13 Responses

1. 

   1)

   Larry Bergan said on 2/9/2017 @ 9:18pm PT: [Permalink]

   It’s hard for the Democrats, or they’re happy that it looks hard for them to strongly oppose Neal Gorsuch. I can say that because I’m only able to trust a couple of them anymore.

   I have seen nothing but fawning over Gorsuch on most outlets. I realize he likes to ski and shed tears for Scalia on a trip down the slopes when he heard the news, but the man is nothing near being an honest juror from what I’ve heard. Let’s see some proof!

   Actually, I’m with others who say this man should not be allowed to occupy a stolen post, even if he’s the world’s nicest man. 🙂

2. 

   2)

   Press4Pain said on 2/10/2017 @ 1:17am PT: [Permalink]

   There’s nothing like gettin blomberged whit fake news. But I point out the obvious as only three people even listen to these stupid shows. Look at your blog has 6 hits. Oh boy.

   This show matters about as much as a dog pissin on the carpet.

   Your facts suck
   your maths suck

   try asking the elections hackers to do the math from lord monckton to splain what a tard you are for 13 years on climate maths

   Tight thoe pussy hat

3. 

   3)

   PDiddie said on 2/10/2017 @ 8:41am PT: [Permalink]

   Manchin should be primaried, but a challenger from his left probably can’t defeat him. A Republican in the general might take him — or his challenger — out in 2018, and after his vote for Sessions, it’s difficult to see how that could be worse. If the forthcoming midterm is a blue wave — I don’t think likely, but it’s too soon to predict — Manchin will remain the most caucus-undisciplined Democrat in the Senate.

   Lesser of two evils (a concept for voting I do not take to heart).

4. 

   4)

   Ernest A. Canning said on 2/10/2017 @ 9:47am PT: [Permalink]

   Since Brad replied to my previous comment here, as well as in his previous comment, I believe it appropriate to reprint my two replies here:

   As I see it, Donald Trump would not be POTUS if Democrats had the good sense to select a genuine progressive (Bernie Sanders). Time and again issue polls show that genuine progressive policies are immensely popular. Assuming Trump did not electronically steal the election — and it’s impossible now to know whether or not he did — I think it fair to say that Trump prevailed because a wide swath of working class Americans looked at such issues as the TPP and knew that Hillary sided with the multinational corporations. Many were also troubled by her cozy ties to Wall Street.

   I suspect that a genuine progressive would have a far greater prospect of retaining WV seat in the Senate — assuming it’s not electronically stolen. One thing appears certain from the losses in 2014 & 2016. The establishment tactic of running ethically compromised Democrats who are beholden to Wall Street and other corporate interests is a losing strategy.

   I think you’ve presented a faux Hobson’s choice — between a Senate majority and a more progressive Senate minority. The nomination of genuine progressives is the only way to achieve a Democratic majority.

   and:

   By the time the 2018 midterms roll around, it should be abundantly clear to even the low information voters who had been taken in by Trump’s faux populism in 2016 that they had been duped by an elaborate deception that was analogous to the prevarications that led to fraud allegations against Trump University.

   Trump’s economics — e.g., elimination of the investment banking fiduciary rule, massive tax cuts for the billionaire class, repeal of the ACA sans consumer protection, opening up oil and gas while restraining the fastest growing energy sustainable energy sectors — will all lead to a society in which the very people he proclaimed to champion will suffer the most.

   In that environment, the Democratic candidates who would have the greatest chance of success would be genuine progressives who are not tainted by their ties to corporate wealth and power.

5. 

   5)

   Ernest A. Canning said on 2/10/2017 @ 9:49am PT: [Permalink]

   In response to Press4Pain @2:

   Neither your unintelligible erudition nor your inability to spell add much in the way of enlightenment.

6. 

   6)

   Affordable HairAct said on 2/10/2017 @ 9:56am PT: [Permalink]

   Surely it’s time to reject the contention that a more progressive Caucus, and therefore a more progressive Democratic Party would be somehow less attractive to voters and therefore blow any chance of regaining a majority in Congress.

   If anything, Trump’s message, regardless of how regressive it may appear to us, represents a deeply held desire in ALL Americans, and perhaps a huge swath of the human population. That neo-liberalism , embraced by both parties and so many countries, banks and real “bad hombres” for so long, needs to go…permanently.

   If you’re looking for good news, how about acknowledging that in some ways, even the most ardent Tea Party Republican shares with the rest of us at least a partial understanding of what’s wrong with America and the World (political corruption, a history of failure of the corporate media, corporate control of policy, upwards redistribution of wealth etc).

   As to who they’re willing to trust to address these burning issues…well maybe we’ll have to give THEM some time to absorb the reality of it all.

   Be that as it may, from my point of view the Democrats have 2 options: business as usual and face a back-breaking rejection in 2018…or surf the call for REAL change…all the way to victory.

   It’s time to represent the People, Democrats. Or the People are just going to have to find someone who will.

7. 

   7)

   Affordable HairAct said on 2/10/2017 @ 10:05am PT: [Permalink]

   When reading the vitriol written by … Press4Pain, it’s indeed “painful” to imagine that DeVos could make such a steaming pile of ignorance and hatred EVEN WORSE.

8. 

   8)

   Affordable HairAct said on 2/10/2017 @ 10:10am PT: [Permalink]

   #OneBankerOneVote

9. 

   9)

   Kyle said on 2/10/2017 @ 5:44pm PT: [Permalink]

   Good news, Brad –

   http://www.wsfa.com/story/34454...federal-prison

   I know this was/is/has been a cause of yours for some time. I first read about it at BradBlog.

   Thank you for continuing to do what you do.

10. 

    10)

    Dredd said on 2/11/2017 @ 5:20pm PT: [Permalink]

    Brad Blog was where I coined the phrase “Bullshitistan” years ago.

    I was a regular commenter here before I started a blog.

    Bullshitistan is still around, unfortunately (The Shapeshifters of Bullshitistan).

    But, on the upside Brad Blog is still around to resist Bullshitistan.

11. 

    11)

    Larry Bergan said on 2/11/2017 @ 6:50pm PT: [Permalink]

    I don’t get it.

    If Don Siegelman was convicted in 2006 and sentenced to 78 months, why wasn’t he out years ago anyway?

12. 

    12)

    Rick H. said on 2/11/2017 @ 11:59pm PT: [Permalink]

    Larry @ 11

    Siegelman was sentenced to 88 months in prison in 2007 and immediately taken into custody but nine months later got out of prison on bond in 2008 as he appealed his conviction. He was later re-sentenced to 78 months and returned to prison in September 2012.

    He’s still on the hook for ankle monitor, home confinement and media gag order for six months followed by 500 hours of community service and three years of probation.

    http://www.al.com/news/birmingh...siegelm_2.html

13. 

    13)

    Larry Bergan said on 2/12/2017 @ 1:15am PT: [Permalink]

    Rick H,

    I think Woody Allen is the only man who can properly describe that.