WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton issued perhaps the most pointed critique yet of her 2016 Republican challengers on Wednesday while campaigning in Columbia, South Carolina. Addressing the state's Democratic Women's caucus, the former secretary of state took a veiled shot at several GOP presidential contenders for opposing legislation that would ensure pay equity for men and women.

Though she did not specifically mention their names, Clinton criticized Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) for calling equal pay a "bogus" issue, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) for saying Congress was "wasting time" on the matter and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) for comparing paycheck fairness to price-setting by the Soviet Union's governing body, the Politburo.

"What century are they living in?" Clinton said, drawing applause from supporters in the audience.

Clinton's pitch to women will be a substantial part of her campaign theme in South Carolina, where she lost the Democratic primary in 2008 to then-Sen. Barack Obama. It will also be key to her national strategy, as she woos the coalition of women, minority and young voters that twice propelled her former rival to the White House.

"This is not a women’s issue. This is a family issue and an American economic issue," Clinton said on Wednesday. "I want to get up every single day going to work for you, standing up for you, making a difference for you."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7454096.html

Barack Obama never was a populist. Democrats can win in the Deep and Mountain South if they play the populist card -- as did Bill Clinton and (in 1976) Jimmy Carter. Will they? I am more interested in the House and Senate seats up in the South, because the Republicans can't gerrymander most Southern states -- paradoxically the ones Obama came closest to winning in 2008 or 2012 (FL, GA, NC, VA).

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Democrats can win in the Deep and Mountain South if they play the populist card -- as did Bill Clinton and (in 1976) Jimmy Carter. Will they? I am more interested in the House and Senate seats up in the South, because the Republicans can't gerrymander most Southern states -- paradoxically the ones Obama came closest to winning in 2008 or 2012 (FL, GA, NC, VA).

I don't think Democratic economic populism will work on white men in general and married white women in the South. I believe they are unreachable as are blacks for Republican.

I also do not believe the parties as currently configured are a good fit for this crisis.

For example people say the economic inequality/slow job growth are America's biggest problems, but where is the cutting edge in politics today? Gay marriage. If gay folks get married in my state, is that going to affect me in some adverse way? Can't say that it will. So I don't see the objection. And if gay marriage reduces gay promiscuity then I'm all for it.

What is the #1 issue Republicans want to talk about? Hawkish foreign policy. Is what ISIS does really going to make a damn bit of difference to my life, or the lives of anyone I know? Does whether or not Iran develops a nuke going to matter to me or mine? Is it going to matter to you or yours? All this foreign policy talk is abstract bullshit. None of it matters, except when we get involved and kill/injure people and risk having our people killed. So why talk about doing MORE, as the Republicans want to do?

Of course Clinton is talking about inequality, but has no conception of what is the problem. Is this because it is not PC to talk about actually addressing the issue, or has she swallowed the neoliberal Koolaid as her husband and president Obama have?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I don't think Democratic economic populism will work on white men in general and married white women in the South. I believe they are unreachable as are blacks for Republican.

So it appears. Of course there may be some, or a few, who are; especially millennials. "In general," probably not.

I also do not believe the parties as currently configured are a good fit for this crisis.

The parties as currently configured ARE this Crisis.

For example people say the economic inequality/slow job growth are America's biggest problems, but where is the cutting edge in politics today? Gay marriage. If gay folks get married in my state, is that going to affect me in some adverse way? Can't say that it will. So I don't see the objection. And if gay marriage reduces gay promiscuity then I'm all for it.

What is the #1 issue Republicans want to talk about? Hawkish foreign policy. Is what ISIS does really going to make a damn bit of difference to my life, or the lives of anyone I know? Does whether or not Iran develops a nuke going to matter to me or mine? Is it going to matter to you or yours? All this foreign policy talk is abstract bullshit. None of it matters, except when we get involved and kill/injure people and risk having our people killed. So why talk about doing MORE, as the Republicans want to do?

Diversion works. It worked big time in 2004.

Of course Clinton is talking about inequality, but has no conception of what is the problem. Is this because it is not PC to talk about actually addressing the issue, or has she swallowed the neoliberal Koolaid as her husband and president Obama have?

Are you sure Hillary has no such conception of the problem?

What is certain is that she can't do anything about it as long as millennials and non-whites continue not to vote in midterms and congressional elections, and gerrymandering continues. You can't solve any problems just by electing a president.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I don't think Democratic economic populism will work on white men in general and married white women in the South. I believe they are unreachable as are blacks for Republican.

I also do not believe the parties as currently configured are a good fit for this crisis.

For example people say the economic inequality/slow job growth are America's biggest problems, but where is the cutting edge in politics today? Gay marriage. If gay folks get married in my state, is that going to affect me in some adverse way? Can't say that it will. So I don't see the objection. And if gay marriage reduces gay promiscuity then I'm all for it.

