decapitates Scar Claudius with a katana, Horatio blows away Laertes and Gertrude with an H & K MP5, and Ophelia ODs on placebos.

    It’s as close to a love story as Tarantino could come up with.

  328. 328.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 19, 2016 at 1:21 am

    @Seebach: Actually, fuck you. You are suggesting that the people here who have made a decision for or are leaning toward HRC just have given up on liberal politics. A lot of us have volunteered, given money, canvassed, called and written to various politicians to support our views. We will continue to do so.

  329. 329.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 1:22 am

    @mclaren: Of course they do. If Clinton goes all the way to the right, that means it’s ok, because she says she’s a Democrat on her poster, so anything she does is for the good team.

  330. 330.

    SFAW

    February 19, 2016 at 1:23 am

    @Nate Dawg:

    My condolences to your ears and eyes.

    No worries. My “sacrifice” was for a good cause.

    Or at least, that’s what I tell myself as I’m trying to stop them from bleeding.

  331. 331.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 19, 2016 at 1:24 am

    @mclaren: You need the argument, don’t you? Not tonight, honey, I have a headache.

  332. 332.

    Nate Dawg

    February 19, 2016 at 1:24 am

    @mclaren: Donald Trump isn’t going to be the nominee.

    Also, this is where we are: we have Bernie supporters cheering on Trump because he is the *only* candidate Bernie could conceivably win against.

    Although, it’s an interesting point that the Republican frontrunner can attack the Democratic nominee from the left. It’s been stated what an oddball year this is.

    But none of that is actually a positive argument for Bernie Sanders. Can we please make that argument, instead?

  333. 333.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 1:24 am

    @Omnes Omnibus: Yes, I am. But I’m glad to hear about the writing and the calling and stuff, although Clinton probably doesn’t need the money of anyone here.

  334. 334.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 1:27 am

    @Nate Dawg: Yes, Trump is going to be the nominee. Do you not see how terrible the Republican party is?

    Also, why is it not possible to point out that Clinton is a shitty candidate without thinking Sanders can win? He can’t. But can she?

  335. 335.

    mclaren

    February 19, 2016 at 1:28 am

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Actually, fuck you.

    We can tell that Omnes Omnibus is a practicing lawyer rather than a lowly private first class in the Pentagon sub-basement hired to astroturf far-right talking points on liberal forums like this one because of Omnes’ sterling legal reasoning.

    Impeccable lines of legal logic like the above assure us that Omnes Omnibus is a Very Serious Person who must be Taken Very Seriously. Rather than, you know, some shmuck paid to astroturf this forum with pre-written talking points.

    Pro tip to the sock puppet operating Omnes Omnibus’ i.p. address tonight: this is what is known as “a rip in the legend,” a case in which the sock puppet pretending to be a lawyer violates the purported cover story under s/he operates that hi/r fake identity on the internet can no longer be taken seriously.

  336. 336.

    SFAW

    February 19, 2016 at 1:28 am

    @Seebach:

    If Clinton goes all the way to the right,

    Other statements with the same likelihood:

    If you Republicans stop trying to block Obama wherever you can
    If I wake up tomorrow with a full head of hair
    If Ted Cruz becomes likeable
    If Ben Carson wakes up and says something coherent

  337. 337.

    SFAW

    February 19, 2016 at 1:32 am

    @mclaren:

    Cogent as ever.

  338. 338.

    Seebach

    February 19, 2016 at 1:33 am

    @Nate Dawg: Actually I’m curious who you think the GOP nominee will be

  339. 339.

    mclaren

    February 19, 2016 at 1:34 am

    @Nate Dawg:

    Donald Trump isn’t going to be the nominee.

    @Seebach:

    Yes, Trump is going to be the nominee. Do you not see how terrible the Republican party is?

    Listen all! This is the truth of it. Fighting leads to killing, and killing gets to warring, and that was damn near the death of us all. Look at us now, busted up and everyone talking about hard rain! But we’ve learned! By the dust of them all, Bartertown learned. Now, when men get to fighting, it happens here, and it finishes here! Two men enter; one man leaves.
    And now, I’ve got two men — two men with a gut full of fear. Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, dying time’s here!
    Thunderdome’s simple. Get to the weapons. Use them any way you can. I know you won’t break the rules. There aren’t any. — Dr. Dealgood, Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome, 1985.

  340. 340.

    mclaren

    February 19, 2016 at 1:39 am

    @Nate Dawg:

    I”m gonna KEEP FIGHTING against ALL THESE THINGS I’VE FOUGHT AGAINST and I can promise you I’ll have the Same Success Rate I’ve had in Fighting against things–zero percent–because there is absolutely no way in hell a Democratic Congress, much less a Republican one, will approve even a fraction of my platform. But don’t let that stop me from taking your money, crashing the Democratic party, and promising the moon to the young and hopeful.

