home

Friday Open Thread

Here's a new open thread, all topics welcome.

< El Chapo Trial Set for April, 2018 | Family Trump to Take a World Trip >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Jordan Edwards may get justice (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Repack Rider on Fri May 05, 2017 at 06:08:41 PM EST
    Officer Roy Oliver Charged With murder.

    Turns out that former officer Oliver had a few issues controlling his temper. Why, he was once suspended for two whole days for an outburst of profanity from the witness stand.

    As we have seen from the Walter Scott case, even a video of an officer shooting a fleeing Black victim in the back, then tampering with evidence and lying on a police report is not enough for a jury of Southerners to convict a white cop, if the victim is Black.  Fortunately the feds stepped in, and Slager confessed to his heinous crime.  Now Slager is going down for decades, possibly life and even his best friends and parents have to admit that this guy is scum of the earth, should never have been authorized to carry a weapon.

    Meanwhile, the memory of murder victim Trayvon Martin is honored with a university degree.

    A corollary to my comment (none / 0) (#37)
    by Repack Rider on Sat May 06, 2017 at 10:20:44 AM EST
    ...on Southern white juries convicting white men of killing Black men.

    According to statistics gathered by Amnesty International the justice system is slanted against Black defendants all over the country.

    A Black defendant is three times as likely as a white defendant to be sentenced to death in cases where the circumstances are similar.

    The death penalty is more likely to be sought by a prosecutor when the victim is white than when the victim is not.

    Here is a study
    of executions in Louisiana, where 61% of the murder victims have been Black males, but only 8% of the death penalties (3 executions) involved Black male victims.  

    According to this NYT article, the last time a white man was executed in Louisiana for a crime against a Black person was in 1752.

    Parent

    The (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 06, 2017 at 07:05:57 AM EST
    hits on Flynn keep coming
    Former national security adviser Michael Flynn was warned by senior members of President Trump's transition team about the risks of his contacts with the Russian ambassador weeks before the December call that led to Flynn's forced resignation, current and former U.S. officials said.
    and this little buried bombshell in the Time's story,
    The outgoing White House also became concerned about the Trump team's handling of classified information. After learning that highly sensitive documents from a secure room at the transition's Washington headquarters were being copied and removed from the facility, Obama's national security team decided to only allow the transition officials to view some information at the White House, including documents on the government's contingency plans for crises.
    ... if true it's unequivocal criminal behaviour by the tRump team. willfully mishandling classified information, oh the irony.

    These stories are a huge setup for Monday's Senate hearing, giving the Democrats a bundle of "leading" questions they can ask Yates and Clapper. IMO Flynn was a Russian mole, the Obama administration sure seemed to think so. I hope Yates is brutally honest about it on Monday.

    And, then there is (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by KeysDan on Sat May 06, 2017 at 02:50:58 PM EST
    the Trump Transition Head, Pence.  What did he know and when did he know it?  Looks like in November 2016. Lock them all up.

    Parent
    ... Gen. Michael Flynn and his activities only makes sense if the vice pesident himself was completely disengaged from the transition itself, and instead presided over that process in a role roughly equivalent to that of an ex officio honorary chairman. Frankly, that sounds absolutely preposterous. And now that cockeyed notion is further compounded by the latest story to be floated by the Trump administration via the Washington Post.

    Basically, Trump transition officials were supposedly so concerned about Flynn's contacts with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and other Russian officials, they requested a copy of the CIA's classified report on Kislyak so that Flynn could then be apprised of the seriousness of his actions, and be further advised that he's placing himself within the surveillance field established by U.S. intelligence agencies around Russian embassy officials.

    Personally, I find rather far-fetched the idea Flynn was so naïve about Ambassador Kislyak and Russian intentions as to require such counsel, and that's a generous take on my part. Most likely, he simply didn't care and further, Trump campaign officials were probably arrogant enough to believe that they'd never be called out on any of it.

    I mean, seriously, if Flynn was really that green around the ears as to not know or realize that U.S. intelligence monitors Kislyak and all his communications around the clock, then his professional career and accumulated credentials as an intelligence officer, as a lieutenant general in the U.S. Army, and as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon must all be called into question here.

    And quite frankly, it's upon those apparent contradictions that these two conflicting stories run aground. Because if Vice President Mike Pence truly didn't know about Flynn's activities, our next question should therefore be, "Then who did?"

    It's highly unlikely that Flynn was a rogue operator, given the extent of contacts with Ambassador Kislyak and other prominent Russians by Trump campaign officials such as campaign chair Paul Manafort and foreign policy advisor Carter Page, et al. (At least, these are the ones we know about so far.) It's also practically inconceivable that they'd ALL be acting on their own respective initiatives simultaneously. In order to believe that, one would have to defy both logic and common sense.

    But if Trump's transition officials were indeed so worried about Flynn as the Washington Post's story would suggest, then as head of the transition team for the president-elect, Pence most certainly had to have known about the general's activities and communications with Kislyak.

    Suffice to say that the vice president -- and by extension, the Trump administration itself -- really can't have it both ways here. And so, it all gets even more curiouser and curiouser.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    i was reading (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 06, 2017 at 07:52:28 AM EST
    that as interesting as her appearance is likely to be its not likely we will actually learn much about the details of what exactly she knew and tried to warn the WH about because its still all classified.

    but it will be fascinating.

    Parent

    My (none / 0) (#35)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 06, 2017 at 08:41:05 AM EST
    gut feeling is she is going to push up as close to the line as she can and directly contradict the WH's narrative on their actions regarding Flynn.

    She probably won't disclose what she told the WH but she will tell them the why of it at least in general terms and I expect those general terms to be damning.

    Parent

    Tell you what (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 06, 2017 at 10:14:07 AM EST
    Let's indict Flynn and Hillary...have a joint trial and put them in the same cell...

    I mean exposing classified material is a serious crime...

    Wait..... Comey said it is "intent" that counts.

    Sigh......

    Parent

    It CAN be a crime (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Yman on Sat May 06, 2017 at 12:16:32 PM EST
    ... under certain circumstances, provided the conduct in question meets the elements of the statute.  Of course, in Hillary's case, we know that didn't happen, given that the investigative team unanimously concluded that charges weren't justified.  Flynn, OTOH, remains under active investigation and they're nowhere near done investigating Russia's ties to the Trump campaign.  Even GOP Senators/Congressmen are saying it looks like Flynn broke the law by lying and taking Russian money without approval.

    Lock HIM up.

    Parent

    And Trump won. (1.00 / 2) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 06, 2017 at 12:36:03 PM EST
    lol

    Parent
    So did Richard Nixon. (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 06, 2017 at 04:43:03 PM EST
    And just like "Tricky Dick," Trump may yet come to rue the day he did, not to mention the means his campaign employed in order to do so.

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Yman on Sat May 06, 2017 at 06:07:31 PM EST
    The ridiculous, false smears of you and your party were enough to get an incompetent, know-nothing, childish bigot elected.

    You must be so proud.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#38)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 06, 2017 at 10:36:06 AM EST
    Deal, Hillary= case closed.
    Flynn = multiple open investigations with shoes dropping on a daily basis.

    Ha, ha you are holding  2-7 unsuited and you are desperately bluffing pocket aces.

    Parent

    Wrong (1.25 / 4) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 06, 2017 at 12:35:20 PM EST
    the case against Hillary was never taken to a jury....so Americans stepped in convicted her...
    now all she can do, and you, is whine and whine and scream, "THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING! THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING!"

    lol

    BTW - Should France indict Obama for trying to interfere in its election?

    Parent

    Funny (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Yman on Sat May 06, 2017 at 06:13:28 PM EST
    Wrong the case against Hillary was never taken to a jury....so Americans stepped in convicted her...

    Of course it wasn't.  Before you can take it to a jury, you have an investigation - like what they're doing with Flynn and the Trump campaign.  If there's no evidence of a crime - as was the case with Hillary - it doesn't get to a jury.

    BTW - 3 million more Americans voted for Hillary than the child-bigot you support.

    Parent

    The (none / 0) (#45)
    by FlJoe on Sat May 06, 2017 at 02:17:53 PM EST
    case that you are an idiot has never been taken to a jury either........

    Parent
    Thank you for the insult (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 06, 2017 at 04:32:19 PM EST
    and proving again what type of person you are.

    And showing that you can't stand the truth.

    She was judged by the voters.

    She is now claiming the Russians did it.

    Which is screamingly funny.

    Enjoy.

    Parent

    More voters voted for her! (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by Erehwon on Sat May 06, 2017 at 08:46:23 PM EST
    So sure she was judged! And she was right about the deplorable basket of her opponent's voters!

    Parent
    Ethics complaint filed against the (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by McBain on Sat May 06, 2017 at 02:14:04 PM EST
    district attorney who filed charges against officer Shelby in the Crutcher shooting.
    It accuses District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler of failing to adhere to his own procedures.

    Kunzweiler says the charge was based on a significant amount of evidence.



    that's interesting (none / 0) (#52)
    by linea on Sat May 06, 2017 at 04:10:58 PM EST
    The union contends in its complaint filed Wednesday that Shelby's arrest was "merely based on watching a video."

    did the d.a. make his decidion before the pcp lab results?

    The judge did rule that evidence about Crutcher's past, such as his previous history of firing a weapon, past use of PCP, and some criminal history will not be allowed during the trial.

    i assume this refers to his prior convictions for assaulting/resisting police?

    Parent

    Probably (none / 0) (#60)
    by Yman on Sat May 06, 2017 at 06:33:09 PM EST
       The judge did rule that evidence about Crutcher's past, such as his previous history of firing a weapon, past use of PCP, and some criminal history will not be allowed during the trial.

    i assume this refers to his prior convictions for assaulting/resisting police?

    Probably.  Such "evidence" would be highly prejudicial and irrelevant.

    Parent

    Correction (none / 0) (#63)
    by Yman on Sat May 06, 2017 at 07:59:38 PM EST
    It wouldn't be prejudicial to the defense, as he's not on trial.  What would be prejudicial is trying to use evidence of her prior drug use, allegations of domestic violence, vandalism, orders of protection, etc.

    Parent
    Who ya gonna believe...? (none / 0) (#67)
    by Repack Rider on Sat May 06, 2017 at 08:39:11 PM EST
    The union contends in its complaint filed Wednesday that Shelby's arrest was "merely based on watching a video."

