DAngelus

Except that he didn't do that. No matter how much Mrs. Clinton's surrogates tried to spin it as such. The New York protestors sure as hell would be storming the President-elect's residence, if Trump Tower hadn't been "fortified". I don't know about you, but I find that scary and undemocratic (and un-Democratic) as anything I've ever seen. And does nobody want to reply to the main point in my OP, the tone-deafness Mrs. Clinton showed in that New Yorker piece by reducing Obama's "get out of jail [almost-]free" treatment of the bankers to failure to tell a "story"? That's what I came her to talk about, I reiterate. This being the Clinton topic, not the Trump one or a general politics thread. Just to make myself clear.

Yes but the "No Blood for Oil!" protests didn't happen until Young Shrub had sought the Authorization of Military Force that Senator Clinton was so proud to give him, parroting his talking points and voting for it "with conviction". The vote was in October, the invasion was the following March. The protests were in between. That's how this is supposed to work, not protesting Bush's election because he might start a war, someday, somewhere. (The actual "election" of GWB was in fact worthy of a protest, but there were circumstances then! There's no circumstances.) Hardly. There's still that whole separation-of-powers confirmation process, as Justice [apparently-NOT-to-be] Garland could tell you. Check the edit in my previous post for my personal story of protesting a SCOTUS nominee, way back in the mists of Bush 41.

And contradicted himself on numerous occasions, as HRC supporters are so fond of pointing out. [edit: as chicken wing did in fact point out above^, while I was typing this.] Perhaps wait until the coin is actually flipped before flipping out? Obama didn't. (Pretty much everything Obama said on the campaign trail turned out to be a lie, in fact.) Clinton most likely wouldn't. Why pre-judge Trump? You'll have four (eight?) long years to protest actual nominees he actually nominates*, actual executive orders he actually issues, and actual bills he actually submits to Congress. Hell, even an actual inaugural address he's actually going to give. Why waste your moral capital trying to slay an imagined dragon, especially when your signs in the streets aren't talking about any such specifics, just childish slogans like "#NotMyPresident"? Yeah, check back about that on January 20th. It doesn't work that way. *-Way back in 1989, when I was living in the same state of Pennsylvania that the young Taylor Alison Swift was soon to be born in, I was so horrified by the Supreme Court nominee that Pappy Bush had proposed (apparently because he had no objectionable "paper trail" on his views on abortion, the way Robert Bork had), that I wrote to my senators, urging them to block the confirmation. That scary, scary Republican judicial nominee in question turned out to be…David Souter. Oops. So even when we wait, we're capable of seriously overreacting. To overreact to literally nothing, at this point, seems ludicrous. But JMO.

Maybe they should wait until he's sworn in and tries to actually implement them before they go around making a spectacle, then? Because that way they could be protesting specific policies; here it looks as though they're protesting the orderly exercise of our voting rights and the peaceful transfer of power. Which, last I checked, they're supposed to be in favor of. Oh, really? You must have missed all the misandrist "Bernie Bro! Go away, white men! We don't need you, you'll be outnumbered soon, anyway! Demographics are turning on you!" screechings of the spring. Blessed from above by Clinton/Podesta, I might add (as documented by WikiLeaks, bless them.) Just as they'd tried to scare the voters in the '08 primaries with talk of "Obama Boys". Ask any African-American male how he feels about being called "boy"…I don't think you'll get many positive responses. But there was definitely a Cult of Clinton. I have thousands of pages of archived threads and tens of thousands of posts (from other boards) available to show you, had I the energy or you the interest. To say "never" is revisionist history in the extreme, IMO. I'm sure a few nuts ran their mouths. That's a far cry from painting Trump himself, or even the RNC, as plotting to overthrow the government, as Clinton and Obama kept insinuating, even in her "concession" speech. But even if he/they had, there's a simple math problem that's relevant to this discussion. Wrong+Wrong=/=Right. It's as simple as that. I don't much care what Trump allegedly might have done. It doesn't make those bozos in the streets look any less like bozos, IMO. All they are doing is tarnishing the image of protesting and giving the right a ready-made excuse to attack any legitimate protests that might happen later on. And by the way, I notice that the Democratic mayors of these cities are NOT having the police beat the crap out of the protestors, the way Obama had the Occupiers savaged in 2011. Gee, I wonder why? Look stupid whining about an election? Keep doing it, kids. Actually protest the oligarchy and turn the country against financial criminals? Unleash the hounds! ("The proudest day in the history of the L.A.P.D.," to quote Mayor Villaraigosa.) I'd pretend to be surprised, but why bother? Government for the bankers, of the bankers, and by the bankers, just as it's been since the Clintons and their DLC cronies infected the "Democratic" party in the mid-'80s. But JMO.

