The backers of Ohio's abortion amendment are taking Secretary of State Frank LaRose to court for the language changes he made to the summary explanation approved by the attorney general.
He changed fetus to unborn child.
He changed, "...abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability," to "...the amendment always allows an unborn child to be aborted at any stage of viability if, in the treating physician's determination, the life and health exception applies."
"Here’s a thing I didn’t know about Trump and Giuliani: When Giuliani was US Attorney prosecuting mobsters, he was investigating Trump for money laundering. Then Trump offered $2 million to his campaign and the investigation stopped! Don’t we have fun! — Old Wayne Barrett at NYDN"
I don't think anyone has encapsulated why Trump won, and Clinton lost, with such brevity as this: "Trump took a bunch of Bernie’s positions to ingratiate himself with the working class (don’t worry, he eventually returned them all unused)"
As half of the power couple who invented 'triangulation', it's ironic that Clinton ran one of the most tone-deaf, brain-dead, dogmatically formulaic, ideologically unyielding, and operationally myopic primary and G.E. campaigns in modern history. All she had to do to foil both Sanders and Trump was to emulate Teh Donald by stealing the most populist planks in Sanders' platform ($15/hr; M4A; debt-free education; opposing free-market globalization; etc.), and pretend to believe in them until she won and it was safe to abandon them (or just return them, broken, discredited, delegitimized, to Bernie). Four years later it would have made re-election a bit more difficult, but, hey, one hurdle at a time, right?
So, why didn't she? Top of the list is institutional constraints, e.g., a campaign finance system that couldn't exist without near-total dependence on Big Business funding (aka, Wall St. in general, and financial services in particular). There are two illustrations: First, $15/hr. While Clinton's platform had vague, 'asperational' language about raising the min. wage, it took her eight months into the primary campaign to finally put a hard number to it; and even then it was only $12/hr. Worse yet, it was policy-wonked to death with pages and pages of "adjustments" (region, age, type of work, etc). IOW, five minutes of having to explain how it individually affects people doesn't roll off the tongue as easily or concisely as fifteen-an-hour-for-everyone.
Second, which is more a failure of optics management than policy, was the Verizon strike. While on paper Clinton supported a 'mutually-agreeable' solution, she held a major fundraiser with senior Verizon exec's at the height of the strike, while Sanders was walking picket lines with strikers.
My broader point is, below the upper 5 or 10% of wealthy voters, the rest of the country, regardless of demographic niche, is 'populist', e.g., anti-corporate. The Sanders campaign should have been a wake up call to the DNC (and it's corporate sponsors) that the dynamic tension driving electoral behavior isn't between elitist establishmentarianism and 'populism', but between progressive and regressive populism. And until the DNC cuts the umbilical cord to corporate donors, and stops treating the left as an existential enemy, the GOP will remain viable, if not dominate.
I take your point, and don't necessarily disagree, BUT...(the acronym for Behold! underlying TRUTH!) Sanders would never give up his Senate seat for the privilege of being ignored by Hillary for four years. Even if the Clinton campaign hadn't poisoned the well the DNC demands the Left drinks from (thank you, David Brock!).
OTOH, Clinton's ego was inflated to such Trumpian proportions that Sanders' temerity to challenge her for the nomination was an unforgivable act of heresy (having invested eight years rigging a one candidate primary only to nearly lose to a nobody from nowhere who started with nothing). There are times when I imagine having Sanders emerge from the election as a more popular and respected figure then her stings more than her losing to Trump. At least to judge by her die-hard defenders.
A few remarks about "popularity". No one, at least initially, supported Sanders for his user-friendly personality; yet, as events would show, he didn't need one, as his primary (no pun intended) appeal was his platform, which Trump had the cynical opportunism to steal and Clinton didn't. Were it not for his platform, Sanders wouldn't have lasted to the first debate, much less to IA and NH; but (to steal a phrase) he persisted on a wave of rank-and-file DP/independent support Clinton could only dream of, and the corporate media still doesn't understand.
As for Clinton, she was never as "popular" as her PUMA cultists (and M$M sycophants) claimed. That should have been made blatantly obvious by her defeat in the nomination in '08 to an overly-ambitious, as shallow as vain, poster boy for identity politics (all style, no substance). To illustrate how long-standing Clinton's problematic personality has been a problem, I just stumbled on this quote from 2000 (first Senate campaign): "The problem was especially acute among some female demographics; one of her longtime advisers later said, "Women in the educated professional class? They fucking couldn't stand her. We could never figure out why. We had psychologists come in."
