POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

[unofan]

I really think Terry McAullife is your guy.

Seriously, you don't have to keep proving yourself to be a fool.

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Is she anywhere close to as smart as Obama? He had degrees from two Ivy League schools. It seems like she is getting hyped based on her identity more than anything else.

I really think Terry McAullife is your guy. If it is him versus Trump no way he loses. I know Rover probably likes him more than you, but I'm sure you would take him over the current occupant of the White House.

Terry McAuliffe is terrible. What he lacks in political courage he more than makes worse with poor political instincts and a complete lack of charisma. He also just smells like he has a ton of financial misconduct in his past. Early on in the Cafe's existence somebody suggested I was Terry McAuliffe (Catholic New Yorker, pro-Carter, Democrat and over-the-top Notre Dame football fan). I don't think I've ever felt more insulted.

I don't know how smart Harris is. Her academic pedigree is weak and she was a DA, both of which suggest mediocrity. Like Obama she is a hardcore political animal and scheming opportunist -- I think of her as Selina Meyer. We certainly wouldn't be getting the intellectual-professorial Obama, but that's a plus -- Pete Palooka hates intelligence (c.f. Dukakis, M.).

[DisplacedCornellian]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

This is the key. Bannon is an execrable human being, but he does understand how the game is played. He's Roger Ailes without the, um, charm?

I'd say he's Roger Ailes but with more syphilis and cirrhosis of the liver.

[ScoobyDoo]

Again, by removing the announcer from this particular game, they basically said:

"This area of people is so sensitive to the name Robert Lee that this announcer could trigger them into doing something foolish." I'd say that's pretty insulting to the viewers.

And pretty accurate.

[Drew S.]

Small sample size so far. I like her ambition and intelligence. I like that she was aggressive during the Sessions hearings. She's "Obama with Boobs" (and I like boobs) and that is my explanation for the hype.

On the downside she has a corporate streak and, well, she's Obama with boobs: she'll sell out the hindmost to court the fat wallet donors. She's not going to reverse the rush to lethal inequality in any significant way; she'll nibble around the edges or possibly even exacerbate it like every Democrat since JFK.

Kamala Harris vs Gavin Newsom is shaping up to be a qualifier for the nomination frontrunner. I'm happy with that -- they seem like solid representatives of the moderate and liberal wings, respectively. They're both smart and ruthless campaigners and they're both telegenic and charismatic which is good for attracting the lofos. And they're both under 900 years old, which is a nice change for the Methuselah Party.

I am cautiously optimistic. Rover is gonna LOVE her.

Is she anywhere close to as smart as Obama? He had degrees from two Ivy League schools. It seems like she is getting hyped based on her identity more than anything else.

I really think Terry McAullife is your guy. If it is him versus Trump no way he loses. I know Rover probably likes him more than you, but I'm sure you would take him over the current occupant of the White House.

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

May just be random drift but for the first time consecutive daily Gallup polls show Trump at -24% or worse.

In other polling, Mitch McConnell is currently at 79% disapproval in Kentucky, so Trump's brickbats are at least finding one target. Jeff Flake beware.

[CLS]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Anybody else remember the commercial in which a white guy crashes the Lee Family Reunion because they were serving Bud Light?

"You're Chung's oldest son?"
"Yes!"
"You look a lot like him"

We could laugh about it then ...

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Wait, you are "outraged" over the fact that ESPN is allegedly trying to be sensitive to both some viewers and one of it's broadcasters?

Wow.

It's REALLY funny how people get so upset over simple things like "insulting your intelligence" but somehow have difficulty understanding that people get offended by symbols of slavery and opression.

What's up with that?

Is THAT the only reason people are up in arms over this? That's it?

Again, by removing the announcer from this particular game, they basically said:

"This area of people is so sensitive to the name Robert Lee that this announcer could trigger them into doing something foolish." I'd say that's pretty insulting to the viewers.

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

I saw you reference her yesterday and didn't get the chance to ask, but what do you make of the Kamala Harris hype?

Small sample size so far. I like her ambition and intelligence. I like that she was aggressive during the Sessions hearings. She's "Obama with Boobs" (and I like boobs) and that is my explanation for the hype.

On the downside she has a corporate streak and, well, she's Obama with boobs: she'll sell out the hindmost to court the fat wallet donors. She's not going to reverse the rush to lethal inequality in any significant way; she'll nibble around the edges or possibly even exacerbate it like every Democrat since JFK.

