Jump to content
Forums forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

790 Excellent
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.)
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. "I may not of won Big Brother"?? Oy, my head. Still, congrats to Whitney and Winston. And meantime, Justin's still sulking about her leaving the house. Yeah, she was playing you, dude. Everything since Kryssie's week 4 HoH seems like it's been going in slow-motion, so much that I was shocked to realize that Whitney's flip to the LNJ had only lasted for the final 10 days of her stay (flips in the early morning hours of Day 34, evicted Day 43) and that it, essentially, only bought her one more week in the house. Two evictions, due to the DE, but just one week. Hardly seems worth a celebratory dinner.
  14. Been catching up on some downloads, and looked at the Live Feed Highlights package for Day 22, the night Paul visited and Kryssie won HoH, and they had a little snippet in there of Paul and Scott chatting while they were watching the HoH comp play. (Scott, as outgoing HoH, was sitting out.) And Paul asked Scott which of the girls he was into…was it "that little cutie with the goggles (Alex)"? So I guess the thirst was real, as even Paul, who hadn't been in the house long enough to learn people's names, could see it. Which brings up an interesting point…had this been a classic BB season (Final 2, 7 sequestered jurors), Scott would have been Juror #1 and when Alex showed up next, imagine how thrilled he would have been to think about getting to be alone with her for an entire week. Only to have his plans dashed when Whitney came in, a couple of hours later. Heh. that amuses me. A trivia note: you may remember that Scott was the first person in the house, albeit that we just saw him wandering by himself, rather than leading a group of four bursting in, as usual. One thing I've noted through the years is that the first person in the house has never won the game, and Scott continues that tradition. BB2: first in, Nicole; winner, Will. (Although Nicole did make F2; as the winner exits the house before the runner-up, she was technically "first in, last out".) BB3: first in, Amy; winner, Lisa (Lisa was the second one in, though, right behind Amy.) BB4: first in, Scott Weintraub; winner, Jun (Scott W. was, of course, first out, as well…expelled for throwing a chair in an empty room.) BB5: first in, Adria; winner, Drew BB6: first in, April; winner, Maggie BB7 (All-Stars): first in, Janelle; winner, Mike Boogie BB8: actually I don't know if the theory is true for this season…I refuse to keep this shit on my computer. (And I've kept BB15, ffs. But Dickless can go blow himself. And besides, the "Alice in Wonderland" house was so damn ugly.) BB9: first in, Natalie Cunial (implants nearly falling out of her dress, of course); winner, Adam "Baller" Jasinski BB10: first in, April; winner, Dan (Dan was in the first group, and was actually first to the exterior door, but he held it for the ladies [and Jessie] and entered 5th.) BB11: first in, Laura; winner, Jordan (Well, it was a "Popular" girl first in…just not the right one.) BB12: first in, Rachel; winner, Hayden Moss (Rachel does, of course, eventually win BB…just not until next year.) BB13: first in, Shelly; winner, Rachel (And Rachel wins because Shelly flipped her vote, the only newbie to vote for the vet. So that's something, I guess.) BB14: first in, Ashley; winner, Ian (this would have been symmetry if their "showmance" was anything beyond CBS trying to get cross-promotion for The Big Bang Theory. Still, it's all-Pittsburgh bookends, which is still kind of cute. And Jodi, who only lasted in the house for 6 hours or so, was the second in, so at least she pretty much maximized her time…) BB15: first in, Gina-Marie; winner, Andy (Andy was right behind her, the only time the F2 entered 1-2. And if there was a significant time lag before the next four came in [as happened to allow the formation of the "First Five" alliance in BBCan2] perhaps this is where that "night 1" alliance between these two [that Andy referenced in his Jury speech but which we never saw a hint of] was formed. J-U-Double-D was there, too, so perhaps here's where the ground work for the Nazi Death Squad, I mean "Exterminators", was laid. The building blocks to Auschwitz, as it were. The fourth member of that initial quartet, Candice, was of course [at least in Gina-Marie's eyes] disqualified on account of melanin…) BB16: first in, Joey; winner, Derrick (Joey joins Scott W. in the "first in, first out" club; Derrick wasn't even in the house on Day 1, as they held back 8 HGs for the separate HoH contest on Day 2 in these "Battle of the Block" seasons.) BB17: first in, Da'Vonne; winner, Steve (Mama Da', horrible player that she is, damn near joins Scott and Joey in the U-Turn club. Steve, like Derrick, was a Day 2 entrant, but still overcame the Day 1 Alliance to win. [Indeed, five of the F6, bar only Austin, had entered on Day 2. Well, Julia didn't swap in until Day 5, but still.]) BB18: first in, Michelle; winner, Nicole (Obviously, Nicole didn't have any chance to pull a first/winner double, since the returnees entered via suitcase, after the new players were already in there.) So we can see that the first in is almost always a woman (Scott W. was in a group of three guys, via random draw) due to, well, chauvinism. "Ladies first, etc." And since women are only 1/6 in mixed-gender finales (Nicole becoming the first woman to beat a man this summer), probably at least partly due to sexism, that means the odds are rather against anyone pulling this (admittedly rather irrelevant feat) anytime soon. Scott may have been our best hope in years. Thanks for nothing, Werewolf Boy!
  15. Finally caught up on Shane's eviction interview (I've had it for weeks, I just had no inclination to watch it) and wow, what a douchebag! Examples: • He didn't consider the alliance with Monte/Cornbread/Scott to be "real" because he didn't shake on it. Dude, you were all in bed at the time…I think any "physical contact" requirements to validate the alliance can be waived. And hey, you and Monte were sleeping butt-to-butt, so maybe that counts ;) • Says he "couldn't talk to" Scott any more once he asked Scott if he was working with Alex and if that meant that Scott would be willing to vote him (Shane) out…and Scott said "yes". Shane got all offended that Scott was being honest…and yet he says the reason the other side targeted him was he was more "verbal" (he means "vocal") about getting Alex out. So…it's okay for you to declare your targets, but Scott can't be honest with you, even though you asked him, is that it? Dick. • The reason the house was split was because they all got in the hot tub on Night #2 and the LNJ shared their deep, personal trauma stories or something (more likely just wild tales they thought made them look cool) and the Ballsmashers chose not to. And thus the Jamboree excluded the BS for being "fake". Fuck off, dick. • Apparently the Jamboree was such an echo chamber (or Shane is such a dim bulb, or both) that he gave verbatim recaps of some of the LNJ's critiques: Alex is "the puppetmaster", but Scott is "just here to play week-to-week". (WTF is that even supposed to mean?) Man, I really don't miss him.
  • Create New...

Customize font-size