    Bernie Sanders 2016 — Because Pipe Dreams Really Can Come True

    Now let’s try the Hillary Clinton version of your caricature:

    I”m gonna KEEP FELLATING ALL THESE TOXIC FAR-RIGHT IDEOLOGIES I’VE SUPPORTED and I can promise you I’ll have the Same Success Rate I’ve had in offering slightly more liberal version of neocon warmongering and trickle-down Reaganomics–zero percent–because there is absolutely no way in hell a Republican congress will approve even a fraction of my platform. But don’t let that stop me from taking your money, crashing the Democratic party, and promising to alienate the young and hopeful from our party forever.

    Hillary Clinton 2016 — Because You’ve Been Fucked Up the Ass For So Long by Republicans, You Won’t Care If A Woman Does It With a Strap-On

  341. 341.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 19, 2016 at 1:40 am

    @mclaren: You were sane earlier this evening. Analytical even. I agreed with you. What happened? Booze and pills and powder?

    I am just noting that there is a stunning difference in your posts from a couple of hours ago until now.

  342. 342.

    Nate Dawg

    February 19, 2016 at 1:41 am

    Okay, this thread is off the rails.

    Glad I did my part. Night y’all.

  343. 343.

    mclaren

    February 19, 2016 at 1:44 am

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    You were sane earlier this evening. Analytical even. I agreed with you. What happened?

    The private first class who operated your sock puppet earlier tonight from that Pentagon sub-basement left you incomplete and inaccurate notes on the internet conservations she initiated when it came time for change of shift, and you took over the sock puppet named Omnes Omnibus.

  344. 344.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 19, 2016 at 1:44 am

    @SFAW: I have a full head of hair.

  345. 345.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 19, 2016 at 1:47 am

    @mclaren: So you were insane earlier? Got it. Not like shit posted on the internet is forever. It’s just up thread.

    ETA: Crazy now or crazy then. Pick one.

  346. 346.

    mclaren

    February 19, 2016 at 1:51 am

    @Seebach:

    Of course they do. If Clinton goes all the way to the right, that means it’s ok, because she says she’s a Democrat on her poster, so anything she does is for the good team.

    Sadly true. IOKIYAD.

    AKA “It’s not fascism if WE do it!”

    As opposed to the Trump right-wing version.

    Incidentally, I love the December 8 Daily News with Trump’s right arm raised and the headline THE NEW FUROR. Such good times. Folks, we’re gonna party like it’s 1939!

  347. 347.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 19, 2016 at 1:54 am

    @mclaren: Dude, just read the stuff you posted up-thread.

  348. 348.

    mclaren

    February 19, 2016 at 1:56 am

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Yet another rip in your legend. My oh my oh my. This is what happens when different operators fail to leave complete notes for their sock puppet’s behavior. Just upthread, the previous operator of the sock puppet called Omnes Omnibus said:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    You need the argument, don’t you? Not tonight, honey, I have a headache.

    And now here you are arguing. But since you’re a different operator working the same sock puppet handle to astroturf this forum, of course you didn’t notice the discrepancy. The rest of us did, though.

    Ask your handler for larger cash payments. You’re just not incentivized enough to make this sock puppet thing convincing and successfully astroturf us with your right wing talking points.

  349. 349.

    Nate Dawg

    February 19, 2016 at 2:00 am

    Wow. The Bernie people around here are batshit insane.

    (NB: Yes, I said night. Now I’m back. I must be a sock puppet.)

  350. 350.

    mclaren

    February 19, 2016 at 2:01 am

    @chopper:

    Wow. Yep, back on October 2 of last year I did think Jeb would be the nominee. In all fairness, it’s been quite a while since then. What, 4 and a half months? A reminder to everyone: back then, Donald Trump led the Republican field by only 9 points.

    I haven’t thought Jeb would be nominee for quite a while now.

    Circumstances change, and when they change, I change my mind. What do you do?

  351. 351.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 19, 2016 at 2:02 am

    @mclaren: I wasn’t arguing, dear boy. I was pointing out that your comments on this thread are inconsistent. Facts are facts. People can read them.

  352. 352.

    mclaren

    February 19, 2016 at 2:06 am

    @Nate Dawg:

    Why is it insane to conclude that the same internet disinformation techniques used by the Russian and British governments are also being used by the U.S. government?

