Weekend Open Thread

“Your theory is crazy, but it’s not crazy enough to be true.”

–Niels Bohr

9 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Gilpin Guy says:

    You want too crazy to be true?  Try reading some of the material on the kilonova that astronomers first saw in August.  It took a 130 million years for the light of those colliding collapsed stars and 650 trillion miles before it reached our planet.

    • DavieDavie says:

      What is crazy is that gravity is by far, the weakest force.  Speculation is, the reason for that is it projects most of its force into the other dimensions (11 in all) and/or parallel universes.

    • buford2 says:

      what is truly spectacular, is how they measure these waves…and, AND this latest observation is thought to have "made" about 100 times the weight of the Earth, in gold…this seems to have put us on a path to new discoveries, and new theories…

  2. ZappateroZappatero says:

    Establishment Democrats are hooked on Wall St. Cash and, despite the incompetence and ignorance of their Opponents, and the seemingly inevitable demographic shift of the electorate (see "Blacks vote for Trump"), they are condemned to keep losing key elections (that is: every election, esp. those the Russians are able to hack) due to this idiotic addiction, their inability to support, defend, and implement basic Democratic policies, and their chronic quest for bipartisanship with a bunch of sociopaths.

    Doug Schoen from the Clinton White House days has an op-ed out in the New York Times that is remarkable for its audacity.

    In “Why Democrats Need Wall Street,” he argued that Democrats have not been winning many elections lately because the party philosophy has become more Bernie Sanders and less Bill Clinton. According to Schoen, “moving the party away from a reflexive anti-Wall Street posture” was a key factor in the success of one Clinton presidency and the defeat of another.

    Let’s start with the basic premise, that getting closer to Wall Street helps in winning elections. Any serious look back on Clinton’s 1996 campaign would have to note that the most important moment by far was the 1995 government shutdown fight with Newt Gingrich and the eventual Republican nominee, Bob Dole. Before that fight, Bill Clinton was about ten points down in the national polls against Dole. After the smoke cleared, Clinton was about ten points ahead, and the race never again got close.

    ……

    Even though the economy remained weak and Obama was vulnerable, Democrats got lucky in 2012 when the Republicans nominated Mitt Romney of Bain Capital. Obama won in great part due to bashing Romney for his financial industry track record of stripping jobs from communities for the sake of big profits for his company.

    Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren was the only challenger in the country who beat an incumbent senator, a well-liked moderate one at that. Sherrod Brown had more money spent against him than any senator in the country, yet never trailed in the ultimate swing state of Ohio, winning by more than Obama. Tammy Baldwin upset a popular ex-governor to win an open Senate seat. All three based their campaigns in large part on running against Wall Street.

    Two years later, the 2014 elections were a debacle for Democrats nationwide, but especially for more centrist Democrats. Strong advocates of Wall Street accountability like Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Al Franken of Minnesota, and Gary Peters of Michigan all won races that were supposed to be challenging rather easily.

    Have fun guys. You can probably go ahead and plan the Michael Bennet – Senator for Life tributes to the guy who gets the cash. He may stay in office, but his "accomplishments" won't be much more than they are now if he continues his current Establishment Democratic, Pro-Wall-Street strategy.

    • JohnInDenver says:

      The trouble with short versions of history is they oversimplify.

      For example, in the 2010 election, one race featured Sen. Russell Feingold.  Couldn't ask for a more anti-Wall Street incumbent candidate … "On May 20, 2010, Feingold was one of two Democratic senators to vote against the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill, citing his belief that the measures did not go far enough. On July 15, 2010, he became the only Democratic senator to vote against the bill when it was brought up again; it passed by a 60-39 vote."  In the 2010 election, he lost to a non-politician, businessman Ron Johnson, by a 52 – 47 margin.

      In 2016, he was running again against the now one-term incumbent, Ron Johnson, who is not seen as a strong campaigner or someone who was universally liked in Wisconsin. Feingold was endorsed by Bernie Sanders. He raised a great deal of money, the most of any challenger of a Republican incumbent, with little of it from Wall Street.  And yet, he lost again, by 50 – 47 margin — the Libertarian in the election picked up the 2% differential.

      So tell me again how the "anti-Wall Street" Democrats are going to be successful.

  3. DavieDavie says:

    TrumpWorld illustrated…

    cartoon1020.jpg

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.