    The only difference between a video and an eyewitness is that a video is more accurate than eyewitness testimony and considerably more accurate than a police report made by the officer who did the shooting.  

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Repack Rider on Sat May 06, 2017 at 09:04:10 PM EST
    did the d.a. make his decidion before the pcp lab results?

    What difference would that have made?  Are you suggesting that the police officer knew of the murder victim's blood chemistry and that gave her leave to shoot him?

    AFAIK the officer had no knowledge of the victim whatever.

    If that is not what you meant, please explain why that would even be a factor worthy of raising at trial.  

    We have seen the video, in which a man was accused of reaching through the CLOSED window of his vehicle, causing a police officer to fear for her life. Shouldn't the fact that the window was closed, showing that her justification was a lie, be more important than the blood chemistry?

    Parent

    i dont know (none / 0) (#72)
    by linea on Sat May 06, 2017 at 09:25:12 PM EST
    in what fanciful daydream you concluded the window was closed when the charging document against officer betty shelby clearly states:

    "Mr. Crutcher reaches in the driver's side front window and Officer Turnbough fires his Taser and Officer Shelby fires one shot from her duty weapon striking Mr. Crutcher in his right lung area."


    Parent
    Could we see the video? (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 07, 2017 at 11:37:55 AM EST
    I don't know where (none / 0) (#84)
    by Repack Rider on Sun May 07, 2017 at 12:59:39 PM EST
    ...you were looking for it, but here it is.

    Parent
    i dont know if this is a correct legal analysis (none / 0) (#55)
    by linea on Sat May 06, 2017 at 05:07:03 PM EST
    but according to this article:
    lawofficer.com

    While Crutcher's family says that his use of PCP and TCP have nothing to do with the incident, the truth is, it has everything to do with it.  
    It will likely be a centerpiece for the defense in regards to what the law says about the situation.

    i've never heard of tcp.


    Parent

    Nothing but a bare accusation (none / 0) (#64)
    by Yman on Sat May 06, 2017 at 08:07:38 PM EST
    ... with no evidence to support it.

    If they want to try this kind of stuff to attack him in the press, they'll need to provide evidence to make it credible.

    Parent

    i found it !! (none / 0) (#66)
    by linea on Sat May 06, 2017 at 08:37:35 PM EST
    seems the d.a. filed charges BEFORE a police investigation was concluded or the victim's toxicology reports were even complete. the complaint states that this is the first and only instance where the d.a. filed charges in a police shooting prior to having an investigative report from the police. six days after the d.a. filed charges, the homicide unit submitted their report -  concluding that the shooting was justified.


    Parent
    And? (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Yman on Sat May 06, 2017 at 08:54:39 PM EST
    There's a reason we don't let police officers decide whether suspects should be charged with crimes .... especially when those suspects are their friends and co-workers.

    Parent
    Emmanuel Macron, the 39-year old, (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by KeysDan on Sun May 07, 2017 at 02:05:40 PM EST
    center/left candidate has won the presidency of France.  Projections are 65 percent Macron, 35 percent Le Pen--a testimony to the lucidity of the French voters.  Perhaps, the US election in 2016 provided some negative role modeling.  

    Vive La France !!! (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 07, 2017 at 02:13:12 PM EST
    It's kinda (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 07, 2017 at 07:11:37 PM EST
    funny that the conservatives in France put their country first and urged their voters to vote for Macron unlike the conservatives here who completely capitulated to Trump. If the conservatives in France had acted like the conservatives here in America they would have endorsed LePen.

    Parent
    the difference (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by linea on Sun May 07, 2017 at 10:57:26 PM EST
    If the conservatives in France had acted like the conservatives here in America they would have endorsed LePen.

    ... is that it's not a two part system in france, though it is a "two final party race" for the presidential election. the two chambers of parliament have standard multi-party elections. in america, we must remember that donald trump won the republican party primary (in a two-party system).

    that's how i understand it.

    Parent

    Conservatives in France (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 08, 2017 at 08:55:18 AM EST
    would be called very Liberal here.

    Parent
    So what? (4.20 / 5) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 08, 2017 at 11:20:08 AM EST
    They still put their country over their party unlike the Republicans here in the US. The Republicans here in the US were willing to let Putin take over the country and call the shots if it kept them in power. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. It's about patriotism of which the GOP has shown they have zero.  

    Parent
    Great speech too (none / 0) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 07, 2017 at 02:15:06 PM EST
    Short, poignant. He knows people have been hurting since the crash, and the pain is dividing the people...wow. That's a uniter!

    Parent
    ... FBI Director James Comey substantively mischaracterized and misstated in public testimony last week the nature and contents on the Clinton-related emails found on the home laptop computer used by both Huma Abedin and her husband, former Congressman Anthony Weiner. In short, contrary to what the sanctimonious Mr. Comey said to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

    • Ms. Abedin personally forwarded only a handful of State Dept. emails to her home laptop, and not "hundreds and thousands" as Comey had claimed;

    • The appearance of all those State Dept.-related emails on that laptop was likely a result of backups of Abedin's Blackberry, and were NOT deliberately forwarded by her for her husband to print out for Secretary Hillary Clinton, as Comey had claimed; and

    • NONE of the twelve forwarded emails claimed by Comey as "classified" had been marked as such at the time they were sent, but had instead been retroactively classified by the Intelligence Community several years later.

    Given the FBI Directors ill-advised actions in late October of last year, last week's misstatements obviously cannot be dismissed as some sort of small oversight on his part. Agency officials are presently trying to both figure out how and why it happened, and then determine the best course of action to correct the record publicly.

    From my perspective, they might start with a public statement from Director Comey himself to that effect, followed by his personal public apology to both Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin for having cast further undue aspersion and suspicion upon them -- whether inadvertent or otherwise.

    Personally, I think this latest snafu does little to inspire public confidence in either James Comey's Capacity to be seen as an honest broker here, or his ability and competence as an administrator to oversee the FBI's Trump-Russia probe. Quite the opposite, actually.

    But really, what other choice do we have at this juncture?

    THE DARK TOWER (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 05, 2017 at 11:35:36 AM EST
    so
    the greatest sci fi fantasy series ever written, yeah-it is, is finally getting a visual treatment.  and i am optimistic from what i see.
    this piece in the verge
    does a good job of explaining what it is and how its being done.
    the TV series is a fabulous idea.  this tale is the definition of epic.  it will require multiple films AND a series.

    also
    AMERICAN GODS.
    holy sh!t.  its amazing

    Looks intriguing (none / 0) (#3)
    by McBain on Fri May 05, 2017 at 11:40:56 AM EST
    I need another good sci fi/horror series now that I'm finished with Channel Zero.

    Parent
    lol. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Mr Natural on Fri May 05, 2017 at 12:35:08 PM EST
    Read a real sifi writer, kid.  The late Iain M. Banks, creator of the best universe ever.

    Parent
    ive read them all (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 05, 2017 at 12:43:47 PM EST
    try reading King

    Parent
    I have. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Mr Natural on Fri May 05, 2017 at 01:05:20 PM EST
    for the record (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 05, 2017 at 01:08:06 PM EST
    i only ever read one of his books.  the first one, i think.  it was ok.  i had no real interest in more.  i didnt think it was in the same league a Frank Herbert or Asimov or a half a dozen others.

    i thought it was quite average and typical.

    the thing about the Dark Tower series is that it is absolutely unique.  there has never been anything like it.  there is a reason pretty much every one of the eight books was a best seller.  and its not because they were written by King.

    Parent

    as an example (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 05, 2017 at 01:40:18 PM EST
    and my last comment on the subject

    i cant think of another case where the author writes himself into the story, by name and as the author of the story, as a pivitol character in the story along with real events in his real life, like being hit by a van and almost dying along with other real world events like the collapse of the twin towers which was very important to the story line.

    if you like it or not.  its not like anything else you wll read.

    Parent

    however (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 05, 2017 at 02:59:10 PM EST
    on the subject of sci fi and its authors
    FARGO is better this season than its ever been.  i love Carrie Coon and the scene this week with the dou@hebag LA cop who is trying to impress her by telling her all about FaceBook and how she simply HAS to do this because its just the way things are done, and he has 450 friends, most of whom he doesnt know...
    it was laugh out loud.
    but the very best part of the very best season so far is the embedded sci fi story about the little robot who thinks "he can help".


    Parent
    Fargo's creators are supposedly (none / 0) (#15)
    by jondee on Fri May 05, 2017 at 03:03:55 PM EST
    now coming out with a series based on Kurt Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle, which should be interesting.

    Nice, nice, very nice. Some many people in the same device..

    Parent

    thatsb been a buzz (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 05, 2017 at 05:11:55 PM EST
    for a while

    life is getting hard for the snobs who like to think tv is not becoming an art form.

    Parent

    Nice job on the straw man (none / 0) (#46)
    by Mr Natural on Sat May 06, 2017 at 02:23:13 PM EST
    straw man (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 06, 2017 at 03:12:25 PM EST
    noun
    1.
    an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

    exactly what position do you believe you have shared that i would need to misrepresent for the purpose of defeating?
    thats first.
    second, that comment had absolutely nothing to do with you.  it was a very gereral statement to a different commenter on a completelt different subject, assuming you think it was meant as some kind of continuation of what was above it.  it was not.
    so
    i would suggest attempting to be slightly less defensive and fragile.  in any case im done with this particular conversation.
    just to be very clear so you do not assume some future comment is about you.

    Parent

    i like fargo (the tv series) (none / 0) (#50)
    by linea on Sat May 06, 2017 at 03:25:33 PM EST
    but i am forced to wait until it is free on amazon prime.

    for those who havent seen it, the first episode is free on amazon.

    i am a bit confused with the period-setting. it is supposed to have taken place in 2010 but the cars and clothes and hairstyles all seem dated. isnt nikki wearing high-heel thigh-highs aka hooker-boots circa 1980? i assume the costume-designer picked those so the audience is clear on her character but it looks dated to me.

    Parent

    We're not as worried about fashion (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Towanda on Sat May 06, 2017 at 07:00:36 PM EST
    here in the land of snow.  Function over fashion, uber alles.

    So, boots are boots -- and in a blizzard, those ol' thigh-high boots may come out of the closet . . . albeit that high-heeled boots can be problematic, especially if driving a snowplow.    