What is the #1 issue Republicans want to talk about? Hawkish foreign policy. Is what ISIS does really going to make a damn bit of difference to my life, or the lives of anyone I know? Does whether or not Iran develops a nuke going to matter to me or mine? Is it going to matter to you or yours? All this foreign policy talk is abstract bullshit. None of it matters, except when we get involved and kill/injure people and risk having our people killed. So why talk about doing MORE, as the Republicans want to do?

Of course Clinton is talking about inequality, but has no conception of what is the problem. Is this because it is not PC to talk about actually addressing the issue, or has she swallowed the neoliberal Koolaid as her husband and president Obama have?

An interesting sidebar: the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, typically a deficit-hawk organization, funded studies from five think tanks in DC covering the broad ideological spectrum, and got unanimity of sorts. They all agreed that more spending was needed and so were more taxes.. Now the spending choices and who to tax varied, but the fact that they agreed that taxes and spending needed to increase is stunning.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

An interesting sidebar: the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, typically a deficit-hawk organization, funded studies from five think tanks in DC covering the broad ideological spectrum, and got unanimity of sorts. They all agreed that more spending was needed and so were more taxes.. Now the spending choices and who to tax varied, but the fact that they agreed that taxes and spending needed to increase is stunning.

Just as a sidebar, Neil Howe has worked closely with the Peterson Foundation.

After days of Republican presidential candidates wrestling with questions on the Iraq war, Hillary Clinton weighed in Tuesday, telling reporters that her vote in favor of the war in 2002 was a “mistake.”

“I made it very clear that I made a mistake, plain and simple. And I have written about it in my book, I have talked about it in the past,” Clinton told reporters at an event in Cedar Falls, Iowa, adding that “what we now see is a very different and very dangerous situation.”

During her 2008 campaign, Clinton defended her vote as a way to give President George W. Bush authority to deal with Iraq, which she said he then abused. She frequently followed up this statement by saying that if she had known what Bush would do with the authority she would not have voted the way she had, but declined to call the vote a “mistake.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...#ixzz3bSuSlFPg

...Problem solved. Let Republicans defend Dubya all that they want.

Dubya was three of the worst things that a political leader can be -- reckless, corrupt, and dishonest.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I don't think Democratic economic populism will work on white men in general and married white women in the South. I believe they are unreachable as are blacks for Republican.

But New York City's allegedly ultra-liberal mayor, Bill deBlasio, is debunking this: He started by continuing Michael Bloomberg's policy of allowing churches displaced by Hurricane Sandy to use public-school buildings for Sunday services; he also gave the Rev. Calvin Butts the middle finger by turning down flat Butts' demand that he order police commissioner Bill Bratton to fire Daniel Pantaleo, who choked Eric Garner to death on Staten Island, and to fire Bratton if he refuses; and deBlasio has pledged to veto a City Council bill that would effectively legalize such criminal activities as carrying an open container, public urination, and fare evasion and riding between the cars (a city councilman, Corey Johnson, was actually arrested for the latter in March) on the subway. DeBlasio has also defied the teacher's union's demand that the mayor's office relinquish direct control over the Board of Education. Those are pretty serious deviations from the hard-left party line.

For example people say the economic inequality/slow job growth are America's biggest problems, but where is the cutting edge in politics today? Gay marriage. If gay folks get married in my state, is that going to affect me in some adverse way? Can't say that it will. So I don't see the objection. And if gay marriage reduces gay promiscuity then I'm all for it.

But if the Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage next month, the Republicans will either simply "tap out" on it - or even try to set the gays off against the feminists by claiming that abortion on demand is depriving same-sex couples of an opportunity to adopt newborn babies.

What is the #1 issue Republicans want to talk about? Hawkish foreign policy. Is what ISIS does really going to make a damn bit of difference to my life, or the lives of anyone I know? Does whether or not Iran develops a nuke going to matter to me or mine? Is it going to matter to you or yours? All this foreign policy talk is abstract bullshit. None of it matters, except when we get involved and kill/injure people and risk having our people killed. So why talk about doing MORE, as the Republicans want to do?

If Iran gets nukes and uses one on Israel, Thermonuclear War I, aka World War III, is on - and yes, that would matter to me and mine, especially since I am back in the Greater New York City area. As for ISIS, etc., true, the neocons have yet to convince at least the younger half of Gen X, and Millennials, as to their dangerousness to America itself - but it is doubtful that this failure would in and of itself cost the GOP the 2016 election, particularly if Rand Paul does manage to win the nomination.

Of course Clinton is talking about inequality, but has no conception of what is the problem. Is this because it is not PC to talk about actually addressing the issue, or has she swallowed the neoliberal Koolaid as her husband and president Obama have?

