Restorationism will save our country from the arrogance, decadence, sloth and complacency of the baby boomer elites.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I see O'Malley trying to appeal to the Elizabeth Warren set. That's a useful role from the Progressive POV; he could get enough air time to pull the party more to the left.

I'll give O'Malley points for using the phrase "bull shit" in response to a question on NPR. The tip-toeing around sensitive issues needs to stop, and it appears that it has ... at least here.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... Hillary doesn't stink as a campaigner; she is charismatic, intelligent, reassuring, persevering, and positive. She lost to Obama mostly due to poor strategy regarding the early primary process, and lost ground with youth over the war issue. Bush is also a good speaker, and gives the impression of confidence, intelligence, and power. Like the other Bushes, his horoscope numbers are impressive. Unfortunately, like the others, he can win an election, or even two...

Hillary stinks as a campaigner. She wallows in the details that wonky folks love, but are sleep inducing to the average person. When she actually avoids that problem, she gets almost sloppy and sentimental. We may see her as many things, but not that.

So no, she fails as soon as real opposition emerges. Her normal mode is triangulation, and that's as up to date as a lava lamp. If that happens late (in the general election), then we'll get a Republican President. I'm hoping for an earlier flame-out.

I do laugh at the conspiracy theorists who claim that Obama is behind the "witch hunt" against Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), when if he is forced to resign, or is convicted on the corruption charges, the state's large-and-in-charge Republican governor, Chris Christie, will no doubt appoint a Republican to fill out Menendez's unexpired term, putting the MLP - the Miller Lite Party (as per those iconic 1990s-era TV commercials; e.g., the "Sumo High Dive," the "Miss Perfect Face-Off," etc. - their point being that if you can combine great taste with less filling, you can combine anything, and my point being that if you can combine low-church Protestant fundamentalism with Social Darwinism, then you can combine anything) - one step closer to a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, which, combined with them winning back the White House in 2016 should they do so, would put this country headlong on the path to a Second Civil War, which no mortal could then stay.

So much for Walker, he's jumped the shark. As JPT noted earlier this was his to lose. Blundering this early means he was not up for the task.

BTW - how has Walker jumped the shark? Namely, he is now questioning legal immigration. That is sheer insanity. We face serious loss of fecundity and inevitable population decline later this century. Countries will compete hard for immigrants especially highly skilled and knowledgeable ones. I foresee monetary "signing" bonuses.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

You don't use distillation. RO is standard I think. Looks like it still is the state of the art. The 165 MGD plant is expected to produce water priced at $2.20 /1000 gallons.

For comparison water charges in the US vary from $2.8 (Phoenix) to $5.4 (Boston) per 1000 gallons. The price above will be charged to the utility. The prices below are what US utilities charge end customers. The end charge foe the desalinated water will be much higher than $2.2 because of distribution costs. But even if you simply added it to the Phoenix charge you would get a price that is lower than that in Boston. So RO certainly can be used, and I think it will be before they try something controversial like tapping the Great Lakes.

Saudi Arabia uses RO, but they have piss-away money and a small population. They also limit agriculture. If we really need 600 million acre-feet (i.e. 200 Trillion US gallons) of water, the gross cost is a lot less affordable at $440 Billion. The need may be a lot more or less than that, depending on many factors including the use of confiscatory pricing to keep water use low. In any case, agriculture is probably out, except for the lowest usage applications. Forget dairy or meat farming. Chickens and eggs may be doable, and saltwater aquaculture is no-brainer. But most grains we grow are water intensive. We'll need GMO that are water sippers. Of course, food production can be relegated to more appropriate areas.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

So much for Walker, he's jumped the shark. As JPT noted earlier this was his to lose. Blundering this early means he was not up for the task.

BTW - how has Walker jumped the shark? Namely, he is now questioning legal immigration. That is sheer insanity. We face serious loss of fecundity and inevitable population decline later this century. Countries will compete hard for immigrants especially highly skilled and knowledgeable ones. I foresee monetary "signing" bonuses.

Xenophobia is the next RW wave issue; I think Walker is pitch-perfect on this. Now, he may have to walk some of it back in the general, but it's a solid match for the disaffected whites in the heartland he's trying too woo. It may play poorly in the cities, but they vote for Democrats anyway.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Xenophobia is the next RW wave issue; I think Walker is pitch-perfect on this. Now, he may have to walk some of it back in the general, but it's a solid match for the disaffected whites in the heartland he's trying too woo. It may play poorly in the cities, but they vote for Democrats anyway.

