Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Crunchy Frog

Crunchy Frog's Journal
Crunchy Frog's Journal
December 12, 2017

I'm furious with Gillibrand.

I don't consider myself sexist (I'm a woman if that makes any difference).

I'm not upset with her for acting like a politician, or for going after power, I'm upset because she did it by stomping on the face of a fellow Dem.

I'm more upset with her than her colleagues because she chose to position herself as the ringleader. I would be just as upset with any man who did the same. I don't think it's feminist to go easy on someone just because they're female.

No matter the number, accusations that are highly questionable and mostly anonymous don't equal guilt. Or do you not think the R smear machine is capable of producing numbers of those sorts of accusations?

I hope the posters currently gloating over Franken's demise will be happy if, next year, we have Senator Pawlenty instead.

July 16, 2017

First of all,

Now that I've got that out of the way, it was not just introduced to canon last season. It was implied in the regeneration scene that introduced Matt Smith. Time Lord gender changes became canon in the Season 6 episode, The Doctor's Wife, with the discussion about the Corsair. The female incarnation of the Master was introduced in Season 8, (last season was Season 9). Last season showed an actual on air gender changing Time Lord regeneration.

It has never in the history of Doctor Who been established canon that Time Lords can't change gender. It just wasn't established canon that they could, and even back then, the idea was seriously considered and often teased.

So, it was always going to happen sooner or later, and it's been canon since 2011, and implied earlier than that.

I'm just extremely grateful that both Moffat and Chibnall are more progressive in their vision than many of the dudebro fans.

May 12, 2017

Here's a rough transcript. So people can get outraged over what he actually said

rather than getting outraged over some cherry picked, out of context, misquotes.

WB: Senator, thanks so much for joining us.

Sanders: Great to be with you.

WB: What's your reaction to the president's firing of Comey?

Sanders: Uh, I think it is a situation where the president is impeding a significant investigation to determine whether in fact, there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. As you know, Russia has been interfering in elections big time, in Germany, in Ukraine, many countries around the world. Our intelligence agencies all agree that they interfered significantly in the American election. They were in France last week, trying to elect Le Pen, a very right wing individual.

So this is an investigation that has to go forward in a non-partisan way. And in the midst of this, after Comey says we are doing an investigation. After, according to the NYT, he says "I need more money from the DOJ to do the investigation". After we know he was supposed to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee tomorrow, suddenly, in the midst of all of this, after months and months and months, president Trump says "you're fired, you're not doing a good job". I think that his reason for firing Comey-he was concerned about how he treated Hillary Clinton, I'm kind of, "give me a break". That really does not pass the laugh test. So I think what we need to do now is go forward; and it's very important that this be done in a bipartisan way. We need a special council, independently selected.

WB: But how do you select that person? It's gotta be approved by Congress. There's gotta be legislation, I
assume. The president could veto that legislation. You would need a 2/3s override.

Sanders: If that happens, then you really are in the midst of a Constitutional crisis, but I would hope that within the bureaucracy of the career folks, in the department...

WB: So far it doesn't look like any of the Republicans support what you support.

Sanders: Well, that is a sad state of affairs, and I hope that changes. The bottom line here is that the American people have a right to know whether president Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians.

You know, it is amazing, I think alot of people scratch their heads and try to figure out, why has Trump been so positive about an
authoritarian type president like Vladimir Putin? What is going on? So is there collusion? Let's find out if there is.

WB: And you speak about Comey. You're no great fan of Comey, cause...

Sanders: I am no great fan.

WB: We checked in January. Jan 15th of this year, you told ABC news "It would not be a bad thing for the American people, if the FBI Director were to step down".

Sanders: Absolutely. I think the role that he played during the campaign was disgraceful. It was unprecedented, and it was a factor; one factor, in helping Trump get elected. But right now we're in a different place. Right now we are in the midst of an investigation. Right now this guy was supposed to testify tomorrow, before the Senate Intelligence Committee. And clearly that investigation has got to go forward in as non-partisan a way as it can. To fire the FBI Director in the midst of that investigation is totally unacceptable.

WB: So what can you do to get your Republican colleagues on board, and do you have confidence in the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Burr, to conduct a thorough and complete investigation?

Sanders: I am not a member of the Intelligence Committee. I know Richard, I've known him for years, and I hope that he does the right thing. Look, this is a very, very important moment. The American people do not have a whole lot of faith in the United States government. Don't have a whole lot of faith in the Republican party or the Democratic party or the political process. And I think we have got to stand up now in a non-partisan way. Democrats cannot politicize this issue. It may turn out, you know what? That Trump's campaign was not colluding with the Russians. If that's the case, that's the case. Forget about it. But I understand now that the White House is saying "you had enough discussion about the investigation". That's nonsense. The investigation is barely beginning.

WB: That's what the deputy press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders said today.

Sanders: No relationship.

WB: No relation. I know she's no relation to you. Same last name. But she said "it's gone on for so long, it's over let's move on."

Sanders: I mean that's just an incredible statement. It barely has begun. You have the FBI Director saying he needs more funds in order to pursue the investigation, expedite the investigation.

WB: Do you have any leverage, with Republicans to get an independent council?