    We know the CIA promulgated that kind of media disinformation in the pre-internet era via Operation Mockingbird, revealed by the Church commission in 1976.

  353. 353.

    Nate Dawg

    February 19, 2016 at 2:11 am

    @mclaren: Can you point out where OO stated he was a lawyer and where he stated he was a pentagon grunt? That would make more sense. Right now, it certainly appears you’re spewing conspiracy theory.

  354. 354.

    mclaren

    February 19, 2016 at 2:14 am

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Of course you’re arguing. And now you’re trying to deny that the previous operator of your sock puppet said what she said. Classic defense techniques for disinformation providers — deny, disrupt, degrade, deceive. Shift the conversation to a definition of terms whenever your sock puppetry gets outed and your astroturfing gets discredited.

    For anyone who’s interested in hi-tech disinformation campaigns like Britain’s GCHQ or the Kremlin online troll factory, see the article “How Does Disinformation Spread Online?”

  355. 355.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 19, 2016 at 2:17 am

    @Nate Dawg: FWIW, I am a lawyer. And I was, between undergrad and law school, an army officer. To be specific, a parachute qualified field artillery officer.

  356. 356.

    mclaren

    February 19, 2016 at 2:18 am

    @Nate Dawg:

    The sock puppet named Omnes Omnibus has never stated he’s a Pentagon grunt. I’m guessing that one. He has said he’s a lawyer in the past. He also claims to be ex-military, which is probably part of the `make the legend real’ cover. Every disinformation operator who needs to create a legend gets advised to keep the cover story as close to reality as possible, the better to avoid embarrassing lapses of memory. It would make perfect sense that the sock puppet called Omnes Omnibus claims to be ex-military, since he probably is a member of the military right now and likely works in some military-civilian liaison job involving online astroturfing.

    As for “conspiracy theory,” need I remind you that everything we progressives have been claiming for the past 10 years got dismissed as a conspiracy theory and then turned out to be true?

    * We claimed Dubya was lying about the evidence for WMDs in Iraq in 2002. “Conspiracy theory.” Turned out to be true.

    * We claimed Dubya was engaged in a massive effort to discredit and disrupt the Democratic party using government resources, including ginning up bogus indictments of Democratic U.S. attorneys. “Conspiracy theory.” Turned out to be true.

    * We claimed Dubya was using massive NSA surveillance against the entire American people. “Conspiracy theory.” Turned out to be true.

    * We claimed Obama was using the DHS to crush Occupy demonstrations. “Conspiracy theory.” Turned out to be true.

    And so on. “Conspiracy theory” in 2016 is the disinformation talking point for dismissing tomorrow’s headline.

  357. 357.

    Omnes Omnibus

    February 19, 2016 at 2:21 am

    @mclaren: Address the disconnect between your earlier comments and your current ones. I dare you.

    I’ll look in the morning.

  358. 358.

    mclaren

    February 19, 2016 at 2:28 am

    For those of you with short memories, my point 2 above refers to the 2006 scandal involving the dimissal of U.S. Attorneys.

    From wikipedia:

    The dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy was initiated by the midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorneys on December 7, 2006, by the George W. Bush administration’s Department of Justice. Congressional investigations focused on whether the Department of Justice and the White House were using the U.S. Attorney positions for political advantage. Allegations were that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters. The U.S. attorneys were replaced with interim appointees, under provisions in the 2005 USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization.

    A subsequent report by the Justice Department Inspector General in October 2008 found that the process used to fire the first seven attorneys and two others dismissed around the same time was “arbitrary”, “fundamentally flawed”, and “raised doubts about the integrity of Department prosecution decisions.”

    There are an enormous number of additional outrages and scandals and war crimes and criminal acts committed during the Bush administration that I could just as easily cite as claims initially dismissed as “conspiracy theories” and then later proven true. It’s late in the evening, however, and people already complain about the length of my posts.

    In any case John Cole already has a term that covers this kind of disinformation effort: “The dirty fucking hippies were right.”

  359. 359.

    mclaren

    February 19, 2016 at 2:31 am

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    The disconnect exists in the minds of your previous operator and in the current operator of your sock puppet. There is no disconnect out here in the real world.

    Address my suggestion that the U.S. government almost certainly currently operates a far-right astroturfing operation designed to discredit anti-war and anti-military/national security atttitudes and information, when we already know the Russian and British government operate such online astroturfing operations staffed by military and government personnel.

    I’ll study your response in the morning. (But there won’t be one, since disinformation operators have as their number one priority to steer the conversation away from their own astroturfing.)

  360. 360.