Too bad; it was still a legal and fair election. To run around "protesting" it makes us look like a banana republic. The fans of the thoroughly-corrupt war criminal and possible sociopath who was running under the "D" banner had their chance to "protest" our next President and his bluster and bad hair choices at the ballot box on Election Day. If they didn't make their voices heard loudly enough, that's on them, not the rest of us. Now they can take their fauxtrage (yep, I like it) and stop blocking traffic and go home, already. Or at least wait for him to actually do something that merits such a protest. And no, fat-shaming a pageant contestant 19 years ago isn't it. (HRC lost an election after she used that as her closing argument in Debate #1? Shocking!) Sorry, Ms. Machado. Hope you enjoyed voting.

Well, as a Stein voter, I'd say Rachel Maddow, who's come close to going insane, IMO. But I'd rather talk about Mrs. Clinton. As I've said, I don't like these IMO pointless and ridiculous and counter-productive "protests". What are they "protesting", exactly, again? "We don't like that our candidate didn't win!!" Yeah, it's called "democracy", look it up. And while doing my sixth or seventh massive eye-roll at this, I had a thought: why hasn't Clinton called upon her supporters to "respect the outcome of the election", after she (and Obama) spent all this time mocking Trump for leaving the door open to possibly filing a Florida-in-2000 style challenge, should the votes merit it? She took his leaving open the possibility of exercising his rights under current election laws and tried to paint him as if he had the Brownshirts suited up and ready to go, even if he clearly lost and lost big. (By, let's say, 306-232 EV…) Now it's her troops in the streets (allegedly bussed there, in some cases), and the silence is deafening. Hypocrisy Reichstag Clinton, it appears. Anyway, while Googling around for news of this, I came across George Packer's election profile of Clinton in the New Yorker, from October 31st. Entitled "Hillary Clinton and the Populist Revolt", it's an in-depth look at Clinton with excerpts from the author's recent interview of her, seen in light of the mood of the electorate, and while Packer clearly likes and is sympathetic to (and IMO somewhat slanted in favor of) Clinton, even he sees the problem of being so very establishment in an anti-establishment election. But as I say, Packer IMO doesn't go far enough in calling out Clinton. Here's one excerpt that I felt showed how deeply Her Royal Clintoness (endorsed by Bush 41, Bush 43, Mitt Romney, Colin Powell, Paul Wolfowitz, Max Boot, Glenn Beck, and the Koch Brothers, I remind you…) Just.Doesn't.GET.It: So, to Clinton's mind (and I use the term loosely), the problem with Obama and Eric Holder and the Department of Wrist-Slapping (aka "Justice", hahaha) letting the banksters walk away with nothing more than a campaign donation or two (Obama in 2012 out-raised Romney severely from Wall Street, even from Romney's own vulture-capital firm, Bain Capital…I wonder why?) wasn't that "those bastards need to go to jail!" or anything like that, as obvious as it might seem given the thousands of laws the bankers broke. It wasn't even that "it's important that people keep confidence that the system works" or anything beyond the specific cases. It's that people need scapegoats and since Obama didn't "tell a story" (and fuck her for claiming that's all FDR was doing, rather than telling the truth and reforming a broken system), now people are going to "blame immigrants". And given that Clinton/Obama neoliberalism's primary support is from "the minority base" that is "still dominated by the Democratic messaging" (2009 speech to GoldmanSachs, released by Wikileaks on October 10 [Podesta 1]), she's apparently more concerned that her sheep-ish supporters might come under attack than about getting justice for everyone. Including that "bucket of losers" (same speech) on the left that's starting to organize and might pose a danger to HedgeFund "Democrats" everywhere. Why, we "losers" care more about economic justice and eliminating the corruption of the oligarchy than about SJW faux-outrage ("fauxtrage"? I like it) directed at straw men! We're almost as bad as that "basket of deplorables" on the right! Why can't we just let our betters grind everyone down, like we're supposed to? Really, the nerve…wanting bankers in jail. Next thing, we'll be wanting a Special Prosecutor appointed to investigate Clinton taking bribes for arms sales to Qatar and Saudi Arabia while she was Secretary of State. Oh, right, that's Trump "not respecting the rule of law" and "wanting to lock up his political opponents". Nothing to do with massive corruption of a cabinet officer who paid her for a decade's worth of her daughter's living expenses, including Chelsea's wedding, out of tax-deductible "gifts" to the Clinton "Foundation". (Doug Band, in his 1/4/2012 email to John Podesta, released by WikiLeaks on November 6 [Podesta 32].) I feel so silly now.