Sanders: Yeah, I think you do. I think essentially the United States Senate does not function very well unless there's unanimous consent. Unless there is a certain level of cordiality. And I hope, and at this point I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to my Republican colleagues, that they are prepared to do the right thing.

Let me mention one area, not my idea, this came from Senator Patty Murray, which I think would be a very, very good gesture. I think that as we proceed and go forward with the appointment of a new FBI director, right now, under the law, under the rules of the Senate, it would only require 50 votes-51 votes to get that person in. I would think it would be a really good gesture, given this moment, when there's so much acrimony and so much distrust, that Mitch McConnell, leader of the Senate say, "you know what, we'll go back to 60 votes. We'll do this in a bipartisan way, so that the entire country feels confident that the new director is not simply a political operative for Trump, but somebody who has the best interest of the DOJ and the FBI..."

WB: Cause as you know, they passed that nuclear option eliminating, going down from 60 to 50.

Sanders: I understand that. Democrats did their thing. But I'm saying that at this particular moment, as we look at a new FBI director, I don't think the country wants somebody who is simply gonna be a activist, or proponent for Trump's policy. They're gonna want somebody who has at least bipartisan support.

WB: One of your Democratic colleagues, Ron Wyden, a man you know, he's suggested that maybe the Democrats should use parliamentary maneuvers to slow down confirmation of individuals for, nominees for various positions. Take other steps in order to...

Sanders: I hope it doesn't come to that, but that's what I meant when I answered your question "what can you do?" You know, the Senate needs to function with unanimous consent, otherwise it really gets slowed down. I don't want to see that happen. I don't want to see that happen.

WB: Give us some historic perspective on what's going on right now. Step back a little bit, and give us some comparisons to other moments in American history. I ask you that as someone who's lived through some tumultuous times.

Sanders: Obviously the suggestion is it goes back to Watergate.

WB: Do you see comparisons?

Sanders: I see some comparisons, but what I think, right now, at this moment. When there is so much distrust of the political process. That we have a president who, I hate to say this, lies a whole lot. When we have a president who has attacked media, you, as "fake news". When we have a president who refers to judges who render verdicts against him as "so called judges". When you're seeing that attack on, what in a sense on the fabric of American society, people are nervous, and now you're seeing a president firing an FBI director in the midst of an investigation. So, I would say this is a moment in which Congress has got to take a deep breath, slow it down. Let's do this thing right.

WB: Senator Sanders. Thanks so much for joining us.
March 11, 2017

My impression, from reading the article and the comments,

is that The Nation currently represents a strand of left wing authoritarianism that exists in this country, among whom you will find left wing supporters of Donald Trump.

There are accusations made against the Clinton campaign, accusations of "McCarthyite hysteria" against Democrats and liberal media figures in general. There is almost a hero worship tone with respect to Trump, and a distress over the "slurs" against him, and calls for impeachment, which he sees as the real threat to American democracy. There are all kinds of intellectually dishonest arguments, and false equivalencies.

In the comment section, you repeatedly see the RW talking point that claims that Hillary was planning a nuclear war against Russia. Any sort of tension with Putin is described in hysterical terms as escalations that could lead to nuclear war. Expressions of disagreement with the article are equated with McCarthyism.

I honestly can't see how any non-authoritarian with basic analytic skills could read this article and not conclude that it's a relatively crude piece of pro-Putin, pro-Trump propaganda.

It's been a long time since I've read The Nation, but it seems like it's becoming the magazine equivalent of JPR. It's alarming to see some "progressives" swallowing this unquestioningly.

February 22, 2017

They were ripe for a Trump.

If you haven't already, I would strongly urge you to view the film The Brainwashing of my Dad.

There is a major, deliberate, and well funded, VERY EFFECTIVE propaganda campaign that has been working on these people's minds for decades. Some of them can be, and have been "deprogrammed".

We're not working on an even intellectual playing field, but one that has been heavily distorted by a propaganda machine that prevents honest debate and discussion from even happening in our society.

The real enemies are the ones behind the scenes pulling the strings. I wish that we would focus our sites more on them.

February 20, 2017

My answer is no.

We no longer have a free press, and haven't for a long time. We no longer have any integrity to our elections.

The candidate and party that wins fewer votes ends up in power, and nobody can even say with any authority how many votes someone got, as our elections are unauditable, while millions of people are being out and out disenfranchised.

I fear that we are going to become even less democratic than we currently are, but I strongly believe that we are already not a democracy.

January 29, 2017

Should never have been passed. Symptomatic of a Democratic suicide impulse? Maybe.

Yes, there would likely still be a FOX, but there would probably be much more effective counters to it. It's also what enabled the emergence of the Clear Channel RW machine.

It didn't cause RW media, but it made possible the extreme consolidation that has largely eliminated media independence.

Very bad move on Clinton's part.

January 20, 2017

Some pictures from the Inauguration Parade.

I must say I'm impressed with the new, more patriotic theme.


January 20, 2017

Jon Stewart - Twitter War with Donald Trump

Good for a laugh today.


Profile Information

Name: Debbie Downer
Gender: Female
Home country: A republic if we can keep it.
Member since: Sun Oct 26, 2003, 05:06 AM
Number of posts: 26,752

About Crunchy Frog

If I don't respond to your post I may have you on ignore, or simply be ignoring you.
Latest Discussions»Crunchy Frog's Journal