Disaffected whites (and even some disaffected people of color) worry about illegals, not legals. Hell, I worry about illegals, illegals are a hot button issue for me too!

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Actually, I'm a direct descendant of the northern whites (Yankee's) who fought for the Union during the Civil War and Independence during the Revolutionary War.

As I noted, it might not be actual bloodline.

Your enlarged amygdala could have come perhaps from contaminated food or water. Perhaps your mom travel through the South when she was pregnant with you?

- could land the GOP on the rocks in 2016.


John Marshall provides some insights on the possible 2016 impacts of a bad SCOTUS decision on Obamacare -

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/...amacare-states

I've highlighted the key states where this may make the difference. I've include Wisconsin where a poor ACA decision could prove to be the firewall against a Walker favorite son status making a dent in the "Blue Wall"

There are many Democrats who believe that, in political terms, the joke will be on Republicans if the Supreme Court adopts the preposterous claim of the plaintiffs who say that Obamacare subsidies in states without state exchanges violate the law. This is because millions of middle- and lower middle-class people who had a benefit suddenly will have it taken away. I feel like I've been to this rodeo enough times to know Republicans have a really high capacity to stick with unpopular policies if doing otherwise would cut against key ideological priorities. In functional terms, the complaints of a few hundred thousand of what Sen. Johnson and his interviewer called "sad sacks" who lose their insurance cuts a lot less than the base's ideological commitment to opposing Obamacare by any means necessary. But the calculus may be different in some key states - states that did not set up exchanges but are generally blue or purple in presidential elections.

I mentioned Johnson before. That's no accident. I think Wisconsin is possibly the ground zero for this phenomenon. It's not a slam dunk for Democrats. They have to fight for it each time. But they end up winning it pretty much every time. At least since 1984.

Here are the states without market places that seem to me in reasonable contention in 2016. As you'll see, the list reads like a list of key swing states.

Florida (1,479,439) Maine (66,616) Missouri (222,559) New Jersey (211,158) North Carolina (512,975)Ohio (196,714) Pennsylvania (379,607) Virginia (320,525) Wisconsin (184,822)

In parantheses, I've listed the number of individuals in each state currently enrolled with an Obamacare policy and receiving a subsidy. These numbers are from this recent HHS report (p.52). (A big, big thanks to Charles Gaba, who runs the invaluable ACAsignups.net website. He helped me locate this document in about 60 seconds, thus saving me a ton of time and maybe even the post since I probably would have gotten frustrated and given up.)

There are a number of other states in a grey zone in which they don't have their own full exchange but are in a partnership with the federal exchange. On top of that, there are several different flavors of partnership. How those states would be affected by an adverse SCOTUS ruling is not clear. So for the sake of this discussion, I've kept the list to only those states that have totally stiffed the law and left everything in the federal government's hands.

There's a decent argument that Missouri is a Republican state now. And the same may apply to North Carolina. But I'll include them for a broad measure. To put the point squarely, these are the states and the people who will be hit if the Court rules that a state needs to set up an exchange for its citizens to get subsidies.

As I said, I don't think Texas is going to lift a finger to set up an exchange if this happens even though it will affect more than a million Texans. But I think in Wisconsin, New Jersey, Florida and other states the calculus could be very different. It could also go beyond the presidential race. That's why I suspect Johnson is speaking up. He's up for election, likely against Russ Feingold. This is as likely to affect congressional elections as the presidential. As you can see, the numbers of people involved are really big, and this overlap applies to most of the key swing states. If the Court rejects the whole Burwell argument, none of it matters. But if it doesn't, I don't think you can make sense of the 2016 election without absorbing this map.

It might take years before most people realize how much Obama is going to be hard a act to follow.

He set 'em up like bowling pins.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Hillary stinks as a campaigner. She wallows in the details that wonky folks love, but are sleep inducing to the average person. When she actually avoids that problem, she gets almost sloppy and sentimental. We may see her as many things, but not that.

So no, she fails as soon as real opposition emerges. Her normal mode is triangulation, and that's as up to date as a lava lamp. If that happens late (in the general election), then we'll get a Republican President. I'm hoping for an earlier flame-out.

I don't think anyone viewing this video of HC on full power mode would say that -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH9rC0MaBJc


Of course, the Right will counter with their approach -



- as expressed by Terry-Shiavo Bush or Shut-em-down Walker.