As for the claim that Bernie Bros (and let's not exclude the legions of Hos) cost Clinton the election, that's pure bullshit. The primaries revealed just how tenuous her popularity with the DP base really was, in both deep red states (losing AK, ID, MT, WY, UT, ND, NE, KS, OK, IN, WV), and blue (MI, VT, NH, ME, WA, OR, HI, WI, MN). This should illustrate that Clinton had maxxed out her support among "Democrats", and needed independents to win the general election.
And here's where things become untenable for Clinton fans. When the first G.E./head-to-head polls began in mid-Oct. '15 (Clinton/Sanders v Trump, Cruz, Jeb!, Carson, et al), Clinton and Sanders each had a 1 point lead over Trump among independents. When these polls abruptly stopped in mid-May, '16, Clinton still had her one point lead over Trump, but Sanders' lead had increased to 15% (Quinnipiac) and 16% (Fox, which actually was quite reliable). That's where Clinton lost the election (despite marginally winning the independent vote)..
Living in a CD gerrymandered for Republicans, in '16 I learned one lesson about independent and even GOP voters: given a choice between a regressive (Trump) and progressive (Sanders) 'populist, the progressive populist would win. Given a choice between an elitist establishmentarian (Clinton) and a regressive populist (Trump), the regressive populist wins. It's a lesson the DNC refuses to learn.
Amanda Marcotte is always worth reading. She mentions here that any criticism of Trump or disagreement about anything he says is met with derision. I had this verified again yesterday when talking with a relative. I said all of Trump's current legal problems trace back to his inability to admit he lost or ever did anything wrong. If he had contested the obvious results for a few weeks and then bowed to facts and conceded before launching a violent insurrection, and returned the documents he illegally removed from the White House when first requested he would be sitting in Mar-a-Lago with absolutely no legal headaches. He could have conceded and said I will be back in 2024 and the path to a possible 2024 victory would be unencumbered by one or more felony convictions.
I did not mention that path would be open because Merrick Garland has no interest in investigating any of the other corruption we witnessed while Trump was in office. In fact for over a year and a half he did not seem interested in investigating the leaders of the insurrection, just the foot soldiers actually entering the Capitol.
They got pissed off that I would suggest Trump had any character flaws, brought up Hillary Clinton, and close to three years after the election, millions of dollars spent on recounts, audits, and investigation of allegations, usually by Republican state officials showing the count was accurate and the elections honest said there was no way Biden got more votes than Trump. Without coming up with any reason for that statement. I guess it's based on a poll of their church members, who are all MAGA heads.
I heard once that in the face of this kind of thing--and I haven't faced it-- if you ask the person in a tone you must really have to be careful with-- "how did you learn learn this one thing about the 2020 election, auntie-- because there IS a lot of evidence that it was ok." That then you'll learn more about their weird convictions. If you have ten discussions like this, during the 11th they'll listen to you with open minds. It's not worth it unless you're living in the same house, though.
I feel like I'm having a brain freeze looking at that graph. Howwwwww can "stabbing (typo for standing and it stays) up for the middle class" go UP while being serious about the economy goes DOWN?! Strong economies create a stronger middle class! Aaaaagggghhh
I first encountered Vivek as a voice on the radio, when he was a guest on NPR as I woke up. I did not know who it was, but what he was saying sounded exactly like some 18yo who just got into Harvard and needed to prove to everyone how much smarter he was than you by dropping words like "semiotics" into discussions about backyard barbecues. (True story)
His previous indictment a few months back reported a slightly different values. But I believe they actually measured and weighed him instead of just asking.
Your hed gif is from the movie Cartouche. More info about Sexy French Robin Hood here: https://open.substack.com/pub/martiniambassador/p/cartouche?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
excellent
At first I thought that was Nathan Fillion and was worried I had missed an episode of Firefly :P
Looking for to seeing this.
“[T]he original French (or whatever the original language is, IMNSHFO) version with subtitles is the best.”
I never have been able to enjoy dubbed dialogue.
Another Academy-worthy performance, MGlam. MGlam is truly a worthy hip-hop name, n'est pas?
Oui!
"𝘕𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭."
I don't drink shots, but if the Bazaar offers a Mug Shot mug anytime soon, then shut up and take my money!
I'll put it next to my Dark Brandon mug
The backers of Ohio's abortion amendment are taking Secretary of State Frank LaRose to court for the language changes he made to the summary explanation approved by the attorney general.
He changed fetus to unborn child.
He changed, "...abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability," to "...the amendment always allows an unborn child to be aborted at any stage of viability if, in the treating physician's determination, the life and health exception applies."