Why do you say that? Because she won't go off willy-nilly and destroy Wall Street?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I don't think Democratic economic populism will work on white men in general and married white women in the South. I believe they are unreachable as are blacks for Republican.

I also do not believe the parties as currently configured are a good fit for this crisis.

We have a largely-conservative party (the Democrats) with a few liberals, and a formerly-conservative party losing whatever trace it had of moderation. Basically we have Eisenhower-style conservatives versus the Birch Society. The Republican Party is more likely to create an economic or military/diplomatic disaster than solve anything other than salve some hurt feelings (temporarily, and creating even more of them).

Barack Obama is a conservative. He has the usual characteristics of a conservative -- respect for precedent, no support for any radical reform of morals (he has jumped on the bandwagon for same-sex marriage only when it seems both benign and inevitable). See how wildly he diverges from the definition of conservatism by Russell Kirk:


First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.
Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.
Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.
Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.
Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.
Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.
Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.
Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.
Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.
Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conser...f_conservatism

That could as easily be Eisenhower or Obama. Test Movement Conservatives against this, and see whether they fit a recent definition of conservatism.

For example people say the economic inequality/slow job growth are America's biggest problems, but where is the cutting edge in politics today? Gay marriage. If gay folks get married in my state, is that going to affect me in some adverse way? Can't say that it will. So I don't see the objection. And if gay marriage reduces gay promiscuity then I'm all for it.

Opposition to same-sex marriage is dying. Same-sex marriage won't cost Big Business anything. You can trust that Big Business will insist upon the evisceration of labor unions if their outlawry isn't possible. You can trust that monopoly control of the economy can do Big Business far more good than any ban on same-sex marriage. Wars for profit? dear to the hearts of heartless people who would kill millions so that they could grab trillions.

Gays and lesbians won on same-sex marriage by showing adult responsibility. They condemned the child-molesting perverts in NAMBLA -- saying that if they had children that they would defend those children as ferociously as straight people. I found it easy to start supporting homosexual rights once I saw gay rights as an issue of law and order -- that it is terribly wrong to attack people for homosexuality (there but for the Grace of God go I) and not one of vice. Getting threatened with gay-bashing caused me to quit making jokes about homosexuality. I apologize to this day for any derision that I might have ever made toward homosexuality even if on alleged 'gay tastes'.

What is the #1 issue Republicans want to talk about? Hawkish foreign policy. Is what ISIS does really going to make a damn bit of difference to my life, or the lives of anyone I know? Does whether or not Iran develops a nuke going to matter to me or mine? Is it going to matter to you or yours? All this foreign policy talk is abstract bullshit. None of it matters, except when we get involved and kill/injure people and risk having our people killed. So why talk about doing MORE, as the Republicans want to do?

Unlike most liberals I see a war between the United States and ISIS a near-certainty. But all in all it is best that we keep some moral compass and act in accordance with the need to develop allies. ISIS already shares some of the abominability of the Third Reich and the Japanese Thug Empire, including a complete disdain for limits on its dreams and utter contempt for human rights.

Foreign policy is the clothing, and not the substance, of international policy. We will need to use naked force against ISIS; the question is when. A President as reckless, dishonest or deluded, and corrupt as George W. Bush practically ensures a disaster no matter what his partisan affiliation. In view of the great number of Republican candidates for President this time, voting for the Republican nominee could be a bad roll of the roulette wheel of history -- especially if the Republican can't see what was wrong with Dubya as a leader. We will need to establish some high principle that gives meaning to carnage. We will need to be far better than ISIS -- by Islamic standards.

Of course Clinton is talking about inequality, but has no conception of what is the problem. Is this because it is not PC to talk about actually addressing the issue, or has she swallowed the neoliberal Koolaid as her husband and president Obama have?

Mass poverty has long been the Third Rail of American politics. In the last Crisis Era, alleviation of poverty was a high priority. Today the objective of the Right is to make poverty sting all the harder through the intensification of poverty and the unpleasant consequences thereof. That way people will work harder, endure pay cuts, and endorse monopoly -- all of which will solve nothing.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

We have a largely-conservative party (the Democrats) with a few liberals, and a formerly-conservative party losing whatever trace it had of moderation. Basically we have Eisenhower-style conservatives versus the Birch Society. The Republican Party is more likely to create an economic or military/diplomatic disaster than solve anything other than salve some hurt feelings (temporarily, and creating even more of them).

Would a "largely conservative party" favor allowing our arch-enemy to obtain nuclear weapons, destroy the institution of marriage, and leave law-abiding citizens totally at the mercy of vicious criminals by effectively eliminating the right to bear arms?

Barack Obama is a conservative. He has the usual characteristics of a conservative -- respect for precedent, no support for any radical reform of morals (he has jumped on the bandwagon for same-sex marriage only when it seems both benign and inevitable). See how wildly he diverges from the definition of conservatism by Russell Kirk:

Advocating equal civil rights for African-Americans was a lot more commendable than merely being "both benign and inevitable" - and it still at least contributed to the Democrats losing power (although Mikebert and I seem to disagree as to what extent it contributed).