    And serious winter gear, which is what's needed in this clime, is costly.  So here, where our winters are a bit more temperate than in Minnesota (usually the site of the series, despite it being called Fargo), I still have boots and parkas from the previous millennium that come out of the closet on the super-cold days.

    On the Third Coast in the Midwest, only Chicagoans really try to keep up with the
    other coasts.  In mid-size towns like mine, there are fashionable folks -- but in bitter weather, those who put fashion first are the ones who come down with pneumonia.  

    And in small towns . . . well, Fargo's costuming looks about right.  The same for the rest in the series.  The small-town main streets, the ungodly expanses of snow outside of town, that brrrrrr blue in the skies seen only in winter . . . yeah dere, dey know what dere doin' dere, ain'a.  

    Parent

    NYTimes (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 05, 2017 at 06:03:41 PM EST
    link

    i knew about "It" and "The Mist".  i did not know about "Geralds Game".  all are amazing.   the latter is one of his, what you might call, experiments.  of which there are many.  the entire thing takes place in a bed in which a woman is tied.
    i can tell you it happens as a result of S&M games by an average couple.  the woman gets mad and kicks her husband.  who dies on the spot leaving her tied to the bed in their remote summer cabin. i can tell you this without telling you anything about the story because it all happens in like the first three pages.
    i can also tell you there are contained within links to several other king book.  including The Dark Tower.

    Parent

    oops (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 05, 2017 at 06:05:48 PM EST
    sorry if i incuded a banned anagram.  feel free to delete.

    Parent
    My husband was watching American Gods (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 06, 2017 at 01:36:31 PM EST
    While I was talking to my grandchildren on the phone. Out of the corner of my eye I saw a female God swallow a guy with her Gchina. I just can't Howdy. I just can't :)

    Parent
    such a tiny tiny part of the hole (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 06, 2017 at 03:16:56 PM EST
    um, i mean whole.

    Parent
    The new trailer for ... (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 06, 2017 at 07:04:36 PM EST
    ... for Christopher Nolan's sprawling Second World War epic, "Dunkirk." Looks fascinating. Oscar winning actor Mark Rylance ("Bridge of Spies") plays a character who appears to be based upon Charles Lightoller, the surviving second officer of the ill-fated RMS Titanic and a retired Royal Navy officer, who at age 66 volunteered and piloted his own motorized yacht Sundowner to the beaches at Dunkirk, where he assisted in the evacuation of thousands of British soldiers whilst under enemy fire.

    Parent
    Just read to my husband your rundown of (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 07, 2017 at 09:49:33 AM EST
    Dark Tower. He likes sci-fi, and I try not to complain too much. He generally likes whatever you recommend.

    Was going through our library before the packers come. There was Delgo. Being passed from Josh to our grandchildren now.

    Taking a break tonight to see Guardians of the Galaxy.

    Parent

    love Guardians (none / 0) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 07, 2017 at 02:19:07 PM EST
    looking forward to that
    The Dark Tower is honestly sort of "guy sci fi"
    while im sure there are zillions of female fans, i mean, its a western.

    Parent
    also (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 07, 2017 at 02:31:56 PM EST
    the series based on "the mist" starting next month on spike could be awsum.

    Parent
    Gillian Andersen (none / 0) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 08, 2017 at 07:57:15 AM EST
    as Lucy, at least last night - one gets the feeling she will be much more, and looking amazing btw, and Cloris Leachman and as a god from Slavic mythology.

    and we are just getting started.

    entertainment weekly

    and Leftovers just get better and better

    Parent

    oh (none / 0) (#118)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 08, 2017 at 08:00:13 AM EST
    Anderson is the goddess Media.

    hence Lucy.  i cant take it.  its to awsum.

    Parent

    the Goddess (none / 0) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 08, 2017 at 08:03:55 AM EST
    No federal charges in Alton Sterling shooting (none / 0) (#2)
    by McBain on Fri May 05, 2017 at 11:39:24 AM EST
    This case involved a fatal shooing in Baton Rouge Louisiana.
    Acting U.S. Attorney Corey Amundson said an investigation determined the officers didn't "willfully" violate Sterling's civil rights even though the officers' "techniques" could be criticized....
    ...The case now falls to state Attorney General Jeff Landry, who said in a statement he and Louisiana State Police will conduct a thorough investigation to see if state criminal charges against either officer are warranted.


    DELTA goes down (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 05, 2017 at 12:26:39 PM EST
    have you seen this where Delta threatens to take a familys children?
    California Family Kicked Off Delta Flight, Threatened With Jail, Foster Care for Refusing to Give Up Tot's Seat

    i wonder if they even understand the reconing thats coming

    Delta is generally a lousy airline. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 05, 2017 at 12:44:35 PM EST
    It's really strange, because while I find that the company's domestic service certainly leaves much to be desired, I think its international service is very good to excellent. The experience of connecting on Delta from a domestic to an international flight (and vice versa) is like flying two entirely different air carriers.

    Parent
    Huh. We find Delta (none / 0) (#10)
    by Towanda on Fri May 05, 2017 at 01:36:33 PM EST
    to be one of the better airlines from our town -- but we are not a hub, and Delta offer more flights (and often the only nonstop flights) here.

    If you are correct, this could explain why I find air travel so awful, as one of the better ones here is one of the worst in your experience from a far bette-served airport.

    But we will be putting Delta to the test again soon, as just a few days ago, I bought tickets on Delta to a wedding on the East Coast this summer.  And we will be traveling with . . . grandson.  If anyone tries nonsense with me, you can count on seeing a video go,viral -- of an irate grandma who will print out and have on hand the FAA regulations.

    Parent

    I suppose that as long as ... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 05, 2017 at 02:36:25 PM EST
    ... an airline fulfills its general obligation to get you from here to there in a timely manner that's relatively consistent with its own timetable and any applicable federal law, we should be probably satisfied with that in this day and age.

    That said, I believe that the general and marked deterioration in overall customer service on U.S. airlines over the last 20-25 years, which includes their willingness to now charge you nickel-and-dime for stuff that was once considered included in the fare you paid the airline for transit, really ought to concern us all.

    Personally, I've always resented being charged extra for checked baggage, particularly since the nearest non-interisland destination to us is San Francisco (2,400 miles away), and all nonstop and direct flights to and from Hawaii are a minimum of five hours in length. That means we're likely going to be gone for a few days at least. The same goes for tourists coming here; the odds are better than even that you're not going to fly to Honolulu, spend a night in Waikiki, and then fly back home the following day. The flight times and distances involved in transit tend to preclude that.

    And now, the three largest U.S. airlines -- United, American and Delta -- want to charge coach passengers to use the cabin's overhead bins. The ready adoption of such punitive revenue-generating policies is why I seek to avoid those flying on those three particular carriers to the extent possible, which is admittedly not an easy thing for us to do when United is Hawaii's largest airline.

    But Hawaiian Airlines -- which was exclusively an interisland air carrier when I first moved here -- has gown steadily over these last 20 years and has cut accordingly into United's dominance of the non-interisland market. And now with its receipt of an additional 20 Airbus A321neo aircraft and 15 A330s later this year, Hawaiian is poised to seriously challenge United's primacy in the trans-Pacific travel market, not just between Hawaii and the U.S. mainland, but also between the U.S. west coast and Asia as well. And United is vulnerable.

    The biggest surprise to me in the airline industry has been the rise of once-small regional carriers like Hawaiian and Alaska, and the explosive growth of Southwest and JetBlue, all of which are now major players. I believe that this growth can be directly attributed, at least in part, to the general and steady decline in the overall quality of the three aforementioned largest airlines.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Oh, I agree that it's all awful (none / 0) (#39)
    by Towanda on Sat May 06, 2017 at 10:45:32 AM EST
    except for Qantas, but we don't often go to Australia! And Southwest is better than most, but we don't have enough flights on it from our city.

    I ought to have said that United also is the number-one carrier from our city, but we have had such awful experiences with United for years --
     the time that I found a piece of the plane on the floor, and the flight stewards literally duct-taped other parts of it together before our eyes, and more . . . all of which got me a $25 voucher to fly United again, which I tore up -- leaves us with Delta as next-best.  

    That is, next-best way to be treated like cattle sent into a series of tubes -- at security and on the plane, just another metal tube -- and shot into the air.  At least cattle are too smart to pay thousands of dollars for it.

    Parent

    ... when I have business in California. The airline is prompt and dependable, and they don't charge you extra for your first two pieces of checked luggage. But Southwest also does not necessarily have the cheapest air fares anymore, as was long advertised and most people still tend to believe. United Airlines, which was its primary competitor in the California market, has greatly curtailed its intrastate service there over the last ten years, concentrating instead on its long-distance routes out of LAX and SFO.

    In fact, in the Southern California market where it's long been dominant, Southwest tends to be rather pricey, especially if you choose to fly in and out of one of the more convenient regional airports such as Burbank, Long Beach or Santa Ana, rather than LAX. Hopefully, Alaska Airlines will challenge that dominance and bring those intrastate fares down now that it's bought out Virgin America, which was HQ'ed at SFO.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    The couple did the right thing (none / 0) (#13)
    by McBain on Fri May 05, 2017 at 02:44:48 PM EST
    by stating their case and then leaving the plane.  It doesn't appear they threw a tanturm.  

    Parent
    So says the High Priest of Airline Protocols. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 05, 2017 at 03:10:11 PM EST
    I would like to have the title (none / 0) (#19)
    by MKS on Fri May 05, 2017 at 04:24:58 PM EST
    "High Priest."  What do I gotta do to get it?

    Parent
    Would settle for Exalted Cyclops? (none / 0) (#20)
    by jondee on Fri May 05, 2017 at 04:29:28 PM EST
    There's a sometime poster here who might be able to help you out.

    Parent
    Speaking for myself only, I'm now ... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 05, 2017 at 05:04:34 PM EST
    Send $1 to this guy in San Francisco, ... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 05, 2017 at 04:57:39 PM EST
    ... and he'll explain it all to you. And just as a head's up, the title of "High Priest of Higher Broderism" has already been taken.