"Here’s a thing I didn’t know about Trump and Giuliani: When Giuliani was US Attorney prosecuting mobsters, he was investigating Trump for money laundering. Then Trump offered $2 million to his campaign and the investigation stopped! Don’t we have fun! — Old Wayne Barrett at NYDN"
...oh, cute.
Ancient DNA from Assyrian sun dried brick. Weird. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnQ9KdrkgK8&ab_channel=SCIENCE%26TECH Sorry about robot voice.
"stands up for the middle class"? what am I missing about Republicans?
I don't think anyone has encapsulated why Trump won, and Clinton lost, with such brevity as this: "Trump took a bunch of Bernie’s positions to ingratiate himself with the working class (don’t worry, he eventually returned them all unused)"
As half of the power couple who invented 'triangulation', it's ironic that Clinton ran one of the most tone-deaf, brain-dead, dogmatically formulaic, ideologically unyielding, and operationally myopic primary and G.E. campaigns in modern history. All she had to do to foil both Sanders and Trump was to emulate Teh Donald by stealing the most populist planks in Sanders' platform ($15/hr; M4A; debt-free education; opposing free-market globalization; etc.), and pretend to believe in them until she won and it was safe to abandon them (or just return them, broken, discredited, delegitimized, to Bernie). Four years later it would have made re-election a bit more difficult, but, hey, one hurdle at a time, right?
So, why didn't she? Top of the list is institutional constraints, e.g., a campaign finance system that couldn't exist without near-total dependence on Big Business funding (aka, Wall St. in general, and financial services in particular). There are two illustrations: First, $15/hr. While Clinton's platform had vague, 'asperational' language about raising the min. wage, it took her eight months into the primary campaign to finally put a hard number to it; and even then it was only $12/hr. Worse yet, it was policy-wonked to death with pages and pages of "adjustments" (region, age, type of work, etc). IOW, five minutes of having to explain how it individually affects people doesn't roll off the tongue as easily or concisely as fifteen-an-hour-for-everyone.
Second, which is more a failure of optics management than policy, was the Verizon strike. While on paper Clinton supported a 'mutually-agreeable' solution, she held a major fundraiser with senior Verizon exec's at the height of the strike, while Sanders was walking picket lines with strikers.
My broader point is, below the upper 5 or 10% of wealthy voters, the rest of the country, regardless of demographic niche, is 'populist', e.g., anti-corporate. The Sanders campaign should have been a wake up call to the DNC (and it's corporate sponsors) that the dynamic tension driving electoral behavior isn't between elitist establishmentarianism and 'populism', but between progressive and regressive populism. And until the DNC cuts the umbilical cord to corporate donors, and stops treating the left as an existential enemy, the GOP will remain viable, if not dominate.
I take your point, and don't necessarily disagree, BUT...(the acronym for Behold! underlying TRUTH!) Sanders would never give up his Senate seat for the privilege of being ignored by Hillary for four years. Even if the Clinton campaign hadn't poisoned the well the DNC demands the Left drinks from (thank you, David Brock!).
OTOH, Clinton's ego was inflated to such Trumpian proportions that Sanders' temerity to challenge her for the nomination was an unforgivable act of heresy (having invested eight years rigging a one candidate primary only to nearly lose to a nobody from nowhere who started with nothing). There are times when I imagine having Sanders emerge from the election as a more popular and respected figure then her stings more than her losing to Trump. At least to judge by her die-hard defenders.
A few remarks about "popularity". No one, at least initially, supported Sanders for his user-friendly personality; yet, as events would show, he didn't need one, as his primary (no pun intended) appeal was his platform, which Trump had the cynical opportunism to steal and Clinton didn't. Were it not for his platform, Sanders wouldn't have lasted to the first debate, much less to IA and NH; but (to steal a phrase) he persisted on a wave of rank-and-file DP/independent support Clinton could only dream of, and the corporate media still doesn't understand.
As for Clinton, she was never as "popular" as her PUMA cultists (and M$M sycophants) claimed. That should have been made blatantly obvious by her defeat in the nomination in '08 to an overly-ambitious, as shallow as vain, poster boy for identity politics (all style, no substance). To illustrate how long-standing Clinton's problematic personality has been a problem, I just stumbled on this quote from 2000 (first Senate campaign): "The problem was especially acute among some female demographics; one of her longtime advisers later said, "Women in the educated professional class? They fucking couldn't stand her. We could never figure out why. We had psychologists come in."
As for the claim that Bernie Bros (and let's not exclude the legions of Hos) cost Clinton the election, that's pure bullshit. The primaries revealed just how tenuous her popularity with the DP base really was, in both deep red states (losing AK, ID, MT, WY, UT, ND, NE, KS, OK, IN, WV), and blue (MI, VT, NH, ME, WA, OR, HI, WI, MN). This should illustrate that Clinton had maxxed out her support among "Democrats", and needed independents to win the general election.