Gays and lesbians won on same-sex marriage by showing adult responsibility. They condemned the child-molesting perverts in NAMBLA -- saying that if they had children that they would defend those children as ferociously as straight people. I found it easy to start supporting homosexual rights once I saw gay rights as an issue of law and order -- that it is terribly wrong to attack people for homosexuality (there but for the Grace of God go I) and not one of vice. Getting threatened with gay-bashing caused me to quit making jokes about homosexuality. I apologize to this day for any derision that I might have ever made toward homosexuality even if on alleged 'gay tastes'.

Maybe in the Land Of Oz they showed such responsibility - but not in Kansas, or any other state for that matter. Show me even one instance of NAMBLA being excluded from any Gay Pride parade.

Unlike most liberals I see a war between the United States and ISIS a near-certainty. But all in all it is best that we keep some moral compass and act in accordance with the need to develop allies. ISIS already shares some of the abominability of the Third Reich and the Japanese Thug Empire, including a complete disdain for limits on its dreams and utter contempt for human rights.

Foreign policy is the clothing, and not the substance, of international policy. We will need to use naked force against ISIS; the question is when. A President as reckless, dishonest or deluded, and corrupt as George W. Bush practically ensures a disaster no matter what his partisan affiliation. In view of the great number of Republican candidates for President this time, voting for the Republican nominee could be a bad roll of the roulette wheel of history -- especially if the Republican can't see what was wrong with Dubya as a leader. We will need to establish some high principle that gives meaning to carnage. We will need to be far better than ISIS -- by Islamic standards.

True, there have been cases where someone has been convicted of murder despite the lack of a body, a motive, or a weapon (there was one across the bay from San Francisco earlier this year in fact), but not many. Similarly, it is possible to declare war on an entity with no coterminous territory, no currency, and no embassies or consulates because not a single country recognizes them. But it is not very likely.

Mass poverty has long been the Third Rail of American politics. In the last Crisis Era, alleviation of poverty was a high priority. Today the objective of the Right is to make poverty sting all the harder through the intensification of poverty and the unpleasant consequences thereof. That way people will work harder, endure pay cuts, and endorse monopoly -- all of which will solve nothing.

But if the right can no longer advance "moral" reasons for enough people to vote against their obvious economic self-interest, their task becomes a lot more problematic.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Are you sure Hillary has no such conception of the problem?

No. She plays her cards so close to her vest I cannot get any sort of a read on here. I have a sense of Bill Clinton and Obama's views and the number of financial people with whom she has good relations. Often people's worldview is influenced by the company they keep.

What is certain is that she can't do anything about it as long as millennials and non-whites continue not to vote in midterms and congressional elections, and gerrymandering continues. You can't solve any problems just by electing a president.

That's not true. Obama could, right now, with a stroke of his pen, make a significant dent in inequality and achieve free stimulus to boot, and he does not need Congress. He's had six plus years to do it and so far crickets.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But New York City's allegedly ultra-liberal mayor, Bill deBlasio, is debunking this: He started by continuing Michael Bloomberg's policy of allowing churches displaced by Hurricane Sandy to use public-school buildings for Sunday services; he also gave the Rev. Calvin Butts the middle finger by turning down flat Butts' demand that he order police commissioner Bill Bratton to fire Daniel Pantaleo, who choked Eric Garner to death on Staten Island, and to fire Bratton if he refuses; and deBlasio has pledged to veto a City Council bill that would effectively legalize such criminal activities as carrying an open container, public urination, and fare evasion and riding between the cars (a city councilman, Corey Johnson, was actually arrested for the latter in March) on the subway. DeBlasio has also defied the teacher's union's demand that the mayor's office relinquish direct control over the Board of Education. Those are pretty serious deviations from the hard-left party line.

How does this debunk what I said? To show this you would have show how some Democrats are winning elections the strength of the votes of working class white men and not minorities, women and liberals. Can you show this?

But if the Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage next month, the Republicans will either simply "tap out" on it - or even try to set the gays off against the feminists by claiming that abortion on demand is depriving same-sex couples of an opportunity to adopt newborn babies.

This has nothing to do with the Republicans. They aren't the ones pushing gay marriage. Do you seriously suppose that once gay marriage is OK'd by the court all the activists will pack up and go home, or will transgender be the new thing?