    ;-D

    Parent

    And meanwhile, over at United Airlines, ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 05, 2017 at 03:21:45 PM EST
    ... a non-English speaking French citizen winds up taking a very circuitous route back home:

    San Francisco Chronicle | May 5, 2017
    United Airlines passenger who thought she was traveling to Paris, lands in SFO - "A United Airlines passenger boarded a plane in Newark believing that she was headed to Paris. Hours later, the plane touched down at San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Lucie Bahetoukilae, a French woman who does not speak English, carried a boarding pass that read, 'Newark to Charles de Gaulle,' reports ABC 7. She approached the gate listed on the pass, where a flight attendant scanned her ticket before she boarded the plane. With her niece acting as translator, Bahetoukilae recalled approaching her seat - 22C - only to find it already occupied. Bahetoukilae said the flight attendant came over to look at her boarding pass before assigning her a new seat. Three thousand miles later, Bahetoukilae disembarked at SFO, where she reportedly waited an additional 11 hours before boarding a flight back to Paris. In total, she claims to have been traveling for 28 hours. Bahetoukilae said she did not realize that the airline had changed her flight's boarding gate. She told ABC that United did not make a gate announcement in French or notify her by email."

    United would do well to beef up its quality control office.


    Parent

    On a much smaller scale... (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 05, 2017 at 04:23:29 PM EST
    I had a bud who once wanted to fly from Chicago Midway to Jackson, TN on Southern Airlines. He said he was running late, dashed up to the ticket counter, whipped out his air travel card, blurted out his name and said he had a reservation on the Jackson flight, which he had.

    He got his ticket, got on the plane only after take off discovered he was on his way to Jackson, MS. About 250 miles south of Jackson, TN.

    The company travel agent blamed Southern who blamed the agent...He got to Jackson, TN the next day via a Memphis connection.

    Parent

    That's really dating yourself, Jim. ;-D (none / 0) (#25)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 05, 2017 at 05:30:09 PM EST
    Southern Airways merged with North Central Airlines in 1979 to become Republic Airlines, which then bought Hughes Air West in 1980, before being bought out by and merged into Northwest Airlines in 1996, which in turn got bought out by and merged into the bloated corporate carcass known as Delta Air Lines in 2008.

    All this, of course, sums up just about everything that's gone wrong in the airline industry since the advent of deregulation and the demise of the Civil Aeronautics Board in 1978, namely corporate consolidation. What was once five different airlines has now been folded into one big inefficient airline.

    About 12 years ago, my wife and I went to Sydney, Australia on United Airlines, and much to our surprise and eventual consternation, our direct flight via Auckland, NZ got cancelled and we were re-routed instead through San Francisco. Some 12 hours after departing Honolulu, my wife nudged me and told me to look out the aircraft window -- and down below us was the island of Oahu, which we were then flying over at 38,000 feet.

    Such is air travel in the 21st century.

    Parent

    I'm 79 Donald and yes I am dated, ;-) (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 05, 2017 at 07:16:18 PM EST
    I covered the SE as a Sales Rep from '76 until Jan '80 when I was promoted and moved...Southern flew in and out to places no one else served. It was always single class of service and the joke among us regulars was "Nobody's First Class on Southern." They served a cheese and cracker snack with a bottle of Merlot that was bad beyond description... Having no shame I once talked a Flight Attendant out of 4 of these 6 oz bottles plus mine and had them  plus a Mars Bar for dinner. I still remember the hangover.

    Many of the towns Southern served no longer have air service.

    Living in the Denver area the last 17 years of my career I became a (multi) Million Miler on United. I found the Denver folks to be great and the San Fran and Chicago folks to be cold and authorization. But either way if you live in Denver and fly a lot then UAL is your choice.

    One of the things I am happy about is that my air travel is very limited.

    Parent

    they should sue (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 05, 2017 at 05:16:25 PM EST
    with one demand being the employee who threatened thierchidren be fired.

    Parent
    80 years ago tomorrow, on May 6, 1937,... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 05, 2017 at 08:21:30 PM EST
    "It's starting to rain again; it's... the rain had (uh) slacked up a little bit. The back motors of the ship are just holding it (uh) just enough to keep it from-- It's burst into flames! Get this, Charlie; get this, Charlie! It's fire-- and it's crashing! It's crashing terrible! Oh, my! Get out of the way, please! It's burning and bursting into flames and the-- and it's falling on the mooring mast. And all the folks agree that this is terrible; this is the worst of the worst catastrophes in the world. Oh it's-- [unintelligible] its flames-- Crashing, oh! Four- or five-hundred feet into the sky and it-- it's a terrific crash, ladies and gentlemen. It's smoke, and it's in flames now; and the frame is crashing to the ground, not quite to the mooring mast. Oh, the humanity! [...] Honest: I-- I can hardly breathe. I-- I'm going to step inside, where I cannot see it. Charlie, that's terrible. Ah, ah-- I can't. Listen, folks; I-- I'm gonna have to stop for a minute because I've lost my voice. This is the worst thing I've ever witnessed."
    - Herbert Morrison, WLS Radio of Chicago (May 6, 1937)

    ... Nazi Germany's flagship zeppelin, LZ-129 Hindenburg, caught fire while attempting to moor itself in the face of a fast-approaching thunderstorm at Lakehurst Naval Air Station, NJ outside New York City, after completing its nonstop flight from Berlin.

    The Hindenburg's rear air tanks, full of volatile hydrogen rather than the inert gas helium, exploded in a massive fireball that was likely ignited by an electrostatic discharge due to the unstable weather conditions.

    Rapidly engulfed in flames, the airship quickly burned and collapsed to the ground within 90 seconds. Amazingly, 62 of the 97 passengers and crew who were aboard at the time managed to survive the crash. One worker on the ground died, raising the final death toll to 36.

    The celebrated arrival of the Hindenburg in New York was being filmed by Britain's Pathé News Service that evening for later use in theatre newsreels, and was further being recorded by announcer Herbert Morrison for a later broadcast on Chicago's WLS-AM radio. Morrison's breathless lament upon witnessing the disaster came to define one of the iconic moments in aviation history.

    The Hindenburg tragedy shattered public confidence in the safety of such dirigible airships and abruptly ended the short era of trans-Atlantic zeppelin travel. One year later, a Lufthansa Focke-Wulf Fw-200 Condor long-range airliner flew nonstop round-trip between Berlin and New York, conclusively demonstrating the capacity and reliability of the airplane as the primary vehicle for trans-Atlantic air travel.

    After the end of the Second World War, the availability of long runways on the Atlantic seaboard and in the British Isles made regular civilian trans-Atlantic air crossings both feasible and inevitable. In January 1946, a Pan American World Airways DC-4 departed New York's La Guardia Airport on a 17-hour, 40 minute trip to London via Gander, Newfoundland and Shannon, Ireland, heralding a new era in long-distance passenger air travel which continues to this day.

    Aloha.

    The Hindenburg using hydrogen (none / 0) (#31)
    by McBain on Fri May 05, 2017 at 08:39:07 PM EST
    was like Apollo 1 using pure oxygen.  It took an epic disaster to prove it wasn't a good idea.  I'm sure there were reasons why they did what they did.... lighter, cheaper, whatever.  

    Parent
    In the 1920s and '30s, helium was ... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 06, 2017 at 04:10:41 AM EST
    ... a relatively rare and extremely expensive element, because that inert gas was only obtained as a byproduct of mined natural gas reserves found in the United States. With the country holding a monopoly on its supply, Congress had prohibited its export to foreign countries was prohibited under the Helium Control Act of 1927.

    Hydrogen, on the other hand, could and can be cheaply and quickly produced in mass quantities by any industrialized nation, and since in its gaseous state it is much lighter than helium, it also provided more lift to dirigibles. Its obvious downside, of course, was its extreme volatility.

    That said, the greatest airship disaster in history was actually the one which befell the U.S. Navy's USS Akron (ZRS-4), a helium-filled vessel that was roughly comparable to the Hindenburg in size. The Akron crashed during a thunderstorm off the New Jersey coast on April 4, 1933, killing 73 of its 76 passengers and crew. Most all died from drowning and / or hypothermia, because the Akron had not been outfitted with either life vests or life rafts, even though it was operating regularly over open waters off the east coast.

    Among the dead was Rear Admiral William A. Moffett, who ironically had been the Navy's foremost proponent for the use of airships in that branch's operations. His death and the Akron's destruction signaled the beginning of the end of the Navy's airship program, because construction of other vessels was halted.

    As a direct result of the tragedy, the Akron's sister airship USS Macon (ZRS-5) was outfitted with life vests and life rafts. When the Macon crashed off California's Big Sur coast in February 26, 1935, 70 of its 72 crewmembers were subsequently rescued, thanks in large part to the emergency evacuation equipment they had at their immediate disposal.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    It's Derby Day! (none / 0) (#51)
    by Chuck0 on Sat May 06, 2017 at 03:46:53 PM EST
    I'm going with Irish War Cry and Thunder Snow in The Run for the Roses. The Preakness follows on the 20th. That's right around my birthday but I can't take the crowds at Pimlico so we will have a day of horse racing at Delaware Park in Wilmington. The day ends with the Preakness on a ginormous diamond vision screen trackside.

    What happened to Thunder Snow? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Peter G on Sat May 06, 2017 at 09:04:26 PM EST
    He stopped about a third of the way down the first stretch and dropped out of the race. Injury? Mental freak-out? I couldn't tell, and didn't hear any explanation in the TV coverage.

    Parent
    Found an article on WaPo (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Chuck0 on Sun May 07, 2017 at 08:54:23 AM EST
    Seems he misstepped coming out of the gate and then just decided he didn't want to run in the mud. No injury. Horse is well.

    Parent
    I wish I knew (none / 0) (#75)
    by Chuck0 on Sun May 07, 2017 at 06:35:57 AM EST
    Was hoping to find some news today.

    Parent
    GUERRILLA (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat May 06, 2017 at 06:18:12 PM EST
    another excellent series on SHO.

    i had been DVRing it and just got around to it.  it really is good.

    A public service announcement (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 06, 2017 at 08:22:42 PM EST
    Grrrrrrr - I keep up with my machines maintenance and am very careful to do what the book says...Today I threw the belt off my John Deere L110 mower deck. In the process of figuring out how to get it back on the pulley's I discovered two lubricating nipples on the blades's spindles. Since I had never used them I went to the book and discovered why.

    They aren't listed or shown.

    In case you have a L110 the left side is concealed underneath the pulley cover. Take the cover off and clean the spindle and it's right there. On the right side there's no cover but the nipple is partially hid behind a belt guide. You won't see it unless you're looking for a nipple.