The Fox Network games (Joe Buck doesn't lower himself to appear on cable…) are given prominence in some episodes, but we've seen FSSD announcers Dick "Oh, My!" Enberg and Mark Grant in several episodes as well. I guess they just don't show the regional graphics for some contractual reason. We even got the great Giants announcer tandem of "Kruk & Kuip" (Mike Krukow/Duane Kuiper) for a bit in this episode. Albeit with no FS Bay Area (or whatever) graphics for that telecast, either.

Ha! A mere pittance. The longest game ever was a 26-inning tie between the Brooklyn Dodgers and the Boston Braves in 1920. Called on account of darkness, as they didn't have lights in the majors back then. Longest game played to a conclusion in one day was St. Louis over the Mets in 1974, 25 innings. The go-ahead run scored in the top of the 25th when the Mets pitcher made a bad pickoff throw to 1st and the runner came all the way around to score because the RF was too exhausted to promptly dig the ball out of the corner. There was a Minnesota-Chicago White Sox 25-inning game in 1984 or 1985, but the American League has (or had?) this lame curfew where no inning can start after 1.00 AM, so they stopped at some point and finished it off the next day. Way to screw over the fans who stuck around. Finish the damn game! The longest game in professional history was 1981, between Pawtucket (AAA team for the Red Sox) and Rochester (then the Orioles' top farm). 32 innings until they gave up and called it off in the early morning, and then it ended quickly in the 33rd the next night. Longest game in one day, professionally, to a conclusion, was in the Florida State League in 1966, between the St. Petersburg Cardinals and the Miami Marlins. A quick 29 innings; Miami won on a sac fly. (The centerfielder threw out a runner at the plate; unfortunately, it was a second runner trying to score on the play and one run was more than enough.)

The only parts of Texas I've ever set foot in are airports, changing planes from Las Vegas to the East Coast, just so you know. I've literally never breathed open Texan air. The year before Baltimore drafted him, Bautista had hit a whopping five home runs. They thought he was a spry 2B-3B; they never envisioned that sort of power. His professional high in HR, pre-2010, was 24, hit in AA/AAA in '05. Then he went another 4 years without cracking 20 in any of those seasons, even at all levels combined. And then, one happy day, with the age 30 decline phase looming on the horizon, he triples his usual power level. Yeah, definitely all about the swing adjustments, sure. And as for the "racism" thing, I don't like cheaters, of ANY color. McGwire and his "cream", who first made a joke of the record book, is white. Bud "let's make EVERY game an interleague game! And ALL clubs should make the playoffs! Wildcards for everyone!" Selig, who turned the blindest of eyes to the cheating, is white. Tony LaRussa and his clubhouse steroid dispenser Barry "Needles" Weinberg, both white. Paul LoDuca, white. John Rocker and his tree-sized neck, white. Chipper Jones, whom nobody calls out but who has the same neck, white. Barry Bonds, who ruined one of the great careers of all-time (3 MVPs in 4 years while clean, and he should have had the 4th one as well…Pendleton's award was a joke) by becoming the worst cheater ever, with his wearing that freakin' armor to the plate and having a swing with his hands in the strike zone, so covering the outside half of the plate was easy as pie and if you pitched inside you got a warning, so he ended up with insane walks totals (I swear, if I was managing against SF in '03, I would have just had my pitchers keep drilling him in the head and take my ejections and fines just because his every at-bat was a freaking disgrace by that point)…okay, he's black, but the exception to the rule. Most of the cheaters I've disliked through the years are as white as the driven snow. Or at least Jose Canseco and Rafael Palmeiro and Alex Rodriguez, all of Latino heritage, but light-skinned. So no, not a racism thing, no matter how much you want to make it so. I swear on a Roger Clemens 'Roid Rage temper tantrum. Bautista's sudden jump to the 50 HR threshold is IMO as legitimate as that of Brady Anderson (white) or Luis Gonzalez…i.e., not at all.