    Nate Dawg

    February 19, 2016 at 2:37 am

    You’ve yet to show the disconnect that proves OO is an astroturf sockpuppet. Should be a simple cut and paste job. Like most conspiracy theories, (not all), it’s lacking evidence.

  361. 361.

    Applejinx

    February 19, 2016 at 5:02 am

    @Nate Dawg: Why? The new Minneapolis Fed is prepared to consider it.

    I really, really don’t like when Democrats reflexively push for policy that’s more Republican than what Goldman Sachs alumns are suggesting. It makes it seem like present-day Democrats are nothing more than ‘Beltway Serious People’ wearing slightly different suits.

    I really, really don’t like behaving like this is football rivalries. Try this: to me, Bernie not being a ‘real Democrat’ is profoundly in his favor, because Democrats are those people who’d rather wank with superdelegates than turn people out for midterms. Democrats are killing us. They deserve no loyalty, and it seems to shock ’em when they get none,

    Earn people’s loyalty or get the hell out of the way.

    How right-wing would Clinton be right now if we didn’t have Bernie Sanders literally compelling her to tack left against her will and the will of ‘Democrats’?

  362. 362.

    SFAW

    February 19, 2016 at 7:59 am

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    a parachute qualified field artillery officer.

    Must’ve been a humongous chute, for you to jump carrying a 155.

    ETA: And that’s what I would call “incoming.”

  363. 363.

    Neldob

    February 19, 2016 at 10:22 am

    Do Democrats vote for whomever they are given and Republicans not so much? Why are our choices Bernie or Hilary? And the Republicans have more choices and dumped their annointed one. I agree, Hilary is pretty far to the right.

  364. 364.

    chopper

    February 19, 2016 at 11:14 am

    @Nate Dawg:

    if you ever get on mclaren’s bad side (basically, disagree with him more than once) he starts accusing you of being part of a secret CIA psyop program deep in the pentagon, “getting paid cash money to disrupt my truth on political blogs”. it’s just part of his illness. i usually just roll play when he levels it at me.

  365. 365.

    chopper

    February 19, 2016 at 11:18 am

    @mclaren:

    A reminder to everyone: back then, Donald Trump led the Republican field by only 9 points.

    a reminder to everyone: the post just above your post i referenced showed that trump was ahead of jeb by over 20 points at that time.

    so let’s just say your predictive abilities are, well, as worthless as the rest of the bilge you cough up on the days you’re off your meds.

  366. 366.

    SFAW

    February 19, 2016 at 12:01 pm

    @chopper:

    accusing you of being part of a secret CIA psyop program deep in the pentagon,

    Shit, I better not get on his bad side, or my cover will be blown.

  367. 367.

    Socraticsilence

    February 19, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    @magurakurin:

    To be honest Bernie’s been pretty lenient on bring up past opinions of Hillary Clinton in a way Republican candidates won’t be as well.

  368. 368.

    Socraticsilence

    February 19, 2016 at 12:10 pm

    @Nate Dawg:

    Honestly clearing the field was a double edged sword- it eliminated the chance of a superior politician with substantially similar positions on most issues but better skills and judgement trouncing her as happened in 2008 but it also raised the chance of what’s happening now – a candidate who actually pushes her hard ideologically emerging as the rival – – frankly she’s really, really lucky that the candidate is both protective of the party (almost strangely so from a person who only recently became a Democrat) and a relatively uncharismatic candidate who reads to most people as a typical old white guy (notwithstanding his actual life as a religious minority) – even a Warren level figure would be on the verge of breaking the race open much less someone with Sanders’ views but Obama’s skill set.

  369. 369.

    Socraticsilence

    February 19, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    @Marc:

    This, looking back on the 2008 arguments by Clinton partisans for flipping things with eh Super Delegates is…just wow– “Obama should wait his turn or come on as VP” even reading them now the sheer obliviousness is stunning- you actually had people argue that flipping the nomination was okay because African Americans are loyal Democrats and would still vote the right way but that Hillary would get the party’s base out- which I mean…..

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Image by HinTN (5/22/25)

Recent Comments

  • Paul in KY on Wednesday Evening Open Thread: An Exemplar for Our Global Embarrassment (May 22, 2025 @ 9:01am)
  • Professor Bigfoot on House Bill Passes (Open Thread) (May 22, 2025 @ 9:01am)
  • LAC on House Bill Passes (Open Thread) (May 22, 2025 @ 9:01am)
  • Paul in KY on Wednesday Evening Open Thread: An Exemplar for Our Global Embarrassment (May 22, 2025 @ 9:00am)
  • tobie on House Bill Passes (Open Thread) (May 22, 2025 @ 9:00am)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!