JaneAusten

I hope it's not true but none of the top contenders for Vice President to Hillary Clinton sound at all energizing. I hope the democrats don't play it safe because those states that I think went for Bernie Sanders like Michigan or where Bernie was close like Ohio and Pennsylvania could be open for the take if she doesn't chose a running mate that can help her in those states. Kaine and Vilsack certainly don't excite me, although Vilsack MIGHT help her in those states. I'd rather see Tom Perez than either of these two and even with that, he doesn't really excite me either. Corey Booker may be a good choice. I still like Julian Castro. But I'd love Elizabeth Warren, but I don't think this country is ready for a double female ticket. Thoughts.

Now I find Ted Cruz a despicable human being, but honestly he was the only one I heard who talked about the bigger picture and at least he stood by his convictions, as disgusting as they are, unlike the sellouts of Christie and Rubio. And I wish someone would explain what anyone ever saw in Scott Walker. The guy could win a role as a zombie on The Walking Dead just by being himself.

It's all they have left. Seriously these people are just so bitter about the Clinton's. Time after time they come after them, the Clinton's falter and then scratch their way back up. Frankly I prefer the Clinton's in that mode because they clearly know what to do to overcome it and I like seeing them in attack mode. These politicians still haven't learned their lesson from years of the Ken Starr wasted investigation where Clinton left office more popular than ever and how many millions were wasted on that. Does anyone wonder why none of the democrats ever pushed to pursue Bush and Cheney for their 2007 email scandal, which I would guarantee would be much juicier than anything that has come out about this. 2 million emails deleted from an RNC server THEY USED and nothing. I'd love to see someone turn that over but then I honestly don't care at this point.

Bernie's supporters can't seem to stop crowing about how eager they are to subject minorities to the tender mercies of a fascist white supremacist then they wonder why he performed so poorly with those groups. I am glad you said this. I was listening to the local progressive talk radio station in Chicago(yes we still have one) and they were talking to Bernie supporters. I found a lot of the feedback very interesting. One woman in fact said that while she was not a Hillary supporter she would vote for her. Her reasoning was similar to what you have noted, that many of these people can't honestly live with a Trump presidency, and I am not talking about conscience I am talking policy, and that their livelihoods depend on certain policies and programs being in place. She said many of Bernie supporters are people who have no problem throwing the democratic candidate under the bus to stand on "principle" because those people(the white idealists) can live through a Trump presidency where many of the people out there can't. At least this is a Bernie supporter who gets it. Most don't and honestly have no concept of what electing Trump would mean to things like the senate, house, and most of all the Supreme Court and the impact another so many years of a right wing supreme court will mean.

^^ Coulter's the epitome of the term "attention whore". That's her entire purpose. Yet somehow what she spews is more credible than people who have been victimized? Wow.

Yuck. Countdown to someone now coming in and posting or insinuating she asked for it because she had no business being at the Playboy mansion. It's honestly really shocking and shows such a lack of understanding how people to this day still blame the woman. Beverly Johnson was drugged yet somehow she should have had the sense to get herself to a hospital and be checked out, forget that she was fairly out of it and it was a different time and place. People are so willing to bash the women and hold them accountable for Cosby's alleged behavior, but I have not heard ONE PERSON question whether he drugged these women or not. Most seem to believe he did give them pills that they either had no knowledge of receiving or took willingly. I would love to know why no one is questioning his judgement and asking why HE gave these women drugs versus trying to push the blame on them for in some cases accepting them. No matter what the situation, nothing justifies abuse or rape I don't care how many pills someone allegedly willingly took or why someone was at the playboy mansion. Yet I bet not one person will ask why Cosby, married, was there and just happened to be carryiing drugs with him.

So the Chairman of the Board of Trustees at Temple was also the same man who served as Cosby's attorney in the civil suit that was filed by the former Temple Woman's Basketball Director of Operations in 2005. The suit that was settled out of court. So the attorney who represented Cosby allowed a known rapist to continue to serve on the board? Maybe someone needs to ask for his removal also. Aren't our universities tainted enough?

