HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » HassleCat » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »

HassleCat

Profile Information

Member since: Tue Mar 17, 2015, 12:56 PM
Number of posts: 6,409

About Me

I am a disgruntled former DU member. Most people here are fine, but the site is ruined by zealous Hillary supporters. DU took my money and put my account on everlasting review. Cowards. Dishonest cowards.

Journal Archives

Con media roll over in the face of Clinton's performance

Apparently, even the con media agree Hillary Clinton mopped the floor with Trey Gowdy. Of course, they don’t put it those terms, exactly, but it’s clear what happened. Here’s an article by David A. Graham for the Atlantic.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what-conservative-media-say-about-the-benghazi-hearing/ar-BBmmSCY?li=AAa0dzB&ocid=iehp

I thought we could rely on Fox News to spin it as a victory for Gowdy, but even they couldn’t deny the obvious reality. The article quotes Greta van Susteren speaking to Ed Henry: “In terms of the narrative on Benghazi, there was no major new development that rocked her side of the story, that changes this in some way,” he said. “What you have here is another big test for Hillary Clinton, and another big test that she appears to have passed.”

“…appears to have passed.” Yeah, Greta, and grass is green, rocks are hard, and you’re a snake. Any other obvious stuff you’d like to point out?

Various other conservative outlets trample some sour grapes, but the best they can do is claim Gowdy asked tough questions and Clinton dodged them. Some of them even give grudging admiration to the way she slid past Gowdy’s questions. If nothing else, the Benghazi… excuse me… BENGHAZI! Hearings have alerted the Republicans that they are in serious trouble, and they better not let Trump or Carson wander around alone in the woods, where Hillary the Big Bad Wolf lies in wait.

USA Today almost proclaims Clinton the nominee

Sorry I couldn't find a link to this. I have the paper copy in front of me, but the USA Today website doesn't list this article. The author is Heidi M. Pryzbyia.

Anyway, the headline reads, "Now That Biden's Bowed Out, Clinton Strengthens Grip." The lead paragraph reads, "It may be remembered as the moment when Hillary Clinton's grip on the Democratic nomination became firm." The reason? Many Democratic voters prefer Biden to Clinton, but are "...unlikely to support Sen. Bernie Sanders, the self-described socialist..."

USA Today, of course, is pretty much the Oracle at Delphi when it comes to conventional wisdom. Basically, the entire article proposes that all those who favored Biden are now securely in the Clinton camp, and it quotes a couple sources, including Reince Priebus, to confirm the conventional wisdom. There is no speculation whatever that some Biden supporters might shift to O'Malley or Sanders, or any explanation as to why or why not.

I watch the fundies at work

For some reason, they like to bring their victims to MacDonalds and work on them with their propaganda. The victims are mostly not very bright, often in bad financial circumstances, having family problems, or otherwise vulnerable. The "pastor" usually reads some bible verse to them, then helpfully interprets it to explain what it really means. At this very moment, I am listening to some guy being told how he is better than his friends because he's right with Jesus, and they're not. He's being encouraged to get closer to God by getting more distant from his friends who drink and smoke pot.

NPR explains why Clinton "won" the debate

I was listening to NPR's "On Point" program today, and they had a couple upset callers phone in to ask why the media are all agreed that Clinton won the debate. The panelists pretty much agreed that Clinton was better than Sanders, and I wondered why they were so quick to discount the focus groups, the standing ovation for Sanders' comment about the email things, etc. Then it hit me. They are professional politician watchers, and they all have careers judging politicians against certain norms, certain benchmarks, and Sanders does not measure up by their standards. They made a couple comments regarding Sanders being unconventional, but they never connected it to the way they evaluate him, compared to the way they evaluate Clinton. Of course, they are probably right when they say Clinton won the debate, and pretty much locked the nomination. They are counting on conventional wisdom to come through for them again, and it probably will, particularly considering how much time they spend hawking it.

Why Sanders may have "won" the debate

Notice how wishy-washy I am here? I don't think debates are usually "won" by either candidate, at last not since Jack Kennedy beat Richard Nixon. I think the debate may have benefited Sanders more than it benefited Clinton. Among Democrats who already have a preference, I doubt the debate influenced any to switch sides. However, there are a fair number of Democrats who say they were not aware of Sanders before the debate, and this was their first exposure to him. Without a debate, I assume the huge majority of these voters would go for Clinton. Among those who saw the debate, there would be a split of... what? The current split is something like 60/30 in favor of Clinton. What would be the split among these newly interested voters? They're less likely to be traditional Democrats, followers of the DNC, so I don't see them going 60/30 for Clinton. 50/50? 40/60 for Sanders? I would like to see a reliable poll.

Climate change explained

I don't know why everybody is so mystified by the causes of climate change. My local newspaper explains the whole thing. Last week, someone wrote a rather long letter identifying chemtrails as the culprit. This week, another letter, from a different person, explained that chemtrails are composed of aluminum, barium, strontium and magnesium nanoparticles. There you have it.

Clinton scared, fearful, shaking in her boots, abandoning positions, jumping ship!

OK, that was pure click bait, but she did change her position on TPP, and some pundits believe it's out of concern about Bernie Sanders. Here is an article by Chris Cillizza in the Washington Post. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hillary-clinton%e2%80%99s-opposition-to-tpp-is-a-sign-of-just-how-worried-she-is-about-bernie-sanders/ar-AAfdlg0?li=AAa0dzB&ocid=iehp.

According to the article, Hillary Clinton has flip-flopped on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) because she is worried about Bernie Sanders sneaking up on her left. They offer a quote to demonstrate how strongly Clinton supported TPP: "TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field." Clinton said in 2012. "And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment."CNN listed 45 times that Clinton spoke in support of TPP.)

Here’s why Clinton is changing some positions, according to Cillizza: “It's not hard to see that Clinton, concerned with the surprisingly strong challenge by Sanders from her ideological left, is working to put out that fire by allowing zero distance between her and the Vermonter on these two high-profile issues.”

Cillizza finds it interesting that Clinton feels the need to adjust her positions on certain issues, because she still enjoys strong support among Democratic liberals, according to the polls, and there is little evidence that Democratic voters would abandon her over TPP or the Keystone XL pipeline. The article concludes with this: “That's a concession, whether the Clinton folks admit it or not, that they are more than a little concerned about Sanders. Fact.”

Oregon sheriff may be mass shooting "truther"

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/02/oregon_shooter_targeted_christians_sheriff_had_denounced_gun_control_umpqua.html

I picked this up from the Slate website. It seems the Douglas County OR sheriff was involved with the “truther” movement following the Sandy Hook school shootings. I seem to remember him participating in one of those “constitutional sheriff” conventions, as well.

If you can figure out this one...

What is going on in Syria? Does anyone really know? The US and Russia appear to be bombing in opposition t each other, but this article seems to say they're cooperating to ensure the safety of their air crews. Really? Anyway, I certainly hope we can stay out of it as much as possible.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iran-troops-to-join-syria-war-russia-bombs-group-trained-by-cia/ar-AAf0yc9?li=AAa0dzB&ocid=iehp

Hams for Bernie!

I was driving along in traffic yesterday, and another driver waved at me. I thought, "I don't know that person," but I waved back. As the vehicle passed me, I could see it had a Bernie Sanders sticker and ham radio license plates, same as my vehicle. 73 to all you hams feeling the Bern de KC7QOP.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »