Neo

Responding to you, but not challenging your thoughts ... a question. Is it the parties or is it the netwotks who are objecting? I really don't know. I agree they each have vested interests. What I've not gotten my arms around is this. Would including a third party candidate help, or hurt, DT (Repubs) or HRC (Dems) in terms of the election? In other words, does either side think Johnson/Stein draws more votes from the adversary or from them? What I've also not gotten my arms around is this. Do the networks think ratings rise or fall with third party participation? Pure guesswork- answering those questions tells us who is for third party participation and who's against it. Left out by me ... the two major parties and the networks, regardless of what the specific answers to the questions above are, think it's advantageous as a business model going forward to protect the two party system because it best serves their interests in the long run. This is longer term thinking at the expense of a calculated short run advantage I'm not used to seeing, regardless of how well it best serves the longer term. I believe you and I, and an altruistic approach to our best interests, isn't at the top of the Rep/DNC/DT/HRC/network priority list. Edit to add .... The Commission on Presidential debates, a non-profit with both prominent Dems and Repubs on the board, sets the standards. The largest vested interest appears to be the parties and their franchise (long term) more so than candidates (short term) or networks (short term). I get it. This may have been obvious to the rest of you.

To: PA I have to say, you're being more fair and balanced than me. I could find no context in full articles that made the headlines worse than the entire story. I'll make you wince, but your second paragraph is insightful. Eleven's on record for weeks, but I've not moved to his conclusion. I HAVE moved from Trump having no chance to Trump having a realistic chance. I am rarely correct when making electoral predictions. I read too much of my own psychology into polling data and "adjust" accordingly. This hasn't worked for me.

Robert Gates and the next CIC. I respect Gates very much. A non-partisan commentary. http://www.wsj.com/articles/sizing-up-the-next-commander-in-chief-1474064606

I moved 30 pts to the bench because of, you know, that stout, jacked, Bill's defense, at home, on a Thursday night national TV game, in a must win situation. Neo's legacy, graciously, hasn't fired me yet.

You look back at life and ask ... "Who thought that was a good idea at the time?".

Jimmy the Greek! I am, I am.

I laughed.

Your team's in the Super Bowl tomorrow. You have to pick its QB. Your choices are Fitz or TT. Who do you take? One game. I take Fitz.

He'll need you, Hank ... says me with no knowledge whatsoever! Some things you just feel?

Yes. One example. A conclusion based on an actual statistic 4 years ago. "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what...who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. ...These are people who pay no income tax. ...and so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." Let's do a charity event. Disparaging comments re: supporters. You choose the time period in this thread. 30, 60 days. My charity's JDRF. Or, if not here, choose major news networks - your choice, just harder to count. Challenge: whose SUPPORTERS are referred to critically. I'll take Trump and lay you the odds you suggest. Heavens, you've made it a vocation!

That's a crew I wanna hang with.

I'll watch the Buffalo Bills anytime. NFL Football sucks. Fantasy Football saved the NFL's ass.

To PA -- I realize Reading isn't in your part of the state. Still, I thought of your hometown descriptions when I read this. No points being made ... I hope you find it interesting. If it resonates, let me know. http://www.wsj.com/articles/in-places-with-fraying-social-fabric-a-political-backlash-rises-1473952729 Well, the WSJ is the best Op Ed page in America, IMHO. Prose and critical thinking. I think it's worth paying for. That said, you can find most of the articles a day delayed, or by Googling key words if you choose not to pay.

I can't speak for others. I got there when you suggested certain voters do not possess significant capacity for nuanced thinking to form conclusions suggested by a writer, I wondered what other capacities you feel these voters don't possess. Whether or not they're your litmus test, I'll let you decide, You certainly mentioned nuance, or nuanced thinking, as a criteria in your conclusion. Maybe you have only this one. Own it. I see no strawman. The arguement's yours, not mine. I disagree with it and suggest no counter arguement, no strawman. I respect voters, period. Not in my experience. Not in my experience here.

The one that disparages the voters of the other.

No party has a monopoly. One party has it as a strategy and tactic. IMHO.

I left good looking out for a reason.

Rakish .. I love your analysis. Football is so choreographed that it's hard for me to distinguish between a breakdown or a call. I've seen this gif ten times and read the "Tyrod blew it" analysis that accompanies it. Your take jibes with my eye only after you articulated it. Thank you .. It also jibes with the Raven player paraphrase: "we made Taylor be a quarterback." That is, he's going to have to recognize coverage before the snap, or move to his fourth read after the snap, to beat us. You can be aggressive defensively if the offense breaks the huddle with ten seconds on the play clock. Edit ... I'll stop short of the conspiracy and go to film, formation and tendency!

How "nuanced" does one need to be in order to choose his representation? Is there a test? Should we suppress votes? Am I smart enough? Are only Dems? Should we add property ownership to any intellect requirement? Exhibit A of an elitist viewpoint! "They're not nuanced. They should vote for our really chic, cool, smart party. Unfortunately, they're too dumb to see." If only they were you! You're a good man, but I gagged on this one. It's perfect.

When nfreeman and I post the SAME article, back to back, there's probably some here who'll find it terrible!

Huckleberry - what an interesting experience and story. I empathize. I have a very similar story, it just started when I was much younger (gone at 3, divorced at 4). Saw him sporadically a half a dozen times, thereafter. One day, 20 years ago when I was your age, he showed up at my office. I hadn't seen him in over 10 years. We went to a bar on Main Street and had a few beers. I was married, with kids, and he asked if he could get back into my life after 30 years. Thinking of MY kids, I declined. I hope his outreach assuaged any guilt he felt. In any event, he died about five years ago. My uncle called and told me the news. I declined attendance. I, too, have (at least one) half brother. We've never met. I learned it was him who made sure I was invited. Gracious. I've wondered, since, if I made the right decision. I think the experience for me would 've been just as you described it. I've concluded there's no right answer. Awesome step dad moment!

Is he deplorable or is he desperate? Sublime writing .... following thought. http://www.wsj.com/articles/les-deplorables-1473895470 [ got in once without password, checked again and locked; Real Clear Politics to Les Deplorables]

You are far too passionate to come off as Spock. I just enjoyed the last sentence. You do share Spock's logic!

I read your words and saw/heard Spock from Star Trek.

I'm not sure why I set alarms off. You can be compassionate while realistically assessing the path that lead to any given circumstance. I think effective policy addresses the path in addition to the consequence.