If Iran gets nukes and uses one on Israel, Thermonuclear War I, aka World War III, is on - and yes, that would matter to me and mine,

And so would an alien invasion. Would you be willing to pay higher taxes to pay for planetary defense? I don;t believe they is any risk form little green men. Your hypothetical is silly.
The world's nuclear powers have had nuclear weapons for a combing total of well over 350 years. Out of those 350 years nuclear weapons were used in just one of them. It wasn't the nations with the scariest crazy-ass dudes running it who used it, it was the US, who has pretty conventional leadership. So why were nukes used only once out of all of those years? Because for four years the US was the only nation that had nukes, nobody could retaliate against her, and so she used them.

Why did the US not use them again while they had a monopoly. They ran out of them. Do you seriously believe that if we had 50 of the buggers we wouldn't have used them to destroy the USSR? Once they could shoot back we became much more careful with nukes. And so did they. And so has every other nation to join the nuke club, including North Korea and Pakistan. National leaders simply don't come more nutty than the bastard that runs NK, and HE can be deterred.

Why do you say that?

See my answer to Eric

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Would a "largely conservative party" favor allowing our arch-enemy to obtain nuclear weapons, destroy the institution of marriage, and leave law-abiding citizens totally at the mercy of vicious criminals by effectively eliminating the right to bear arms?

When did the Iranian nuke program begin? Has President Obama advocated any gun control except against criminals?

Canadian cities are far safer than American cities.

Advocating equal civil rights for African-Americans was a lot more commendable than merely being "both benign and inevitable" - and it still at least contributed to the Democrats losing power (although Mikebert and I seem to disagree as to what extent it contributed).

Had it not been through legislation, then it would have been decided by the courts., maybe a few years later.

Carter would have lost in 1976 without the voting rights of blacks.

Maybe in the Land Of Oz they showed such responsibility - but not in Kansas, or any other state for that matter. Show me even one instance of NAMBLA being excluded from any Gay Pride parade.

Originally Posted by wikipedia

In 1980 a group called the "Lesbian Caucus – Lesbian & Gay Pride March Committee" distributed a hand-out urging women to split from the annual New York City Gay Pride March because the organizing committee had supposedly been dominated by NAMBLA and its supporters. The next year, after some lesbians threatened to picket, the Cornell University gay group Gay PAC (Gay People at Cornell) rescinded its invitation to NAMBLA founder David Thorstad to be the keynote speaker at the annual May Gay Festival. In the following years, gay rights groups attempted to block NAMBLA’s participation in gay pride parades, prompting leading gay rights figure Harry Hay to wear a sign proclaiming "NAMBLA walks with me" as he participated in a 1986 gay pride march in Los Angeles.

-------------------------------------

In 1994 the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) adopted a "Position Statement Regarding NAMBLA" saying GLAAD "deplores the North American Man Boy Love Association's (NAMBLA) goals, which include advocacy for sex between adult men and boys and the removal of legal protections for children. These goals constitute a form of child abuse and are repugnant to GLAAD." Also in 1994 the Board of Directors of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) adopted a resolution on NAMBLA that said: "NGLTF condemns all abuse of minors, both sexual and any other kind, perpetrated by adults. Accordingly, NGLTF condemns the organizational goals of NAMBLA and any other such organization."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_...ve_Association

True, there have been cases where someone has been convicted of murder despite the lack of a body, a motive, or a weapon (there was one across the bay from San Francisco earlier this year in fact), but not many. Similarly, it is possible to declare war on an entity with no coterminous territory, no currency, and no embassies or consulates because not a single country recognizes them. But it is not very likely.

ISIS does the critical deeds that a government does -- taxing, providing public services, formiing armed forces, having laws, courts, issuing license plates...

But if the right can no longer advance "moral" reasons for enough people to vote against their obvious economic self-interest, their task becomes a lot more problematic.

Much of it is resentment of successful members of minority groups.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

... Unlike most liberals I see a war between the United States and ISIS a near-certainty. ...

I'm drawn to Clausewitz and the notion that if we can't see some halfway reasonable political solution at least visible on the far horizon, engaging in war really seems inadvisable.

Unfortunately you may be right. Our country seems to have the ability to flip out, become shit-house-rat crazy when we are attacked. It strikes me that if a truly big terrorism event hits us on our shores, we'll likely turn the whole mideast into a field of green glass.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Obama could, right now, with a stroke of his pen, make a significant dent in inequality and achieve free stimulus to boot, and he does not need Congress. He's had six plus years to do it and so far crickets.

Playwrite's big coin?

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Would a "largely conservative party" favor allowing our arch-enemy to obtain nuclear weapons, destroy the institution of marriage, and leave law-abiding citizens totally at the mercy of vicious criminals by effectively eliminating the right to bear arms?

Gun control is very conservative. The police consider themselves outgunned and want it badly.
Gay marriage strengthens the institution.
Obama and Kerry are insuring that Iran will not have nucs.

Advocating equal civil rights for African-Americans was a lot more commendable than merely being "both benign and inevitable" - and it still at least contributed to the Democrats losing power (although Mikebert and I seem to disagree as to what extent it contributed).