Kamala Harris vs Gavin Newsom is shaping up to be a qualifier for the nomination frontrunner. I'm happy with that -- they seem like solid representatives of the moderate and liberal wings, respectively. They're both smart and ruthless campaigners and they're both telegenic and charismatic which is good for attracting the lofos. And they're both under 900 years old, which is a nice change for the Methuselah Party.

I am cautiously optimistic. Rover is gonna LOVE her.

[ScoobyDoo]

I saw you reference her yesterday and didn't get the chance to ask, but what do you make of the Kamala Harris hype?

She'll never win. No woman will.

[Drew S.]

I was listening to Mark Thompson on Make it Plain (XM) coming in this morning and he was saying the same thing, so I'll take you seriously that this is a common worry for Democratic moderates.

In my opinion, it is a greatly exaggerated issue. I am not sold on the thesis that a lot of Democrats stayed away from Hillary because she was toxic, but even if they did she no longer matters and the negatives that surrounded her are not operant going forward. There will be a spectrum of Democratic candidates from corporate-friendly to worker-friendly, and obviously moderates will prefer the former and liberals the latter during the nomination phase. But they will all be relatively near the midpoint of the spectrum. Hillary and Bernie were outliers at each extreme so there was bound to be an issue knitting the party together. That chasm won't repeat. Corey Booker is say +4 corporate and, well frankly there's really nobody out there on the pro-worker side -- the best we have is a Franken at around the midpoint. So we'll be patching a 4-point gap, not a 20-point gap.

If you are worried that the Bernie insults of Hillary were demoralizing then I encourage you to also self-examine and see that your insults of liberals are likewise counterproductive if the goal is a united party.

I saw you reference her yesterday and didn't get the chance to ask, but what do you make of the Kamala Harris hype?

[alfablue]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

I don't think me, Brent, or anyone on this board is personally offended. We just think it's a crazy decision to make. It's an early season non-conference college football game that is being broadcast online. How many people actually watch? Maybe 50k? The game is being played in Charlottesville and one would think that a lot of the local fans would go if they're interested.

So why bring it up?

Why accuse ESPN for bringing out the PC police?

Normally, when something doesn't bother me, I don't bother to mention it.

And you can't actually explain in real words why it's so crazy to even attempt to not make someone angry. That's a total mystery to me. It is REALLY crazy to not try to upset people? Really? That's rather insane, to me.

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Clinton is a done deal. However, will the attitude prevail that if we don't get 100% of what we want we'll either not vote or broadcast to the world that we've been dragged into the voting booth kicking and screaming? Sadly when I look at the left right now I see the same people making the same mistakes, and I shudder at Trump post re-election with absolutely nothing to restrain him. The right is playing for keeps. The left? Not so much.

I was listening to Mark Thompson on Make it Plain (XM) coming in this morning and he was saying the same thing, so I'll take you seriously that this is a common worry for Democratic moderates.

In my opinion, it is a greatly exaggerated issue. I am not sold on the thesis that a lot of Democrats stayed away from Hillary because she was toxic, but even if they did she no longer matters and the negatives that surrounded her are not operant going forward. There will be a spectrum of Democratic candidates from corporate-friendly to worker-friendly, and obviously moderates will prefer the former and liberals the latter during the nomination phase. But they will all be relatively near the midpoint of the spectrum. Hillary and Bernie were outliers at each extreme so there was bound to be an issue knitting the party together. That chasm won't repeat. Corey Booker is say +4 corporate and, well frankly there's really nobody out there on the pro-worker side -- the best we have is a Franken at around the midpoint. So we'll be patching a 4-point gap, not a 20-point gap.

If you are worried that the Bernie insults of Hillary were demoralizing then I encourage you to also self-examine and see that your insults of liberals are likewise counterproductive if the goal is a united party.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Worst President of all time.

[Drew S.]

As if ANY of your or drew's have any actual reason or intelligence...

Holy cow, some of you guys really amaze me.

Being politically correct is bad, moreso when someone else freely does it.

Again, it's amazing to see your politically correctness because of actions of someone else you claim are politically correct. You *FEEL* offended.

The double standard is just shocking.

I don't think me, Brent, or anyone on this board is personally offended. We just think it's a crazy decision to make. It's an early season non-conference college football game that is being broadcast online. How many people actually watch? Maybe 50k? The game is being played in Charlottesville and one would think that a lot of the local fans would go if they're interested.