And here's where things become untenable for Clinton fans. When the first G.E./head-to-head polls began in mid-Oct. '15 (Clinton/Sanders v Trump, Cruz, Jeb!, Carson, et al), Clinton and Sanders each had a 1 point lead over Trump among independents. When these polls abruptly stopped in mid-May, '16, Clinton still had her one point lead over Trump, but Sanders' lead had increased to 15% (Quinnipiac) and 16% (Fox, which actually was quite reliable). That's where Clinton lost the election (despite marginally winning the independent vote)..
Living in a CD gerrymandered for Republicans, in '16 I learned one lesson about independent and even GOP voters: given a choice between a regressive (Trump) and progressive (Sanders) 'populist, the progressive populist would win. Given a choice between an elitist establishmentarian (Clinton) and a regressive populist (Trump), the regressive populist wins. It's a lesson the DNC refuses to learn.
you got your Trump mugshotglasses yet
My friend and I decided we would make dartboards with his mugshot and sell them on Amazon and to "As Seen on TV"...
Amanda Marcotte is always worth reading. She mentions here that any criticism of Trump or disagreement about anything he says is met with derision. I had this verified again yesterday when talking with a relative. I said all of Trump's current legal problems trace back to his inability to admit he lost or ever did anything wrong. If he had contested the obvious results for a few weeks and then bowed to facts and conceded before launching a violent insurrection, and returned the documents he illegally removed from the White House when first requested he would be sitting in Mar-a-Lago with absolutely no legal headaches. He could have conceded and said I will be back in 2024 and the path to a possible 2024 victory would be unencumbered by one or more felony convictions.
I did not mention that path would be open because Merrick Garland has no interest in investigating any of the other corruption we witnessed while Trump was in office. In fact for over a year and a half he did not seem interested in investigating the leaders of the insurrection, just the foot soldiers actually entering the Capitol.
They got pissed off that I would suggest Trump had any character flaws, brought up Hillary Clinton, and close to three years after the election, millions of dollars spent on recounts, audits, and investigation of allegations, usually by Republican state officials showing the count was accurate and the elections honest said there was no way Biden got more votes than Trump. Without coming up with any reason for that statement. I guess it's based on a poll of their church members, who are all MAGA heads.
I heard once that in the face of this kind of thing--and I haven't faced it-- if you ask the person in a tone you must really have to be careful with-- "how did you learn learn this one thing about the 2020 election, auntie-- because there IS a lot of evidence that it was ok." That then you'll learn more about their weird convictions. If you have ten discussions like this, during the 11th they'll listen to you with open minds. It's not worth it unless you're living in the same house, though.
Lawrence O'Donnell made that point, that Trump's legal problems arise from the fact that he couldn't admit he came in second.
Of course the Cooks Corner shooter had a history of domestic violence. It always starts that way
I feel like I'm having a brain freeze looking at that graph. Howwwwww can "stabbing (typo for standing and it stays) up for the middle class" go UP while being serious about the economy goes DOWN?! Strong economies create a stronger middle class! Aaaaagggghhh
"He’s a great man!" – Eric Clapton addresses his attempt to donate to RFK Jr’s campaign
Clapton had previously tried to donate $5,000 to support Kennedy’s campaign.
https://guitar.com/news/music-news/eric-clapton-addresses-donating-money-rfk-jr-campaign/
Eric Clapton is a pile of shit and always has been.
Seconded.
I first encountered Vivek as a voice on the radio, when he was a guest on NPR as I woke up. I did not know who it was, but what he was saying sounded exactly like some 18yo who just got into Harvard and needed to prove to everyone how much smarter he was than you by dropping words like "semiotics" into discussions about backyard barbecues. (True story)
I for one loved 4 corners! Also aquariums.
"I am not bought and paid for!" Says Peter Thiel's latest purchase.
I am sure this has been pointed out elsewhere, but I was very disappointed to learn that Trump was allowed to self-report his height and weight.
His previous indictment a few months back reported a slightly different values. But I believe they actually measured and weighed him instead of just asking.
I heard it was self-reported. 6'3" and 215 lbs? On the Moon, maybe.
Isn't that information public? I wonder why they haven't released it.
Ahhh, but great grist for the mill of Let's Ridicule a Certain Orange Florida Retiree
Getting a driver's license is not the same as being booked into jail.
Point taken. Love your user name. It's just that if you're incarcerated, they should have accurate information about your height and weight.