    Last year I had to have the right spindle replaced. Cost me $165. Come Monday I'm gonna have an interesting conversation with my local JD dealer.

    MacronGate (none / 0) (#73)
    by linea on Sat May 06, 2017 at 10:42:54 PM EST
    there seems to be a lot of this:
    De nouveaux documents prouvent une évasion fiscale massive de la part de #Macron

    the allegations are that macron is involved in a massive tax evasion scheme using a company he opened in the bahamas with a bank that has been previously involved in tax evasion fraud.

    Please stop.

    Parent
    it's news (none / 0) (#77)
    by linea on Sun May 07, 2017 at 09:18:47 AM EST
    this is apparently from the massive wikileaks dump. im not endorsing the information. im just reporting.

    france always has a very high voter turnout. im sure emmanuel macron will win.


    Parent

    Whether he will win ... (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Yman on Sun May 07, 2017 at 09:49:57 AM EST
    ... is irrelevant to the issue of why you choose (repeatedly) to "report" rightwing smears without any evidence.

    Parent
    Macron has won the French presidency (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by caseyOR on Sun May 07, 2017 at 01:05:42 PM EST
    with an estimated 65% of the vote. Thank god the French have a straight-up election system where the person who gets the most votes wins the election. Imagine if the U.S. had such a simple common sense system.

    Parent
    I recommend that you (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Towanda on Sun May 07, 2017 at 10:34:18 AM EST
    develop critical-thinking skills.  

    You found that nonsense, so you certainly can find and report  information -- which I see widely disseminated -- about the falsehoods embedded in the hacks by the disgraced Icky Leaks.

    But you have your uses here, exemplifying the need for  critical-thinking skills in too much of our populace, which also is too prone to your excuse.  I have heard that one from many an F student.

    Parent

    linea. don't let those folks (1.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 07, 2017 at 11:59:42 AM EST
    who fancy themselves blog editors wear you down. They are just commentators just like you and me.

    Here's a link to GotNews.com" that has quite a bit of information.

    Like everything on the net it may or may not be true. But the interesting thing is that the French media is rather tepid in denial, focusing more on the fact that the information is hacked rather than content.

    Very similar to the defense of the DNC's hacked server contents.

    Showing that people care about content, not where it came from.

    Remember that the National Enquirer was the only media to break the John Edwards story.

    Parent

    Yeah, just like Trump (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Lora on Sun May 07, 2017 at 12:41:57 PM EST
    Trump has been extremely vocal against leakers with respect to his own administration, and quick to ignore the sometimes very serious content divulged by the leakers.

    Parent
    i agree. (none / 0) (#87)
    by linea on Sun May 07, 2017 at 01:30:10 PM EST
    also, i posted information. i believe i posted it neutrally without any opinion. i doubt most people here knew the details of the recent wikileaks issue in france so i provided it. of course im aware certain contrarians on this site will claim "i knew that" after reading my post and those same contrarians will start an argument if i post "kittens are cute."

    if you like, i can give my OPINION on the topic: wikileaks has been generally consistant in releasing actual leaked or hacked or stolen documents. i expect it's probably the same with the macron information. my opinion is that emmanuel macron probably is avoiding paying french taxes using a company in the bahamas but i doubt it's illegal because billionaires and corporations can take advantage of special tax loopholes. and again, im certain emmanuel macron will win the election and while im not a centrist; im not a marine le pen supporter either.

    Parent

    ... information and innuendo, and it's best that you first educate yourself as to that difference, before posting such "findings." I'm pretty fluent in French, and that statement you posted above was nothing but a baseless right-wing political smear.

    Parent
    ok, im sorry (4.00 / 1) (#106)
    by linea on Sun May 07, 2017 at 07:56:02 PM EST
    YESTERDAY
    all social media was tweeting about the wikileaks dump and that's what i found. it isnt a lot of information, and that's all i know, but i thought maybe it would be interesting to other people too. i admit it's not a great "scoop" and maybe i used the wrong tweet. im not fluent in french so it's a LOT OF WORK to read french tweets.

    so im sorry.
    i posted innuendo rather than information.

    linea, there is a distinct difference between ...
    ... information and innuendo


    Parent
    also!! (none / 0) (#88)
    by linea on Sun May 07, 2017 at 01:46:29 PM EST
    now i'm getting angry!

    im the only person on this site who has taken assange to task on the allegations of his sexual assaults and voiced absolutte support for the women involved.

    no one here has standing to lecture me on wikileaks.


    Parent

    When you post specious, right-wing ... (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Yman on Sun May 07, 2017 at 02:01:37 PM EST
    ... smears without the slightest bit of evidence, anyone has standing to challenge it.

    BTW - You haven't the slightest clue what people know about the Macron conspiracy theory.  I, for one, have read a lot about it, which is how I know that multiple news outlets (not 4Chan, Twitter or some winger website) have reported that the documents were fake, and the Telegraph reporting they were widely denounced as fake.

    Link 1

    Link 2


    Link 3

    Precisely why repeating these smears is completely irresponsible and why claims of "I'm just "reporting"" isn't releveant or credible.

    Parent

    AND (none / 0) (#89)
    by linea on Sun May 07, 2017 at 01:54:50 PM EST
    I MADE THAT POST YESTERDAY!!

    it's moot.

    seems they already predicted a winner. there isnt anything to discuss.


    Parent

    nothing but your (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 07, 2017 at 02:09:45 PM EST
    tireless endless cluless mouthing of stupid a$$hat right wing memes.

    you are angry?  oh my goodness!

    {{hugs}} (gag)

    why dont you give us a break and just shut up for a while?

    Parent

    well... (none / 0) (#105)
    by linea on Sun May 07, 2017 at 07:41:38 PM EST
    im open to apologizing for the post.

    but the fact that you accuse me of the "endless mouthing of right wing memes" proves you are an inconsiderate rude person who knows knothing about me.

    nothing but your
    by CaptHowdy

    tireless endless cluless mouthing of stupid a$$hat right wing memes.

    you are angry?  oh my goodness!

    {{hugs}} (gag)

    why dont you give us a break and just shut up for a while?



    Parent
    "Like everything on the net" (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by Yman on Sun May 07, 2017 at 01:00:23 PM EST
    Heh - no.  NOT "like everything on the net.  There are fake news sites that push wingnut smears an you link to them because you like the conspiracy theories they push, and there are real new sites that do fact checking, require evidence and corroboration.  These sites are real/actual news sites.

    Unless and until there is actual evidence of some kind of wrongdoing, this is just more fake news and wingnut smears and any responsible person would not repeat this garbage.

    BTW - The fact that the NE broke one news story does not excuse the garbage they've posted countless times.

    Parent

    How dare you insult CNN and MSNBC (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 07, 2017 at 02:06:27 PM EST
    More silly, specious, false claims (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Yman on Sun May 07, 2017 at 02:29:11 PM EST
    ... with no links, as usual.

    Parent
    Are you aware (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 07, 2017 at 07:16:36 PM EST
    that Macron himself had false documents hoping that Wikileaks would bite and they did?

    Parent
    Hmmmm, look who has joined (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 07, 2017 at 02:34:06 PM EST
    my forecast that single payer can happen under Trump

    "I think historically speaking we are at the midpoint. We had seven years of Obamacare, a change in expectations. And I would predict that in less than seven years, we will be in a single-payer system. I think that's the great irony of this," said Krauthammer.

    Link

    Charles Krauthammer? (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun May 07, 2017 at 03:32:15 PM EST
    Whatever. (Cue eye roll.) You are further assuming that Trump will somehow be re-elected whereas for his part, Krauthammer makes no such assumption here. All he did here was predict that in seven years, the U.S. healthcare system will be single payer. He didn't venture to say how it will happen, nor did he speculate under whose leadership such a change in policy might be implemented.

    Parent
    Well it won't happen under a Demo (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 07, 2017 at 09:02:44 PM EST
    The Repubs will unite and defeat it. (cue eye roll)

    OTOH Trump, who is in no way a Conservative, could fashion a group to get it done.

    Parent

    Hahahahaha ... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Yman on Sun May 07, 2017 at 09:50:19 PM EST
    Well it won't happen under a Demo
    The Repubs will unite and defeat it. (cue eye roll).

    Uhhmmm ... You know what an eye roll signifies, right?  Because Republicans absolutely WILL vehemently opposed a single payer system.  They've specifically said so (including the guy you laughably claim will get it done).  The only way it happens is with the collosal failure of Trumpcare, which will create a demand by the public so strong that Republicans can't defeat it.

    OTOH Trump, who is in no way a Conservative, could fashion a group to get it done.

    Even Krauthammer won't make that delusional claim, but it was pretty funny.  Unless you were serious, in which case ...

    ... it was really funny.


    Parent

    Repubs don't like this Trump bill (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 08, 2017 at 09:05:09 AM EST
    but he's pushed it out of the House.

    According to the Left Trump wasn't supposed to

    run......win nomination.....win general.....

    so claiming you know anything about what he will do is laughable.

    Parent

    Actually, more Repubs support ... (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by Yman on Mon May 08, 2017 at 09:52:21 AM EST
    ...this plan than oppose it, by a wide margin (41% approve, 24% disapprove).  So your claim is false, as usual.

    As far a what Trump's going to do, I'm just going by what he said he would do when he specifically denounced single payer.  But maybe you're right.  Maybe he was lying.  He and his supporters tend to do that a lot.

    Parent

    So him claiming (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by jondee on Mon May 08, 2017 at 10:02:27 AM EST
    he knows what "Repubs don't like" is laughable.

    Parent
    Actually supporting and liking are two (1.00 / 2) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 08, 2017 at 10:48:59 AM EST
    different words and concepts.

    So you your reading comprehension and language knowledge is false, as usual.

    And Obama said you could keep your doctor...when did you decide to not believe him?

    ;-)

    Parent

    Heh, heh, heh ... (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Yman on Mon May 08, 2017 at 11:09:44 AM EST
    So they "support" it, but they don't like it.

    Heh, heh, heh
    ...

    How would you know?  You're an "independent", right?  :)  Let's see your poll numbers showing they don't like it.

    (cue the crickets)

    Parent

    Duck and run for cover (none / 0) (#147)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 08, 2017 at 07:42:04 PM EST
    Yman has changed the meaning of words in the English language.