Obama lost power because non-whites and young people don't vote in midterm elections or congressional elections, and because of gerrymandering. The majority of old and white voters vote Republican mainly because of their belief in the trickle-down theory (anti-government tax and spend), but in your part of the country prejudice also contributes.

Maybe in the Land Of Oz they showed such responsibility - but not in Kansas, or any other state for that matter. Show me even one instance of NAMBLA being excluded from any Gay Pride parade.

I live in SF Bay Area and I've not seen NAMBLA in gay parades. Do you have evidence of this? In any case your point does not detract from the points brower made.

True, there have been cases where someone has been convicted of murder despite the lack of a body, a motive, or a weapon (there was one across the bay from San Francisco earlier this year in fact), but not many.

It happens so damn often that it provides abundant material for 48 Hours and Dateline every week. Physical evidence is no longer necessary. Thousands of cases have been overturned through DNA testing. Misconduct by prosecutors is rampant to say the least.

Similarly, it is possible to declare war on an entity with no coterminous territory, no currency, and no embassies or consulates because not a single country recognizes them. But it is not very likely.

There is already a war against the IS, and it has 60 allies.

But if the right can no longer advance "moral" reasons for enough people to vote against their obvious economic self-interest, their task becomes a lot more problematic.

Yes, if the people can throw off their "moral values" illusions; and especially if young people throw off the illusion that voting for president is all that counts.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Gun control is very conservative. The police consider themselves outgunned and want it badly.
Gay marriage strengthens the institution.
Obama and Kerry are insuring that Iran will not have nukes.

There are legitimate reasons for owning firearms. Some people collect antiques, including weapons. A musket or a flintlock rifle isn't a particularly good choice for a criminal. Sport hunting? A hunting license might be construed as a gun license. I know of some ultra-liberals who own guns. They have some very bad neighbors.

BEARS

If I lived in that part of Montana I would keep a loaded firearm, too.

Obama lost power because non-whites and young people don't vote in midterm elections or congressional elections, and because of gerrymandering. The majority of old and white voters vote Republican mainly because of their belief in the trickle-down theory (anti-government tax and spend), but in your part of the country prejudice also contributes.

Unlike the harsh reality of the Great Depression, the economic meltdown did not gut the political power of plutocratic elites. The elites needed Barack Obama to rescue them, but once he did that they had no further use for him. In 1934 the Republicans lacked the funds for anything like a successful Tea Party. That's not to say that the plutocrats liked FDR. There was the proposed Business Coup that would have undone the New Deal and restored the policies of the Gilded Age.

The Right was hardly less cranky in the 1930s than now; in the 1930s it had lost the funds for buying the political process.

It happens so damn often that it provides abundant material for 48 Hours and Dateline every week. Physical evidence is no longer necessary. Thousands of cases have been overturned through DNA testing. Misconduct by prosecutors is rampant to say the least.

To the contrary -- physical evidence has been expanded as a tool of detection.

Usually that takes even more sophisticated technology of detecting trace evidence; crooks can clean off the red stain of blood but not every last trace. A killer in Pennsylvania was convicted after the FBI examined the trunk of the car that he had sold and found traces of enough blood that someone who had lost so much could not have survived. Crooks usually tell much the same story as innocent people when first challenged with some question of criminal misconduct. With innocent people the exculpation is truth, and that is often easily proved. With a crook, the answers are self-serving lies that evidence such as fingerprints contradict.

Crooks have been nailed for DNA on cigarette butts, shoe impressions, hair, and tire tracks.

There is already a war against the IS, and it has 60 allies.

It is a genuine war. Countries as far away from the Middle East as Japan have a stake in the end of IS due to the war crimes of IS.

Yes, if the people can throw off their "moral values" illusions; and especially if young people throw off the illusion that voting for president is all that counts.

I can hardly wait to hear the Pope castigate the harsh inequities of the American economy. Can you?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

If I lived in that part of Montana I would keep a loaded firearm, too.

Maybe mace or pepper spray would do the trick, or a tranquilizer gun. But yeah, I would want some protection if there was a bear or lion in the woods near my house or on the trail. I know some who maintain they can just use love.

To the contrary -- physical evidence has been expanded as a tool of detection.

Usually that takes even more sophisticated technology of detecting trace evidence; crooks can clean off the red stain of blood but not every last trace. A killer in Pennsylvania was convicted after the FBI examined the trunk of the car that he had sold and found traces of enough blood that someone who had lost so much could not have survived. Crooks usually tell much the same story as innocent people when first challenged with some question of criminal misconduct. With innocent people the exculpation is truth, and that is often easily proved. With a crook, the answers are self-serving lies that evidence such as fingerprints contradict.

Crooks have been nailed for DNA on cigarette butts, shoe impressions, hair, and tire tracks.