Again, it's not a how-popular contest, its a comparison. Just like she did with the t-baggin Congresscritter in this video, HC is going to shred whoever finally remains to roll up in the clown car for the debates.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Xenophobia is the next RW wave issue; I think Walker is pitch-perfect on this. Now, he may have to walk some of it back in the general, but it's a solid match for the disaffected whites in the heartland he's trying to woo. It may play poorly in the cities, but they vote for Democrats anyway.

Hispanics have become decisive in key states. They helped in large measure to turn California blue. Several key swing states are also subject to a greater hispanic vote: New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Florida, Arizona and others. Even Texas could come into play in the future. It could also have an impact in the nomination race. You could also say that xenophobes already vote Republican anyway.

Walker is toast; you heard it here!

How is Walker toast, but Bush a massive threat? What is the basis of these claims. The RW base loves walker but largely hates bush.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I don't think anyone viewing this video of HC on full power mode would say that -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH9rC0MaBJc

Of course, the Right will counter with their approach -

- as expressed by Terry-Shiavo Bush or Shut-em-down Walker.

Again, it's not a how-popular contest, its a comparison. Just like she did with t-baggin Congresscritter, HC is going to shred whoever finally remains to roll up in the clown car for the debates.

I can honestly say that I don't know a single soul who wants HC in office. Now, I have a wide circle, and many would never vote for the Donkey Party, even if JC was the standard bearer. But of the ones who would, she simply doesn't resonate. That's not saying that they won't vote for her if the alternative is really bad, but they may not if the alternative is only slightly bad. Since I sit in a swing state, that's not a good position for the Dems. I'm not sure who would be a better choice this far out, but HC is a well known quantity. If she polls bad now, it's not likely to get better.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Hillary stinks as a campaigner. She wallows in the details that wonky folks love, but are sleep inducing to the average person. When she actually avoids that problem, she gets almost sloppy and sentimental. We may see her as many things, but not that.

So no, she fails as soon as real opposition emerges. Her normal mode is triangulation, and that's as up to date as a lava lamp. If that happens late (in the general election), then we'll get a Republican President. I'm hoping for an earlier flame-out.

The truth is less blatant and extreme than this. She is talented and charismatic, and very hard-working and persevering. I don't see her flaming out. But she is vulnerable and has weaknesses which a strong Republican candidate could take advantage of. That would be Bush or maybe Rubio. But there are good indications that she will prevail. The electoral college, if it holds up, gives the advantage to Democrats now.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The truth is less blatant and extreme than this. She is talented and charismatic, and very hard-working and persevering. I don't see her flaming out. But she is vulnerable and has weaknesses which a strong Republican candidate could take advantage of. That would be Bush or maybe Rubio. But there are good indications that she will prevail. The electoral college, if it holds up, gives the advantage to Democrats now.

Yes Electoral Votes advantage is to Dems. Folks wanting to rid us of the Electoral College are out to lunch. It would only make sense if we completely scrapped our system in favor of a more unitary European style Parliamentary system.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

How is Walker toast, but Bush a massive threat? What is the basis of these claims. The RW base loves walker but largely hates bush.

It is well and good to be concerned about illegal immigration but Walker is now taking it too far. Given demographic realities especially after 2040 or so, only the suicidal would oppose legal immigration especially immigration of well educated professionals.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

It is well and good to be concerned about illegal immigration but Walker is now taking it too far. Given demographic realities especially after 2040 or so, only the suicidal would oppose legal immigration especially immigration of well educated professionals.

Indeed, one of the concerns that I have with the H1B visa (aside from engineering types from foreign countries being underpaid in America and thus creating disincentives for Americans to study engineering and science) is that we would be better off with people with such degrees joining the American gene pool.

Whom would you rather have marrying your daughter -- some brilliant engineer from India who treats her decently enough -- or some white-trash loser?

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

It is well and good to be concerned about illegal immigration but Walker is now taking it too far. Given demographic realities especially after 2040 or so, only the suicidal would oppose legal immigration especially immigration of well educated professionals.

He opposes legal immigration too, LOL. The only people who oppose legal immigration these days are open racists and outright white supremacists.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The truth is less blatant and extreme than this. She is talented and charismatic, and very hard-working and persevering. I don't see her flaming out. But she is vulnerable and has weaknesses which a strong Republican candidate could take advantage of. That would be Bush or maybe Rubio. But there are good indications that she will prevail. The electoral college, if it holds up, gives the advantage to Democrats now.