    There is no end to his talents and power.

    And please show me the poll that had Trump winning.


    Parent

    You're the only one running ... (none / 0) (#165)
    by Yman on Mon May 08, 2017 at 10:29:06 PM EST
    ... from your claim that Repubs don't like there Republican healthcare plan.  Do you really think your laughable claim and your inability to provide the slightest bit of evidence (while impotently trying to parse the difference between "like" and "support" - heh) isn't completely transparent?  It's what you do.  Make $hit up that's laughable, then run away when you get called in it.  Typical, cowardly winger.

    Parent
    Ah yes (none / 0) (#167)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 09, 2017 at 08:34:00 AM EST
    the Repubs liked the new plan so well that it took days and days of arm twisting to get them to support it.

    Do you ever watch/read anything besides KOS, Media Matters or MSNBC?

    Parent

    So you want to pretend ... (none / 0) (#169)
    by Yman on Tue May 09, 2017 at 09:02:02 AM EST
    ... that the small minority that refused to support it immediately represent the Repubs, as opposed to the vast majority of Repubs that supported it immediately and the 90 percent that voted for it.

    That's your evidence that Repubs don't like it?!?

    Heh.

    Parent

    im shocked (none / 0) (#109)
    by linea on Sun May 07, 2017 at 10:12:31 PM EST
    that some democrats on TL have antipathy toward senator bernie sanders' healthcare proposal of "medicare for all."

    i feel this is the only reasonable solution and i expected it to be reality sooner rather than later. i dont see any reason why president trump would be opposed to single-payer. businesses and corporate interests should champion this. im under the impression that it is the sophomoric delusion of libertarianism in america that is holding back appropriate health care. in my opinion.

    im shocked bernie sanders' proposal isnt the current platforn of the american democratic party.

    come on centrists! seriously?

    Parent

    ... to all U.S. taxpayers and their dependents is hardly a recent one, and it long predates Sen. Sanders' campaign. The late Sen. Edward Kennedy, along with his House counterpart Rep. Charles Dingell, first introduced legislation to that effect back in April 2007.

    From the first introduction of legislation for a national health insurance program by the American Association of Labor Legislation in 1915, it took this country 50 years before the bill creating the Medicare and Medicaid programs were approved by Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    It is John Dingell, not Charles. (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by caseyOR on Mon May 08, 2017 at 01:59:18 PM EST
    Dingell's attempts to create a national single-payer system started in 1957. Before that, in 1943, Dingell's father, who was a congressman, introduced a bill to establish a national single-payer system. It went nowhere. After his father died, John Dingell was elected to the same congressional seat, and in  1957 introduced his bill for a single-payer system. He introduced that bill every session of Congress from then on.

    Here is an interesting series of tweets from Dingell laying out the history of this fight over the years.

    Parent

    I stand corrected (none / 0) (#135)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 08, 2017 at 04:01:40 PM EST
    Thank you for that particular clarification, and also for the further information about Rep. Dingell's career-long efforts to create a single payer healthcare system.

    Parent
    Congressman John Conyers has (none / 0) (#180)
    by caseyOR on Tue May 09, 2017 at 01:04:24 PM EST
    introduced H.R. 676 every year starting in 2003.

    H.R. 676 would expand Medicare to cover all Americans, thus establishing a single-payer system.

    While I welcome all into the single-payer fold, Bernie Sanders seems to be ripping off the work of Conyers and Dingell. He could have signed on as a co-sponsor to Conyers bill instead of acting like he was proposing something new.

    Parent

    How could a U.S. Senator (none / 0) (#181)
    by Peter G on Tue May 09, 2017 at 01:14:09 PM EST
    co-sponsor a House bill? Otherwise, good point about giving credit where credit is due.

    Parent
    Good question, Peter. (none / 0) (#183)
    by caseyOR on Tue May 09, 2017 at 01:50:46 PM EST
    To be sure that I knew what I was talking about I called the office of my congressperson and asked them if a bill could be co-sponsored by a senator and a congressperson. The woman who answered the phone was unsure, so she took my phone number so she could talk to a legislative aide about this.

    She just called back with the answer. Yes, a senator and congressperson can be co-sponsors if they introduce the same bill into their respective chambers.


    Parent

    Seriously (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by Towanda on Mon May 08, 2017 at 12:21:37 AM EST
    what is shocking is that you are attacking without knowledge of long discussions of this here -- and of the history of health care coverage proposals since Truman.

    Parent
    I'm shocked (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by Yman on Mon May 08, 2017 at 08:40:23 AM EST
    im shocked that some democrats on TL have antipathy toward senator bernie sanders' healthcare proposal of "medicare for all.

    I'm shocked that someone would make such a baseless claim without evidence.  I'm shocked that some people think this concept belongs to Bernie, when he's not the first (and won't be the last) proponent of a single payer system.  I'm shocked that non-Democrats pretend to lecture actual Democrats on what they should believe and what should be in their platform.


    Parent

    I just want to know what my choices are (none / 0) (#111)
    by McBain on Sun May 07, 2017 at 11:02:17 PM EST
    and what I can expect to pay each year.  The problem I had with ACA was, as someone with a fluctuating income, it wasn't clear how much ACA plans would cost me. I also didn't like how it rewarded some people for choosing not to work.

    The Trump plan, from what I can see, doesn't give subsidies/tax breaks based on income but rather on age. I'm OK with that.  Not sure about single payer but certainty not strongly against it.  

    Parent

    includes (none / 0) (#112)
    by linea on Sun May 07, 2017 at 11:21:09 PM EST
    • A 6.2 percent income-based health care premium paid by employers.
    • A 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households.

    Medicare for All: Leaving No One Behind

    i dont currently have healthcare. i understand the fluctuating income issue. i would be automatically covered under Medicare for All but with ACA im in a difficult situation.

    p.s. i feel the 2.2% personal premium is very low. i would be fine with lowering the corporate responsibility and upping the houshold percentage but im not an expert.

    Parent

    I would hazard a guess (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Chuck0 on Mon May 08, 2017 at 07:08:36 AM EST
    that you do have access to health care should you need it or have an emergency. What you may not currently have is health insurance. The ACA was not a health care bill. It was a health INSURANCE bill. And for the record, I'm fully supportive of single payer. Always have, always will. I grew up with government provided healthcare. It was excellent. It is called the US Naval Medical Corp. I see no reason why a similar system cannot be created for all.

    Parent
    Judging by (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 08, 2017 at 07:24:25 AM EST
    Vermont and Colorado the biggest problem is getting people to pay for it.

    Parent
    The issue was, is and will be (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 08, 2017 at 09:21:32 AM EST
    who pays.

    Obamacare was welfare. Some people's costs were paid for by their fellow citizens. The amount paid was different for different people.

    That's nuts. That isn't fair.

    Single payer won't be acceptable by the majority until all the users pay the same.

    Parent

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Yman on Mon May 08, 2017 at 11:26:19 AM EST
    Obamacare was welfare. Some people's costs were paid for by their fellow citizens. The amount paid was different for different people.

    That's nuts. That isn't fair.

    Single payer won't be acceptable by the majority until all the users pay the same

    .

    So by your definition, the SS payments you and the Mrs. receive are "welfare"?  The tax benefits you get due to your age are "welfare"?  All the excess federal funds your red state receives from those of us "donor" states is "welfare"?

    Good to know.

    Parent

    It's only called "welfare" when you're (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by jondee on Mon May 08, 2017 at 11:31:48 AM EST
    black, and the speaker is a dogwhistling right wing a-hole.

    Parent
    In case you have been in a cave (none / 0) (#136)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 08, 2017 at 04:12:00 PM EST
    for your whole life I, and my wife, paid into the Social Security fund every penny the government asked. I myself started in 1952. My wife in 1955. We also paid every dime the Medicare tax demanded.

    Your feeble attempt at an analogy is insulting to the millions of us who have done so. But that is your usual SOP.

    The tax benefits you refer to are, to the best of my knowledge, a doubling of the Standard Deduction when we reach age 65. We feel so ashamed.

    Of course we don't pay FIT on Social Security payments if our total income is $25,000 or less.
    After that a sliding amount is taxable up to 85% dependent on income. Of course we have paid taxes on all of the money we invested in social security.

    And any "pretax" money we invested in the past is taxed when withdrawn. In fact, we must, by law, withdraw a percentage, at least 10% a year, when we reach a certain age and pay taxes on it.

    Of course IF you itemize that doubling of the Standard Deduction you are so jealous of, doesn't apply. So you're playing nasty nasty with incomplete information. But again, that is your SOP.

    You probably know this but in case you don't, millions pay no FIT at all. And millions, using the Earned Income Credit, get a refund when they have not paid in.

    I am sure you will respond with a strong condemnation of these individuals and demand we junk our current tax system and replace it with a fair consumption tax.

    As for your usual and standard whining about how much each state gets and how much it sends to the feds, these "studies" always seem to ignore many relevant facts. These would be such things as military bases, research facilities, research grants to colleges. Now NYC and the surrounding area of CT and NJ are the center of the country's financial system. It's financial institutions employees are paid handsomely, and I expect, pay a lot in FIT. Yet most of the money they invest come from other places. Shouldn't we recognize that the tax money paid by a NYC stock broker on the sale of a stock to a MS investor is money enabled by the MS dude?

    How should these things be factored in?

    I confess I don't know. And I add that it is a fool's errand to try and quantify such nebulous and highly subjective information. But please keep trying.

    Parent

    The truth hurts, huh? (none / 0) (#164)
    by Yman on Mon May 08, 2017 at 10:22:07 PM EST
    There's nothing "feeble" about my completely accurate demonstration of your hypocrisy.  This is what YOU claimed was "welfare":

    Obamacare was welfare. Some people's costs were paid for by their fellow citizens. The amount paid was different for different people.

    But then, when it's pointed out that the benefits that you and the Mrs. receive are paid for by your fellow citizens, you try backpedaling to a different standard.  I hate to break it to you, but you and the Mrs. started drawing more benefits than you contributed many years ago.  So the reality your costs are being "paid for by your fellow citizens."  That is YOUR definition of welfare.  Well, it was ...

    ... until it was pointed out that you just defined yourself.

    Oops.

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    Parent

    Really?? (none / 0) (#170)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 09, 2017 at 09:20:52 AM EST
    You want to ignore all the monies paid into Social Security and Medicare?