I'm not sure it's reasonable to try and put yourself in someone else's shoes. This was 1976, she was 19, he was a celebrity. Would I have taken the pills at 19 and trusted him? No, but I can see how some young woman could be intimidated or even flattered to be the girl Bill Cosby had his eye on and wouldn't question it. I see people posting there questioning why she took the pills, so they seem to believe he offered them, but not one person is questioning his motives. He's the alleged perpetrator but her actions are being scrutinized more than his, why? A prime example of why many don't want to come forward. She used poor judgment but that doesn't justify rape. And it doesn't seem like her mother knew a whole lot different.

True but it you truly believe if you are being falsely accused, it would make sense to want to expose the motives behind it. Especially for someone who I do believe values his reputation. My only point was that there is likely some semblance of truth in all these allegations which is why he'd never risk a court case. My guess is we won't hear a word from him again.

The ten women have not come forward. The number of women allegedly assaulted is based on the two or three that have actually publicly spoken over the years and the court case that was settled. It was that court case that included information that ten other women came forward, all anonymously by the way, ready to testify that they had also experienced similar "sexual encounters" with Cosby. It was when this occurred, that a settlement was negotiated, therefore no trial. To my knowledge none of these women have publicly stated anything or come forward, other than one I believe and finally another after her name was disclosed. This is not court of law. There is no innocent until proven guilty and the statute of limitations on all of these incidents has passed. We are living in the court of public opinion, which at this moment, Cosby is losing. He's denied the allegations in the past that's fine. He can certainly sue the two or three women who have spoken out for defamation of character if he truly believes his reputation is being falsley tarnished. He has the money to be able to take action, so he does have legal recourse. You tell me if you believe he will do that? Me, I doubt it.

NBC joins Netflix in dropping Cosby projects http://deadline.com/2014/11/bill-cosby-nbc-series-canceled-1201289210/

I have a hard time taking Whoopi Goldberg serious whenever it comes to rape allegations because of her own views on rape. She was the one who claimed that Roman Polanski didn't "rape rape" the girl he was convicted of raping I guess because in Whoopi's eyes it's only real rape when the victim is beaten and held down . I don't think anyone here is naive enough to think that there are not opportunists out there, but I will say the same thing about these women as I said about Anita Hill back years ago. What woman would want that kind of publicity, would want themselves subjected to the venom of public opinion for these types of allegations. I won't judge Cosby, we have courts for that, but please keep in mind that several of these women were allegedly raped before it became more acceptable to come forward and even now they can't escape the attacks people are making towards them. I don't know why the general public has such a disbelief that popular persona's can commit crimes. Just because it's Bill Cosby, Roman Polanski, even Stephen Collins, doesn't automatically make them guilty no, but it also doesn't automatically absolve them.

Because most of these companies don't want immigration reform because they get the illegals for low wages and these companies likely have politicians in their back pockets also. In all fairness there are penalties for companies employing illegals but a very small percentage are reported, fined, and held accountable, just enough for people to not complain too loudly about what they do to enable the problem.

I am not bragging about the umemployment numbers but this idea that the country is in worse shape economically like the republicans want us to believe is total bullshit. And you must have missed when I said that even the programs Franklin Roosevelt implemented to help the country during the depression didn't substantially change things economically. What it did was built our country's current infrastructure, something you by the way enjoy today, and gave people a paycheck but mostly gave people hope, something the republicans seem to not give a damn about. They operate on fear not hope. And it's this current generation. I may not have liked Reagan, but he never promoted his agenda by capitalizing on fear and using scare tactics. And if you don't understand why Obama's election instilled and energized many and led to lofty expectations, they you really don't understand people or our social climate. It's called having hope. Of course Obama never was going to be able to meet those expectations and I actually do hold him responsible for a lot of the problems. Had he had the same ability to relate to the populus as Bill Clinton had, perhaps he could have made his case to the public and had the same public support that Clinton had. I am not even going to get into the discussion about the big "taxes" corporations pay in the United States or how the poor billionaires who live here have to pay through the nose. Some of these corporations, like the pharmacy corporations for example, also charge the United States consumer ungodly rates compared to elsewhere in the world, so you'll have to forgive me for not feeling a lot of pity for big corporations. it's sad. I consider myself a moderate, not a liberal. But nothing this current republican party stands for anymore has any appeal. They can't even claim to be the party of fiscal conservatism anymore, something I did support at one time. And the last thing is why do the republicans never want to discuss the fact that trickle down doesn't and hasn't been shown to work. The past four years, big corporations have increased their cash substantially but where has this investment translated into new jobs? Isn't that the premise behind trickle down. Yet statistics still indicate that the majority of new jobs added are added through small businesses.