And yet juries ignore the lack of physical evidence and convict on circumstantial evidence alone. Prosecutors nail people on trumped up evidence, get away with it, and refuse to back off. Our jails contain legions of innocent people and victims of profiling, not to mention victims of the drug war. But police kill innocent unarmed black people and usually get off scot free, even in blue states like northern CA and NY. Our criminal justice system is screwed and on the verge of being totally discredited.

I can hardly wait to hear the Pope castigate the harsh inequities of the American economy. Can you?

I think he already has. But we could well hear more.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Playwrite's big coin?

The "big coin" would only erase some or all of the federal deficit/debt. That could lead to Congress deciding to do more federal spending, but more likely it would just freak out them and every other person who is completely ignorant of how our monetary system works - which is nearly everyone - so it would likely be counter production.

Short of going to war, I have no idea what Mike believes Obama could do, without the Congress, to reduce inequity or stimulate the economy in a big way.

Iowa Poll: Democrats Stick With Hillary Clinton
Monday, 01 Jun 2015 06:23 AM
(from newsmax)

Hillary Clinton remains the overwhelming favorite among Iowa Democrats looking ahead to next year's presidential caucuses, though Bernie Sanders has quickly risen as Elizabeth Warren's proxy for the anti-establishment alternative.

Clinton is the first choice for 57 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers in a new Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll conducted May 25-29, up a percentage point from the previous polling in January. Controversies dating from her tenure as secretary of state, from her handling of the Benghazi attacks and her use of private e-mail to the Clinton Foundation's acceptance of contributions from foreign governments, have not weakened her campaign in Iowa, though many Democrats remain concerned they could hurt her in a general election.

Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont running for president as a Democrat, has surged to become the top pick of 16 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers, more than triple the 5 percent he drew in January. Part of that is likely due to Sanders's recent formal entry into the race, while Warren, the Massachusetts senator whom many progressives urged to run as a liberal alternative to Clinton, has repeatedly said she won't run and wasn't listed as a likely candidate in this poll.

Vice President Joe Biden, who is not an announced candidate, is next at 8 percent, while former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley and former Virginia Senator Jim Webb each drew 2 percent.

Sizeable minorities of likely Democratic caucus-goers said they believed Warren or Sanders better represents their political beliefs than Clinton—37 percent in the case of Warren, up from 26 percent last October, and 26 percent in Sanders's case.

“I'll support our side whatever it is,” said poll respondent Kent Harfst, 53, a local government employee who favors Sanders but considers Clinton all but certain to be the nominee. “A lot of the stuff I read on Bernie, I agree with,” he said. “I don't think he's electable. But I do like him.”

He summed up Sanders's approach as “more fair for everybody and the rich aren't necessarily going to get richer. The shrinking of the middle class, that's my biggest concern.” At the same time, Harfst said Sanders is “pretty far left.” “I think the country is more ready for Hillary than for him,” he said.

Clinton's favorability rating among likely Democratic caucus-goers is actually two points higher now, at 86 percent, than in January. Her unfavorable rating is down three points, to 12 percent. Sanders's favorability got a boost to 47 percent from 37 percent, while 41 percent still say they don't know how they feel about him.

“The reality is, this is a field where nobody has effectively stepped up to challenge Hillary Clinton, full stop,” said J. Ann Selzer, president of West Des Moines-based Selzer & Co., which conducted the poll.

“There's the establishment—and then there's the anti- establishment. That used to be Elizabeth Warren. Now Bernie Sanders is stepping in and claiming the same space that she did, but she's closer to what they want than he is. There's this anti-Hillary vote. It just isn't very big.”

Selzer said O'Malley's formal entrance into the race on Saturday is likely to yield a clearer indication of whether he too can gain traction. “You see that Bernie Sanders tripled his support,” she said.

One relative area of weakness for Clinton is her standing with independents likely to caucus with Democrats. Only 39 percent of them said she is their first choice. At the same time, those independents weren't rallying around a single alternative. Sanders was closest at 20 percent.

One in five likely Democratic caucus-goers said they are bothered about her handling both of her private e-mail server while secretary of state and of the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012 and their aftermath, while 27 percent said they are bothered by the Clinton Foundation's acceptance of foreign government contributions. Higher percentages said they were worried about the implications of those controversies for Clinton's standing in a general election—41 percent, 39 percent, and 37 percent respectively. A full 66 percent were worried about the impact of at least one of the three challenges tested.

Overall, 71 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers say the Clintons get a “bad rap” about unethical behavior rather than actually having behaved unethically. Likely Republican caucus-goers felt the opposite: 84 percent said the Clintons have shown a pattern of unethical behavior.

As far as the Democratic caucuses, however, “it's very difficult to look at this poll and say Hillary's vulnerable,” Selzer said. “Of course it's early, things happen, things can change, but there isn't any evidence people are ready to jump ship.”