    Wow.

    You have no knowledge of how much was paid in.

    Please continue with your obvious hateful and fact free comments.

    You do do them so well.

    ;-)

    BTW - When are you going to send me your share of the income I lost in choosing to serve my country rather than going into private industry?

    Parent

    Serving your country (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by jondee on Tue May 09, 2017 at 10:17:23 AM EST
    is how guys like you spin that other massive government program set up for people who can't find a job.

    And after years of reliance on government/tax payer largesse in one form or another, you still begrudge the fact that poor people are able to take their children to the doctor.

    What's the next basket below "deplorable"?


    Parent

    Duck,, dive, dodge (none / 0) (#176)
    by Yman on Tue May 09, 2017 at 10:43:40 AM EST
    The average SS recipient receives retirenent benefits that equal their contributions in the first 7 years after term retirement.  Medicare beneficiaries even quicker.  But I understand why you'd try to ignore that and ignore the blatant hypocrisy in the room.

    As far as your income, that was your decision to not go into to private industry, just as I chose a lower paying profession (teaching) for a few years.  The difference being, I don't go around acting like I'm entitled to a lifetime handout afterwards.  It's called personal choices/responsibility - a difficult concept for most conservatives.

    Parent

    The issue also is and will (none / 0) (#125)
    by jondee on Mon May 08, 2017 at 09:57:18 AM EST
    be that Trump pledged a loyalty oath to a GOP that's been hijacked by ultra-conservatives and teabaggers who see single payer as the first step toward state socialism.

    The claim that Trump will ever push for single payer is laughable, self-deluded nonsense on the part of those who refuse to be honest enough to admit the extent to which ideologues with deep pockets have taken over Trump's side of the aisle.

    Parent

    "All users pay the same" what, Jim? (none / 0) (#127)
    by Peter G on Mon May 08, 2017 at 10:37:45 AM EST
    I don't understand what you're suggesting. Same amount of money for their health insurance premium? (Highly regressive.) If so, per person? Per family or household? Same percentage of their wealth? (Highly progressive.) Same percentage of their taxable income? (Somewhat progressive.) Something else?

    Parent
    My suggestion has been the same for the years (none / 0) (#149)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 08, 2017 at 07:51:44 PM EST
    I have stated my support for a single payer system.

    A point of sales tax. (Not a VAT.) Certain items can be excluded to make it "fairer." E.g. Unprocessed food, utilities, fuel for private vehicles, etc.

    Everyone. Doctors, Lawyers, Indian Chiefs. Poor Man, Rich Man, Beggar Man, Thief.

    It is the only way it will ever get done.

    Parent

    Do you have a calculation of what percentage (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Peter G on Mon May 08, 2017 at 08:25:53 PM EST
    uniform national sales tax would be needed to fund a single-payer health care plan? Since the poor, working class and true middle class pay a very high percentage of their wage income on necessities, and have no passive income, a sales tax is highly regressive and greatly favors the rich. Not my conception of "fair." More like "the law's majesty," per Les Miserables, forbidding the rich and poor alike to steal bread and to sleep under bridges.

    Parent
    I've seen (none / 0) (#168)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 09, 2017 at 09:01:18 AM EST
    14-17% on taxable items. That would not apply on all necessary items.

    I find that many people confuse "fair" and "good."

    The graduated income tax is not and never has been "fair." But Congress has tinkered with it time and again to get re-elected by making it "more fair."

    It obviously is a "good" thing if you believe that redistributing income is a goal of government.

    It suited me greatly when I could deduct the mortgage interest on my home loan. It was a good thing.

    It was not a fair thing to the poor who could not afford to buy a house.

    It didn't bother me when the poor was provided Medicaid. It was a good thing.

    OTOH it was not fair that I had to pay for my own healthcare insurance. I could have invested that money to my advantage.

    IOW you favor the government selecting winners and losers.


    Parent

    Please do not tell me, in your own chosen words (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by Peter G on Tue May 09, 2017 at 09:37:06 AM EST
    what I favor. I do not agree that treating unlike categories alike is just, fair, or even "equal." What I favor, as far as government and public policy is concerned, is using the power of government to advance the common good, as determined in a representative democratic process, with robust protections for minority rights, including civil rights and civil liberties.

    Parent
    If you want to say that (none / 0) (#175)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 09, 2017 at 10:40:11 AM EST
    government should pay for some people's health care with other people's money.... which is what I understand you are saying....that is certainly your right.

    We already pay for a cellphone for the "poor" in the guise that they need one to seek employment. That seems very necessary.

    What's next? Shall we buy them a car so that they can get to a job if there is no public transportation available?

    What we have here is that old "slippery slope." And I didn't mean to offend you. But "fair" is very much in the eye of the beholder and adding free health care for some while increasing taxes for others to pay for it, and that was exactly where Obamacare and any other "defined means" plan leads to, is a non starter to Joe and Jane Six Pack. And Joe and Jane disliked Obamacare for that reason and will fight tooth and nail against it.

    Parent

    Joe and Jane Confederate flag's (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by jondee on Tue May 09, 2017 at 11:29:34 AM EST
    resentful feelings about the poor getting any kind of help has had very little to do with the ongoing opposition to a single payer system.

    Your deeply ingrained kiss-up-kick-down, racist instincts notwithstanding.

    Most of the truly consquential opposition to single payer has come from the deep pocketed anti-government right-libertarian quarter and from the insurence lobby.

    Though they deeply appreciate it when stooges like you deflect attention from them and encourage resentment towards the poor for getting too much "free stuff."

    Parent

    Again you use reactionary buzz-words (none / 0) (#179)
    by Peter G on Tue May 09, 2017 at 12:25:09 PM EST
    to mischaracterize and re-state my position. I am pretty sure that my writing is clear enough that you don't have to use any words other than my own to say what you "understand" my position to be. Since I do not view a fair system of taxation as the equivalent of theft, extortion or misappropriation, I do not find the "other people's money" interpretation helpful. Taxation, as I said, is in principle a democratically designed system by which everyone contributes to the common good. Health care for all is a common good that benefits society as a whole in myriad ways, not a private benefit for each individual. It is not equivalent to the sheriff coming to your house and forcing you to buy your neighbor a new TV or a new car.

    Parent
    What reactionary buzz words?? (none / 0) (#182)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 09, 2017 at 01:24:28 PM EST
    Joe and Jane Sixpack? Well, if that commonly used description of working Americans offends you, well I don't know what to say.

    You seem to forget that I am for a single payer system and am merely trying to explain why it won't pass as another welfare program.

    You wrote:

    Taxation, as I said, is in principle a democratically designed system by which everyone contributes to the common good.

    And I agree with that and with the following.

    Health care for all is a common good that benefits society as a whole in myriad ways, not a private benefit for each individual.

    But, if everyone contributes to the common good, what is wrong with everyone paying a tax, on certain goods, for everyone's health care.

    What has happened is that many Americans see too many benefits given to too many people.

    Parent

    Buzzwords: (none / 0) (#184)
    by Peter G on Tue May 09, 2017 at 02:35:47 PM EST
    that the question is whether "government should pay for some people's health care with other people's money."


    Parent
    Sorry, but that is the question. (2.00 / 1) (#186)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 09, 2017 at 03:55:43 PM EST
    Welfare program.. (none / 0) (#185)
    by jondee on Tue May 09, 2017 at 03:20:02 PM EST
    another stigmatizing buzzword.

    Your conservative heroes will just do what they've always done, and scare Joe and Jane String-Em-Up by calling it communism and socialism.

    And they'll swallow it.

    Like pain pills and the idea of Trump as presidential material.

    Parent

    jondee, I'm gonna take a (none / 0) (#187)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 09, 2017 at 03:57:33 PM EST
    coffee break. You can start thinking up better responses than

    Welfare program.. (none / 0) (#185)
    by jondee on Tue May 09, 2017 at 02:20:02 PM CST
    another stigmatizing buzzword

    That's what they are.

    Parent

    The question is (none / 0) (#188)
    by jondee on Tue May 09, 2017 at 04:24:20 PM EST
    do people like them but not support them,
    or do they support them but not like them?

    You never specified.

    Parent

    From (none / 0) (#129)
    by FlJoe on Mon May 08, 2017 at 10:53:29 AM EST
    the it's all Obama's fault files

    Obama Warned Trump Against Hiring Mike Flynn, Say Officials


    Yep. (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 08, 2017 at 04:43:30 PM EST
    Per WH Press Secretary Sean Spicer four hours ago: "If President Obama was truly concerned, why didn't he revoke Gen Flynn's security clearance?"

    Word to Spicey: President Obama fired Gen. Flynn as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2013. Your boss hired him as his national security advisor.

    Parent

    My big takeaway from today's hearing: (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 08, 2017 at 04:55:10 PM EST
    The Trump administration covered up for the Russian stooge (Gen. Flynn), and fired the loyal American (Sally Yates).

    Parent
    why do you care? (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 08, 2017 at 05:18:16 PM EST
    the most remarkable thing i heard today was that the response of the white house counsel upon hearing about Flynn was "why do you care if one white house official is lying to another?"

    seriously.  just take that in for a minute.  setting aside the fact it was the National Secutiry Advisor lying to the VP.  what an unbelievable question.  what a trrrifying response.   these are the people charged with running and protecting our country.

    it boggles the mind.

    Parent

    ... at this point that Gen. Flynn lied to Vice Presient Mike Pence, for reasons I discussed earlier:

    "[I]f Vice President Mike Pence truly didn't know about Flynn's activities, our next question should therefore be, 'Then who did?'

    "It's highly unlikely that Flynn was a rogue operator, given the extent of contacts with Ambassador Kislyak and other prominent Russians by Trump campaign officials such as campaign chair Paul Manafort and foreign policy advisor Carter Page, et al. (At least, these are the ones we know about so far.) It's also pra'ctically inconceivable that they'd ALL be acting on their own respective initiatives simultaneously. In order to believe that, one would have to defy both logic and common sense.

    "But if Trump's transition officials were indeed so worried about Flynn as the Washington Post's story would suggest, then as head of the transition team for the president-elect, Pence most certainly had to have known about the general's activities and communications with Kislyak.

    "Suffice to say that the vice president -- and by extension, the Trump administration itself -- really can't have it both ways here."

    Now, here's what I really think. I believe that Mike Pence was less than honest and forthcoming regarding his prior knowledge of Gen. Flynn's activities, for the reasons above.

    Further, given the 18 days which transpired between Sally Yates' first warning to the White House and Flynn's resignation, I'd say it's pretty clear that Trump had absolutely no intention of firing his national security advisor, despite that warning, for much the same reason. He already knew and had approved of what Flynn had done.

    It was the Washington Post's breaking story on February 13 about Yates' warning which rendered Flynn a disposable commodity by making his continued presence at the White House entirely problematic -- and even then, that was only from a public relations standpoint.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    well sure (none / 0) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 08, 2017 at 06:35:00 PM EST
    i knew all that already.

    i did not know until today that the white house counsel, the freakin white house counsel, apparently did not understand why Flynn, the national security advisor, lying to whoever the hell he was lying to, laying him wide open to blakmail among other things, was a problem.

    Parent

    But Flynn can hardly be blackmailed ... (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 08, 2017 at 07:19:11 PM EST
    ... if there was already a quid pro quo arrangement in place between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. And that's what I'm getting at here.

    What's complicating the public discussion we see on TV is the media's general unwillingness -- as of this moment, anyway -- to set aside their own self-imposed boundaries and consider the entire range of real possibilities here, which includes Gen. Flynn perhaps not lying to the vice president after all, because both were in on the fix.

    It's entirely to the administration's benefit to have the public believe, or want to believe, that Flynn was both a liar and a rogue operator because it gives Trump and Pence both plausible deniability and cover, while Flynn becomes one of the fall guys.

    But given the extent of the Trump-Russia connections as we presently know them to have existed last fall, what's the actual likelihood that Flynn or any of these people were acting upon their own initiatives? It's pretty slim, I would imagine.

    With a few notable exceptions, the media has generally been pretty timid about reporting this story. I can understand and even empathize because it's a rather frightening one at that, given what's potentially at stake. But as a result of their clear failure to lead here rather than follow, they've been repeatedly scooped.

    David Corn first reported the existence of the Steele dossier in Mother Jones last October, 10 weeks before it broke in the Beltway. And blogger Louise Mensch -- whom I would also point out is a conservative and not a liberal -- was reporting on November 7 of last year that the FBI had obtained a FISA warrant, which was four months before anyone else.

    This is one story where it's best for people to consult multiple sources across the spectrum, rather than merely depend upon the mainstream media to hopefully get it right.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    if the russians knew he lied to the FBI (none / 0) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 08, 2017 at 07:46:16 PM EST
    and they did

    he could be blackmailed Donald.  if Pence was or others was in on it they could as well.  

    im not sure if you are suggesting i am depending on the MSM but i am not.

    the idea that Pence and others are up to their t!ts in this is not a revlation

    Parent

    also (none / 0) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 08, 2017 at 07:53:17 PM EST
    if the press is being "timid", which i don actually agree with, i would say with a story this important facts are needed.  they should not IMO be reporting anything that is not proven.  that would only give Trumps defenders tools to fend off actual proven facts.

    and the facts will come out. or enough of them,  it may take years but we will find out what Flynn did and what he tried to do.

    Parent

    Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post ... (none / 0) (#157)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 08, 2017 at 09:01:05 PM EST
    ... reported on January 23 that Flynn "was in the clear" and not subject to an FBI investigation. She was wrong. The New York Times reported last December that there was no FISA warrant and further, that "the FBI sees no clear links between Trump and Russia." Again, that was also wrong.

    And just look at how the Beltway media focused so myopically on the "Golden Showers" paragraph in the Steele dossier, tittering about it like they were a bunch of 12-year-olds ogling their very first Hustler magazine, and then poo-pooed the veracity of the rest of the document. As we now know, a lot of details in that dossier have seen been verified by U.S. intelligence. Have they acknowledged that? No, not really.

    I'm not worried about the media reporting recklessly on things about this story that aren't true or have yet to be confirmed. Rather, what concerns me has been their generally dismissive attitude regarding the Trump-Russia connection, and their willingness to report credulously on so-called information from dubious sources who are clearly seeking to lead them astray. It's left the media behind the curve on this story time and again.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    And here's another one. (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 08, 2017 at 09:25:25 PM EST
    Rep. Elijah Cummings confirmed to ShareBlue.com a week ago that he had specifically warned Mike Pence and the Trump transition team about Gen. Flynn's ties to the Turkish government last November:

    "In addition to being in the press in the fall -- well after General Flynn's last background check -- I warned the Vice President directly six months ago about the conflicts created by Lt. General Flynn's company lobbying on behalf of Turkish interests. It is unclear whether the White House heeded my warnings or did any vetting at all, but it's clear now that they could have prevented the problems that occurred with Lt. General Flynn. Republicans in Congress are doing a disservice to the White House and our national security interests by not conducting rigorous and serious oversight of the Administration, especially to help catch issues early and address them."

    And yet tonight, I'm still seeing and hearing pundits in the MSM's post-hearing discussion mistakenly affirm that Pence knew nothing about Flynn. That's just bullschitt.

    It's the MSM itself that needs to consult additional and multiple sources, Cap'n, not you. They seem to be just chattering amongst themselves.

    Aloha.

     

    Parent

    and even more so (none / 0) (#143)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 08, 2017 at 06:36:22 PM EST
    that he would actually SAY that to the acting AG.

    Parent
    i suspect (none / 0) (#144)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 08, 2017 at 06:38:23 PM EST
    this is going to start sinking in and this guys days are numbered.  even if Trump is to stupid or corrupt to care others will.

    Parent
    The question was (none / 0) (#146)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 08, 2017 at 07:30:34 PM EST
    why should the DOJ care if two WH officials lie to each other.

    And why should they?

    Unless, of course, they actually had proof of some crime being committed.

    And if they did, why didn't they have the proof available and what was it?

    And yes I know they said they'd find out IF the WH could see it and evidently did find out they could but it had to be in a super duper secret location. Whether or not it has been seen is not known.

    Does this mean the WH doesn't have facilities that are protected?? Was the evidence so secret that Sally couldn't bring it with her?

    Now stop and think. Sally said she'd find out IF the President's counsel could see it?

    Are you ffinng kidding me? Think about that. The counsel to the head of the Executive Branch, the President,can't see work product from one, or many, of his employees without the permission of the department who has the proof?? Say what????

    This is all BS. If Flynn has committed a crime, specify it. Charge him. Try him. And if convicted throw him in prison. Of it's treason, hang him.

    Oh wait, Fonda proved that helping the enemy isn't treason.

    Parent

    You're not even worth responding to, Jim. (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 08, 2017 at 08:39:25 PM EST
    You refuse to listen to anyone because you always think you know better, when you quite obviously don't. Have a nice evening.

    Parent
    i took the (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 08, 2017 at 08:41:20 PM EST
    novel approach of expressing that by not actually responding

    Parent
    LOL! (none / 0) (#162)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 08, 2017 at 09:40:22 PM EST
    Touché.

    Parent
    Heh, man, do I get (none / 0) (#189)
    by MKS on Tue May 09, 2017 at 07:12:52 PM EST
    brownie points for following your advice?

    I have held my tongue for a while now.  It feels good, freeing.

    Parent

    you absolutely do (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 09, 2017 at 07:15:41 PM EST
    Fabulous! (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by MKS on Tue May 09, 2017 at 07:16:36 PM EST
    I am a happy man.....

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#156)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 08, 2017 at 08:47:19 PM EST
    Look, it isn't me that is satisfied with the unresponsive non answers given by Yates.

    I mean, is there anyone currently alive who doesn't know that we are collecting every word spoken by the Russians who are in the US?

    What crime has Flynn committed? And unlike you, I want to know and if he has then charge him. Then try him and if convicted punish him.

    This is all BS and you just want to play politics.

    Parent

    What (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 09, 2017 at 05:28:20 AM EST
    crimes?
    Almost certain:
    Failure to register as a foreign agent
    Failure to disclose foreign contacts and payments on disclosures statements

    Possible: Lying to the FBI, mishandling of classified information.

    Reason to be suspicious: Espionage and conspiracy.

    Feel free to try and honestly defend him from any of these. Please don't insult me by coming back with one of your typical non answers.


    Parent

    Hmmmmm, I did not know (2.00 / 1) (#171)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 09, 2017 at 09:29:25 AM EST
    you were in the DOJ. How's the pay and benefits?

    Obviously you're not so what you have is called, are you ready?  "Speculation."

    But okie dokie, why not lay them out? Why all this pussy footing around?

    P O L I T I C S

    I say let's do it. Let's have the charges stated and let's try to indict and if we do let's have a trial and if we convict let's punish.

    Quit playing these BS games in an attempt to harm the setting government of the United States.


    Parent

    As (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 09, 2017 at 09:46:16 AM EST
    I thought, you can not answer at all, let alone honestly.

    You asked what the crimes were and I listed them, you reply with your total nonsense as usual.

    Parent

    The entire (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 08, 2017 at 08:39:18 PM EST
    GOP looked bad. It was a repeat of the Benghazi testimony. I guess the guys think they can just run all over a woman and get her to say what they want her to say.

    The whole thing boggles the mind. The GOP really was acting like they were just fine with Putin running things. The only problem they seem to have is that somebody found out about Putin helping them and told.

    Parent

    i thought (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 08, 2017 at 08:43:31 PM EST
    they looked even worse that Benghazi.  i think they are going to find, at least on this one subject, humping their nutty bases collective leg is not going to get it.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 08, 2017 at 09:12:15 PM EST
    they must be from Planet 9 and the only way they are going to learn that humping their insane base is not the way to go is by losing in the mid term elections and then 2020.

    Parent
    John McCain peens an Op-Ed worth reading (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon May 08, 2017 at 06:05:18 PM EST
    Why We Must Support Human Rights

    he spanks Tillerson pretty good.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 08, 2017 at 09:17:09 PM EST
    that's some major shade throwing on Tillerson but Tillerson is Putin's guy and as the saying goes birds of a feather flock together.

    Parent
    It's a wonderfully written op-ed as you said, but hey, even a broken clock, &etc. I'll take it more seriously when McCain announces that henceforth, he'll be putting his money where his mouth is by caucusing with Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats.

    Parent
    just reads like (none / 0) (#163)
    by linea on Mon May 08, 2017 at 09:48:56 PM EST
    a screed of american exceptionalism

    to me

    Parent