^^ I live in Illinois. I am not sure what polls were being looked at, but for the majority of the campaign Rauner was ahead of Quinn in the polls and it didn't really become a dead heat until the past week or so. Yet had the turnout in Cook County been as it was last go around, Quinn would have won again. I had no dog in the race, Quinn is a generally decent and ethical man(unusual for a democrat in Illinois) but the Leader of the house in Illinois has been in place for 40 years and if you can't work with him, you get nothing done. Quinn's biggest negative was that he fought to keep the tax increases in place because the state is basically broke as is the state retirement fund, to try and help get these things back on their feet. The tax increase is scheduled to roll back to the original rate next year. But he didn't really have any other measures to implement to help fix the state debt. Rauner doesn't impress me. The last good governor this state had was Jim Edgar, a republican (more a Nixon-like republican than Reagan, and I don't mean paranoid and delusional, but very moderate, pragmatic, and a hard worker. He was able to work with the legislature and get things done. No one since him has done a darn thing. But Edgar was not a billionaire and was very much a compromiser. Rauner has no political experience and I can't see him getting anything done with the current legislature. As for Scott Walker frankly I get it but I don't. He did increase the state's bond status, no easy feat, but the fact that Wisconsin is dead last in job creation should have cost him more. His opponent is a respected democrat who has a very good reputation, yet she ran a weak campaign which lose momentum in the last 2 weeks before the election.

That's true but it still doesn't change the elections. The reason for the results is due to low turnout. Had those people who voted in 2008 voted in 2014 the results would be different. And I am not praising Obama or the democrats. As Jon Stewart said they are a bunch of pussies. Obama has been a lame duck since the last election. Ultimately as time goes on people are going to forget as the ACA stabilizes and more people enroll. But by that time Obama will be long gone and off booking $200,000 speaking engagements and writing his autobiography.

^^ My point exactly. The people who would have made a difference in the election like they did in 2008 didn't bother to vote. But people would rather blame Obama for the defeats versus lack of interest and low voter turnout.

True and I think the reality is somewhere in the middle. Incomes have not increased that much and that's the biggest issue and why increasing the minimum wage IMO is so important. I hope the support the politicians now see FROM THE ACTUAL VOTERS on minimum wage increases tells them where many still see the problems are which is related to collecting a fair wage and pay. And I stand by what I said above. If this was a presidential election and President Obama was on the ballot the turnout would have been higher and the results would have looked a lot different. The republicans didn't benefit from people hating Obama they benefitted primarily because the people who would have voted democratic didn't vote because he wasn't running, leading to a less than impressive turnout.

It's been thirty years since Reagan spewed that BS and in thirty years it hasn't worked. Now I won't ever claim that programs like the WPA, CCC, or the recent stimulus package turned things around, they didn't, but they helped build and stabilize this countries infrastructure and gave people incentive and hope, What has trickle down done aside from helping executives get even more big golden parachutes and huge bonuses. I also wonder for Max, who claims Obama was the reason for all this, remember that had Obama actually been on the ballot, all those people who didn't vote, would have voted and changed MANY of the outcomes. Blame Obama all you want but his presence on the ballot creates incentive for all those so called "dregs on society" to actually vote and make their voices heard. Someone can now explain to me how this is a bad thing.

That's been the problem for years. I mean look at the red south - all republican - yet those states populations rely more on public assistance than the blue states in the Northeast or Northwest but they regularly vote in people who are opposed to the programs and assistance many of these same people rely on. I have a friend who is a staunch republican - why I don't know - but for over a year was collecting unemployment because she was laid off and then complained when "the president' didn't extend it. Unemployment a program designed by progressives to help the people who spit in their faces and scream less government. Plus I want a reasonable republican, maybe Max, explain to me why we continue to give tax benefits to corporations who outsource jobs and move facilities out of this county and also why the "trickle down" aspect hasn't worked and why corporations are still cash heavy from all the tax breaks that are allegedly intended to incent big corporations to create more jobs. They continue to stuff their wallets with fat bonuses while the majority of increases in new jobs is still coming from small businesses.

