Democrats lost the race for Kansas' 4th district by 6 points. 

JJLehto wrote: Democrats lost the race for Kansas' 4th district by 6 points.  This is quite a shocker actually, they usually back the GOP by 25-30 points (Trump by 27) and is one of the more Republican districts in the US.  Possibly a one off, OR a sign of 2018 troubles for the GOP ahead. We have to see how the other special elections go. The one in GA being heavily targeted.  The Dems have to learn from the GOP: Target state races. This is unsexy, but it works. They focused on state races in 2010, swept house, and redrew the lines to favor conservatism for 10 years. We need to hyper focus on 2018 while momentum/energy is still going. Hopefully carry it into 2020.  This is where Bernie, after being spat on by most of the party, is now a yuuge asset. One of the most politicians in the country right now, he's stumping all over the place, even West Virginia where he gets standing ovation for advocating single payer healthcare, basically on the road carrying the flag into battle.

yeah.... looking promising.. probably too much to expect a win.. but it continues the trend in these special elections that Dem's are outperforming November by double digits at a bare minimum.. 30 or more points in some cases.

Yeah...  that Georgia one is one that is not too much to dream for win...decades a Republican stronghold.. now VERY much in play.  Cobb country..the other great suburban Atlanta bastion of Republican power in Georgia narrowly went blue in November.. Atlanta's suburbs seem trending blue and when or if they do all the way... the state will go with it .. at least in a national sense. Much as Virginia did.. the heavy urban surburban vote...offsetting all the rural yokel vote...

agreed.. that was one of the lessons the party needed to learn... passion and organization at the local grassroots level. Again 2018 is still a ways off.. but it does appear that the party is highly energized and motivated.. not by the DNC.. but at the grassroots, local activist level.  well done...

SteveG wrote: JJLehto wrote: Atavachron wrote: I don't know, man, Hillary is a tough old broad.   I wouldn't be shocked at all if she were capable of starting wars more easily than, well, almost anyone. She was quite hawkish. This is not really surprising to anyone who knows her record, including as Sect of State. It was a major (but not surprising at all) hypocrisy to see many "anti war" liberals suddenly defend her record on the matter at all costs. I mean, the GOP of all people actually claimed Obama was being a "war hawk" and wanted to police the world which is laughable, especially since they now are foaming for Trump to nuke Syria. People are damn hypocrites. Thing is I will call out both sides Hillary would have been Hawkish in the Obama mode. Drone attacking eminent US threats while keeping boots off the ground. Even if she proposed bombing Syrian gas depots, she would have met with the same resistance that Obama met when he proposed the same idea to the Senate during his tenure as President.

No, she would've been worse.   Hillary don't take nothin' from no one, she's been around too long and suffered too much to display the kind of sheepish and tentative Obama-style militarism.   She's smarter than Trump but more bellicose than Obama.

And BTW am I the only one on the planet who thinks the United Airlines dude is deeply disturbed and criminally psychotic?   I mean when you're on a plane what would you want security to do to a crazed, drug-dealing cardsharp who is screaming like a little girl?   I say pull him off the damn plane, and quick.

Atavachron wrote: SteveG wrote: JJLehto wrote: Atavachron wrote: I don't know, man, Hillary is a tough old broad.   I wouldn't be shocked at all if she were capable of starting wars more easily than, well, almost anyone. She was quite hawkish. This is not really surprising to anyone who knows her record, including as Sect of State. It was a major (but not surprising at all) hypocrisy to see many "anti war" liberals suddenly defend her record on the matter at all costs. I mean, the GOP of all people actually claimed Obama was being a "war hawk" and wanted to police the world which is laughable, especially since they now are foaming for Trump to nuke Syria. People are damn hypocrites. Thing is I will call out both sides Hillary would have been Hawkish in the Obama mode. Drone attacking eminent US threats while keeping boots off the ground. Even if she proposed bombing Syrian gas depots, she would have met with the same resistance that Obama met when he proposed the same idea to the Senate during his tenure as President. No, she would've been worse.   Hillary don't take nothin' from no one, she's been around too long and suffered too much to display the kind of sheepish and tentative Obama-style militarism.   She's smarter than Trump but more bellicose than Obama. And BTW am I the only one on the planet who thinks the United Airlines dude is deeply disturbed and criminally psychotic?   I mean when you're on a plane what would you want security to do to a crazed, drug-dealing cardsharp who is screaming like a little girl?   I say pull him off the damn plane, and quick.

My opinion of Hillary was based on her running as Obama's girl and upholding his agenda. From where do you draw your opinion on Hillary, David? Just a gut reaction? 

Edited by timothy leary - April 19 2017 at 15:15

Atavachron wrote: And BTW am I the only one on the planet who thinks the United Airlines dude is deeply disturbed and criminally psychotic?   I mean when you're on a plane what would you want security to do to a crazed, drug-dealing cardsharp who is screaming like a little girl?   I say pull him off the damn plane, and quick.

yeah.... he sort of blew a fuse there... easy enough to do

I remember the last time I flew...  10 hours stuck in plane with seemingly every single american baby returning from Europe and they all decided to scream and cry for the entire damn flight.  Well we touched down at Dulles and proceeded to enter the clusterf**k that is TSA border control.  2 f**king hours later.. after going through several lines for automated devices (to save time you know! ) I was tired, pissed, hungry, horny, drunk and wanting a cigarette so badly I would kill the first motherf**ker that really pissed me off..  well be careful what you ask for

after 2 hours.. we end up in another line.. with some rude 20 something kid with a badge and a gun.. who asked for the SAME DAMNED information we had already given...  yeah.. I almost went back to the Bad Micky of my youth and grab him by the throat and express my displeasure.... but I didn't...

lesson the good Doctor should have not forgotten.. don't f**k the men in charge when it comes to aviation...   

obviously UA made a dog's dinner and a PR nightmare and disaster of it.

I think that we're all racists under the skin. Some of us handle it a little better. JMO.

Dean wrote: SteveG wrote: I think that we're all racists under the skin. Not necessarily - I think we all tend to be tribal  - race and religious differences are just products of that. As teh concept of tribe has been replaced by increasingly larger communities our inherent ability to detect a threat on our tribe's survival by a neighbouring tribe has been short-circuited. Where once we identified a threat as being anyone we didn't personally recognise (i.e.,subtle detection) we now accept (on a base level) anyone who looks and behaves like us as belonging to the same tribe, therefore anyone who doesn't, isn't (crude detection). Someone who is a different colour or religion is clearly not of our tribe, hence is [instinctively] seen as a threat to survival.

Good point. I was just thinking out loud, as they say. I also think that other factors may apply such as egoism, nationalism, etc.

Edited by SteveG - April 13 2017 at 06:21

Atavachron wrote: And BTW am I the only one on the planet who thinks the United Airlines dude is deeply disturbed and criminally psychotic?   I mean when you're on a plane what would you want security to do to a crazed, drug-dealing cardsharp who is screaming like a little girl?   I say pull him off the damn plane, and quick.

Dark details emerge on United Airlines doctor's criminal past

Edited by SteveG - April 13 2017 at 12:48

TRUMP: We're talking about surveillance. It was wiretapped in quotes. "The New York Times" said the word wiretapped in the headline of the first edition. Then they took it out of there fast when they realized. But I put wiretapped in quotes, meaning, because, look, wiretapping is an old-fashioned...

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: — there are too many wires anymore, right?

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: You don't have a lot of wires. Look at this room. This room used to have a lot of wires. Now it doesn't have so many wires.

Edited by The T - April 13 2017 at 13:48