WTF?

http://projects.nytimes.com/clinton-donors/





There, that's better. Eric, I hope there's enough space on her saggy fat body for the corporate/ foreign country flags! <RAZZ>

Originally Posted by M&L

I can honestly say that I don't know a single soul who wants HC in office. Now, I have a wide circle, and many would never vote for the Donkey Party, even if JC was the standard bearer. But of the ones who would, she simply doesn't resonate. That's not saying that they won't vote for her if the alternative is really bad, but they may not if the alternative is only slightly bad. Since I sit in a swing state, that's not a good position for the Dems. I'm not sure who would be a better choice this far out, but HC is a well known quantity. If she polls bad now, it's not likely to get better.

No kidding. The NYT is hardly a conservative rag and they ratted here out pretty well.

EDIT

Ut oh, a Conservative mouthpiece , NPR just did some more ratting.

ratty tat tat tat

Originally Posted by NPR

The Clinton Foundation eased those boundaries and has taken contributions, of $1 million to $10 million, from the governments of Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. The Saudi Arabian government has given as much as $25 million.

Awesome! I just love the smell of payola from women beater countries in the morning.

More adverts for said fat assed body.



Saudi Arabia Flag. A sword? I bet they behead folks there just like ISIS does.




UAE Flag


Kuwait flag.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Well yes we do, but it's very energy intense and expensive. We'll still need food too, so add a huge amount for irrigation: about triple the amount needed for drinking water. We'll need a few Gigawatts of electrical capacity dedicated to just that one task.

People need food and water to survive. The drought will eventually end. It would be wise to have a alternative water source available for use during droughts.

Originally Posted by playwrite

As I noted, it might not be actual bloodline.

Your enlarged amygdala could have come perhaps from contaminated food or water. Perhaps your mom travel through the South when she was pregnant with you?

Blame the old dudes who taught us not the mothers who gave birth to us. You know, the younger male GI's and 1st wave Silents. The old dudes stressed self discipline and emotional control back in the day. It's the result of male character building and social values that were instilled in young men during the 70's. I've got the mind of a modern city-slicker and the heart of a country boy.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Disaffected whites (and even some disaffected people of color) worry about illegals, not legals. Hell, I worry about illegals, illegals are a hot button issue for me too!

The legals they're concerned about receive an education and their apprenticeship here and then take their skills back home once their careers are established. What's the long term benefit in those types of legal as far as the future of the United States? Republicans tend to ask Americans the tougher questions that liberal Democrats cannot ask Americans and measure the results.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

So no, she fails as soon as real opposition emerges. Her normal mode is triangulation, and that's as up to date as a lava lamp.

I don't think that can happen any more. Their are people who will run against here. But they are not what you would call "real" opposition.

What makes a candidate "real" is the fraction of the endorsements and donors who exist in the pre-election period have signed with the candidates team. Uncommitted endorsers and donors are thin on the ground. It is too late for there to be real opposition. I think it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that it will be Clinton vs. the Republican nominee in the general election. I also think (but am less sure of this) that conservatives will be unable to coalesce around one of their favorites and so the establish guy is going to run against Clinton. Ridiculous as it seems I think it is probably going to be Bush v Clinton and when the dust settles it will be John VI.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I can honestly say that I don't know a single soul who wants HC in office. Now, I have a wide circle, and many would never vote for the Donkey Party, even if JC was the standard bearer. But of the ones who would, she simply doesn't resonate. That's not saying that they won't vote for her if the alternative is really bad, but they may not if the alternative is only slightly bad. Since I sit in a swing state, that's not a good position for the Dems. I'm not sure who would be a better choice this far out, but HC is a well known quantity. If she polls bad now, it's not likely to get better.

The most recent polling (4/9/15) in VA has HC/Bush - 47/40. R.Paul comes the closest at 47/43 -

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-e...ReleaseID=2184

Do you really think Paul is going to be tapped to run against HC? This isn't fantasy football.

With McAuliffe team occupying the top three spots, the GOTV in VA will be even stronger than it was in '08 and '12. If HC keeps the "Blue Wall" I have little doubt that VA will put her over the top. Election night should be over around 8:20-8:30 Eastern (regardless of what happens in FL or OH) - probable Prince William county reporting in will do it.

The only real question is when do those Progressives navel gazing over HC finally start paying attention to real action - the Senate?