Into the Safety Ceremony fallout now, and Jason and Kryssie are definitely shining Danielle on, hypothesizing that perhaps Jason is the target, or maybe Shelby wants to "backdoor" Justin (although at F6, there really isn't any such thing). It's a bit disappointing that Dani's meltdown is just an angry whisper-fest in Tokyo, but there's still plenty of venom being spewed. Danielle had assumed that Shelby was going to nominate the "popular" Justin and Kryssie to increase the chance of her or Jason being the AN. (In actuality, Jason even now remains far more popular than Kryssie, but such were Dani's delusions.) So now she's raging at Shelby for being "stupid" and risking Morgan being the AN, she claims. Of course, she really just didn't want to be nominated, plain and simple… So I guess Danielle's Republicanism is religion-based, after all? Huh, I didn't see that one coming. She and Jason note that they were on the block against each other in Week One, which makes Shelby "the new Monte" and look what happened to him. I believe that's that causal fallacy again. Post hoc ergo propter hoc and all that. Danielle is also pretty furious at Justin since he hasn't done anything except "win one Veto by default" and he's talked all this shit about Shelby and he's the first one safe…she says she offered Shelby "everything", control over the Veto and her vote this week, and safety via the care package next week. Except that she's not offering safety for Morgan next week, so Shelby would have to go to the F4 facing Danielle/Kryssie/Jason on her own. Plus the part where Danielle keeps lying to her…I think that might be a reason for Shelby to look Dani's gift horses in the mouth, no? I also disagree that Shelby should keep the "unpopular" LNJ players off the block. It behooves her to keep only one LNJ block candidate safe alongside Morgan, so that the anti-LNJ votes aren't split. Since all the anti-Morgan votes are just going to Morgan, we have to "concentrate our fire" on Kryssie, not risk a three-way split.

Yeah, Justin's just as two-faced as Kryssie, I'm afraid. Caught a convo in the kitchen at about 3.30 PM (Cam 1) between Shelby/Morgan/Justin, and Morgan was saying that even Jason winning Veto wouldn't be terrible, because Justin might be able to convince him to vote out Danielle. (Yeah, I think if Morgan is the AN and Jason wins Veto, then with Danielle/Kryssie/Morgan on the block, Jason would vote with America to evict Morgan and he might even pull Justin to make it unanimous. If Kryssie is AN and it's Danielle/Justin/Kryssie, then Jason probably uses America to ditch Kryssie, although maybe Justin could persuade him to cut Danielle instead.) But the more important thing is that immediately after that, Justin went to Kryssie to Tokyo, and spun that as saying that Longshot had said Jason winning the Veto was their preference, and then he said that Jason and Kryssie were his top two, and they laughed at the "Jambalaya Gang" name. So it looks as though Justin/Kryssie are planning to throw the Veto to Jason. Following that (c. 3.45 PM BBT), Justin met with Jason when he was folding laundry in the bathroom, and again spun it as everybody wants Jason to win Veto and that Jason and Kryssie are his F3. He'd already talked to Jason about this earlier today, so Jason trusts him, but doesn't trust Kryssie since she hadn't reported to him (Jason) the things that Justin is. So Jason's claiming to only be loyal to Justin (although he might still actually prefer Danielle to stay), but Justin is still wanting a J/J/K F3. Justin definitely wants Danielle out first (if he has to win Veto, he plans on taking down the AN [be it Kryssie or Morgan] to lock the noms and shock and evict Dani), but after that he wants one of Longshot out of here at F5. And if Jason gets that Veto, and Morgan is already on the block and Jason votes her home…I don't really think that Justin will be too upset. He'll just blame Jason and float from girl to girl to girl, telling each of them that they're his #1. Sigh.

Shelby's not seriously thinking of pawning Morgan, is she? What would be the point? ETA: I mean, I sort of get the "if Morgan is AN and Dani or Jason wins Veto, then they + America could vote Morgan out" concept whereas, in theory, if Kryssie is the AN and Morgan gets stuck on the block, Justin could take down Kryssie with the Veto and then vote Danielle out…but this assumes that 1) Jason can't manipulate Justin, as he's done so many times before 2) Justin isn't just flat-out lying to begin with 3) Jason doesn't win the Veto, pull down Danielle, force Justin up and then he and Dani could vote out Morgan…although I guess they might get rid of Justin to lock up the CP for Danielle, but in that situation (Kryssie/Justin/Morgan on the block), I bet they default to self-righteous talk about "loyalty" and "it doesn't matter which of us gets the CP, let's get rid of the Soulless Monster" and kick Morgan out. It just seems so much simpler to put Jason/Danielle on the block, roll the dice on Kryssie being the AN, and trust that Justin/Kryssie will take Morgan down as part of the deal if she should end up as the AN and j or K wins Veto. Good news is that I checked Reddit (I won't be able to do Flashback until about 9 PM BBT) and apparently Shelby never really considered the pawn option, she's just stringing Jason/Dani along. They're already melting down big time. Danielle "I've been bullied my whole life!" Lickey said she was going to make Shelby's life a living hell. And THAT'S why we call them HypoKridiots, yet again.