I can understand the ACA and many still being disenchanted and I don't fully endorse it only because it really doesn't address the real issues related to heath care costs, but perhaps over time and as it gets refined people will see the benefit and I really hope it ultimately leads to a single payer approach over time. I think my point was that I keep hearing how this really wasn't a referendum against Obama that it was that people just voting for the opposition not really concerning themselves with issues. But I guess the democrats while even not pointing to Obama had positive things to talk about. I'll concur about ISIS but I also think so many people really don't even care about that or it's turned into being used as a scare tactic by republicans. It's exactly what they did with Ebola

Oh by the way one piece of good news. In states that had minimum wage increases on the ballot including Illinois, it seems most voted for the increase. I think South Dakota, Nebraska, and Arkansas were three of those states also. So perhaps the support across the states will help the president increase support at the federal level. The ballot initiative in Illinois is non binding, so it was used to identify voter preferences not to actually increase it but perhaps it will sent the message people actually support this. And it looks like medical marijuana use passed in most states where it was being voted on, even Alaska.

Well frankly I have no idea why the democrats were running away from Obama. Now I am not a fan these days but he's not really all bad and look what's happened under him. 1. Our deficit has been cut in half. Does anyone remember how that fiscal conservate George Bush inherited a surplus and ran up record deficits(funny how democrats are the spendthrifts when Reagan and Bush have both run up huge deficits). For all the bitching about the stimulus program and how this country could not pay for it, Rand Paul is the only fricking Republican talking about how he have no business increasing defense spending as we did under Bush in this economic climate. And exactly how now did that stimulus program hurt us? 2. Have any of the genius's who talk about how bad things are looked at the unemployment rate recently? 3. I have had more people I know praise the Affordable Care act than not but these people I guess don't vote. How about talk about the majority of the people like my neighbor who couldn't afford the 700/month she would have to pay who now has a plan that she can pay for. 4. Did we go into a depression by the way? I know the people who really hurt the most under the recession were not the wealthy people who saw tax cuts and corporations who did nothing with the cash surplus they built up, but the stimulus package did help get some people working who had not seen a paycheck for years. And for the record programs like the WPA didn't turn the economy around during the depression. What it did was give people incentive and hope. But that is lost on this generation of selfishness and greed. I can't say why this midterm really hit me. I see Scott Walker in Wisconsin get re-elected against a good moderate democratic candidate and Wisconsin had the lowest job growth in the country. I also heard last night a republican strategist here in Illinois now talking about that perhaps Obama will now have to compromise and get an immigration bill passed. Really? For all the bitching about this, I guess people forgot the senate compromised and passed one that the president committed to signing and guess what. The Republican congress would not even bring it up to vote. As for Illinois, we elected a republican governor but here our best governors in the last 40 years have been republican. But the new governor won't be able to get a thing done in a state that is controlled by the Illinois speaker of the house who is a democrat who was an obstacle to the current democratic governor accomplishing anything. But frankly in two more years when congress gets nothing done we will be back here with likely another turn around. It saddens me how little Americans are invested in voting or even give a crap about other people. People want more government cuts, can we cut down on defense spending? And I can't believe that idiot from Florida got re-elected after a disastrous term. I am a teacher in Illinois who's retirement fund is broke. Illinois is in a quandary and no one wants to fix it. I already know when I retire my money will be gone. We are headed towards 1929 again. I don't really understand how republicans don't see it. I really wish now that they would have let the financial institutions fail now so that people who think government is bad could really get a taste of how irresponsible banking institutions and corporations can be when run by selfish greedy people.

Can I say Andrea I love reading your posts particularly when you shade Maggie because I can't stand her either. I have no love for Beth but Maggie is so grating. Ugh.

I literally cry at the state of journalism today, if we can even call it that anymore. Next week he'll probably invite the Kardashian's on to discuss Hamas and Israel.