The survey of 437 likely Democratic caucus-goers has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.7 percentage points.



Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/iow...#ixzz3bpVs4m84
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Maybe mace or pepper spray would do the trick, or a tranquilizer gun. But yeah, I would want some protection if there was a bear or lion in the woods near my house or on the trail. I know some who maintain they can just use love.

Pepper spray would work on a dog... and it would be the right approach on feral dogs, arguably among the most dangerous predators people could face. Four 80-pound dogs are the equivalent of one 320-pound tiger.

One can make the first shot into the air, and that usually causes the bear to turn tail and look for something less troublesome, like an unattended cabin or maybe a deer.

And yet juries ignore the lack of physical evidence and convict on circumstantial evidence alone. Prosecutors nail people on trumped up evidence, get away with it, and refuse to back off. Our jails contain legions of innocent people and victims of profiling, not to mention victims of the drug war. But police kill innocent unarmed black people and usually get off scot free, even in blue states like northern CA and NY. Our criminal justice system is screwed and on the verge of being totally discredited.

Trumped-up evidence is to be rejected by DAs. Of course, one DA said that the proof of a really effective DA is that one gets wrongful convictions. We don't want our DAs to be that effective.

Defenders often attack physical evidence as 'junk science'... and it is up to juries to decide what is junk science and what is valid. Go figure. Justice is capricious in the extreme in America.

Profiling is a valid means of sorting through possible suspects. If a child disappeared under mysterious circumstances and shows evidence of sexual trauma, then you can just imagine who gets asked first about what happened to the child. That's right -- sex offenders.

I think (that the Pope) already has (discussed economic inequality in America). But we could well hear more.

We have seen only the start. Our political system needs an infusion of conscience so that nobody can say that human suffering is some glorious cause of economic progress without eliciting contempt. We are at the stage at which further addition to productivity cannot increase human happiness. I see technological progress mostly as substitution of low-cost means of doing or providing things with high-cost (including resource use) means of doing or providing things. The 32" flat-screen HDTV, far superior to the 25" console set that relied upon an expensive cathode-ray tube, uses so much less material that one can carry the TV with the larger screen.

WTF you guys, grow some cojones.
I stayed with friends in Colorado who regularly hosted a black bear at their hummingbird feeders. Nobody ever felt a need to shoot the poor thing.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

WTF you guys, grow some cojones.
I stayed with friends in Colorado who regularly hosted a black bear at their hummingbird feeders. Nobody ever felt a need to shoot the poor thing.

You are The Rani, I'm beginning to think whoever said that was right..... ah I think it was Ragnarök_62

Let's see: Xer of Evil, Witchiepoo, The Rani, and now nihilist moron.

It's true though, we used to camp in Yosemite, and the bears came to pillage our cabins; nobody got hurt. Nobody shot them.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You are The Rani, I'm beginning to think whoever said that was right..... ah I think it was Ragnarök_62

Let's see: Xer of Evil, Witchiepoo, The Rani, and now nihilist moron.

It's true though, we used to camp in Yosemite, and the bears came to pillage our cabins; nobody got hurt. Nobody shot them.

There are bears, and then there are bears. The so-called "black bears" of the Rockies are pretty docile. I'm not so sure I'd want to fool with a Montana Grizzly, however.

The trick with bears, especially mama bears, is to run up to the cubs and pet them, so that mama knows that you are friendly.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You are The Rani, I'm beginning to think whoever said that was right..... ah I think it was Ragnarök_62

Let's see: Xer of Evil, Witchiepoo, The Rani, and now nihilist moron.

It's true though, we used to camp in Yosemite, and the bears came to pillage our cabins; nobody got hurt. Nobody shot them.

That wasn't so much for as you as for pb aka the Cowardly Lion. Feral dogs, oh noes!! Get a grip.

Originally Posted by TnT

There are bears, and then there are bears. The so-called "black bears" of the Rockies are pretty docile. I'm not so sure I'd want to fool with a Montana Grizzly, however.

The trick with bears, especially mama bears, is to run up to the cubs and pet them, so that mama knows that you are friendly.

I found myself positioned between a mama bear and her two cubs. Mama bear was standing in front of me. Her two cubs were behind me. Gulp! I had a shotgun but I didn't have the ammo (buckshot) to stop a charging mama bear. Game plan if she charged me. Pepper her in face a few times hoping to sting her nose, get low and save the last shell for up close and personal. Fortunately, it didn't come to that. I let her cubs run by me. One stopped and sniffed my pant leg briefly on its way by me on its way to mama bear. The other squirted me by a few feet without stopping or acknowledging my presence. As soon as her cubs had cleared me, she grunted at her cubs and they took off together through the woods. Pretty wild experience.