If Dani wins Veto, the AN most likely goes home. Which isn't so great, especially if it's Morgan. Morgan AN: Kryssie is the renom, Justin keeps his word and votes against Jason (maybe) but Dani and "America" vote Morgan out. Kryssie AN: Justin is the renom, Morgan votes out Jason, and it would be nice if Dani votes Justin and America votes Kryssie and Shelby can break the tie to evict Jason…but most likely Dani plays it safe and votes out Kryssie. So while I definitely want Jason gone sooner rather than later, it seems a bit impractical at the moment. Next week for him, I hope.

Gah, not only did I only get to see Shelby for two questions, I lost my first try at this post. Okay, then. Shelby was "devastated" to see Alex go, because she felt she let her down by making the mistake in the Veto (running back before locking in her balls) and failed to protect her. And also because she started cracking up when Alex was messing up her eviction speech and that made Alex mess up even more. The hardest part of the DE was when Morgan lost the tiebreak in the DE HoH, because Shelby figured that Morgan was going to be evicted (since Morgan was still CP-eligible and Shelby wasn't) and she really didn't want to spend a week alone with the LNJ. Who are loud and annoying and indulge in "middle school" behavior like… like… like… (wait for it) LEAVING BOOGERS IN SHELBY'S HOH BASKET Oh, for fuck's sake. You disgusting sacks of shit. I hope they all decompose into the literal slime they are. Gee, I wonder why Alex didn't try to get to know Kryssie "as a person", huh? I mean I'm sure there's some fascinating story of heartache and angst that would explain a 31-year-old woman acting like such a juvenile twat, but in my heart of hearts, I don't give a tenth of shit what it is. You skidmark on the saggy panties of life. At least this week, Shelby can keep the HoH locked, and hopefully disinfected. And Kryssie, in case you really are too stupid to grasp the concept (which seems a good bet, I admit), THAT IS WHY SHE CALLED YOU A "HYPOCRIDIOT". Because you revile Alex for not reaching out to you as "a human being" while at the same time you act like a spiteful brat that nobody with a shred of self-respect would want to spend any time around. You disgusting pig, and I mean that on at least three levels. Fuck off, and I hope that someone, someday gets the opportunity to say something like that to your face. Gah. And I hate that I missed most of Shelby's DR. Next time, just skip Justin. On general principles, if nothing else…

Kwotable Kryssie (maybe). She thinks there's "a lot" of questions (nope, a fairly standard 11) so dives right in. Wow. What a [insert epithet here] A few quick points: • Are you sure she's 31, not 13? • I'm not sure I would have put in more than three hours' effort to "get to know" Kryspy Kreme. Props to Alex for lasting as long as she did. • For someone who doesn't "play personal", she's sure found a way to justify her disdain for those on the other side of the house. • Gee, sorry that Alex couldn't live up to your "hopes" as a strategist. She successfully concealed her real #1 alliance for the entire time she was in the house and gained two other people (Shelby, Scott) who would have taken her to F2 in a real season. All you've done is trail to the back of the popular crowd, a lesser target because you obviously suck so badly (even though you are trying to win comps) and have only started manipulating people this week. • Alex might have spent more time around you if you'd stopped burping in her face while Alex was trying to eat, you gross sack of gas. JFC. [And only 9 more questions to go! Sigh.] Hey, let's have a screencap. Remember, ugly is as ugly does… Moving on…the worst part of the DE was having to choose between Justin and Whitney (standard LNJ answer), she loves them both so much! Barf. The best part of the DE was…oh, for fuck's sake… Sorry to interrupt here, but JFC, what a baby. Danielle actually got beat up by the bullies in her school and she doesn't whine about not being in the popular crowd as much as you, you dumb sack of shit. "To die"?? Be more dramatic, crazy lady. And now I have to skip the rest of this, because I only have eight minutes until my feeds reset and I would MUCH rather see Shelby. Sorry-not-sorry, big baby.