2016 Presidential Election: what's the deal? - Part Two

Let's start a new thread before we get into the New Hampshire primary, shall we? A thread with 300+ messages is a little unwieldy. :/

Here's a question: why have I heard so little about the Nevada caucuses relative to the South Carolina primaries? The Nevada caucuses are on 2/20 and 2/23, about the same time as the SC primaries (which are on 2/20 and 2/27), but I've heard quite a bit about SC and almost nothing about Nevada; in fact, I may have forgotten all about Nevada if it weren't for Google!

From part one thread:

margd: I think Bush came across as measured and knowledgeable in last night's Republican debate. Kasich, too, though he stumbled over his words in the short amount of time allowed him. His lack of edge made me wonder if he's now running for VP.

theoria: Bush and Kasich (and Christie) are fighting for the same voters (Rubio's), who are a minority share of the Republican electorate so far. If the pitchfork vote coalesces around a single candidate (Trump or Cruz), it's all over.

margd:
Bush: knowledgeable, measured

Carson: transparent attention-grab during entrance

Christie: obvious court experience. great at snow removal? (I can't forget Bridgegate.)

Cruz: smart, articulate, smooth, "will say/do anything", beginning to dial back? (Famous for govt shutdown, no way can lead executive.)

Kasich: competent, mis-spoke, though that's lesser crime than others committed last night

Rubio: shaken by Christie attacks, reduced to repetition re Obama.

Trump: not only would bring back waterboarding, but far worse?? nice that he wouldn't allow people to die in streets...

I went to bed ~ 2nd intermission...

ETA: timspalding re Carson: transparent attention-grab during entrance
I dislike Carson intensely, but three of them missed their cues—they couldn't hear them back there.

Apparently Hillary's victory in Iowa was by an even narrower margin than we thought:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/iowa-sanders-clinton-audit-218905

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/07/its_almost_over_for_hillary_this_election_is_a_m...

This from a former White House counselor for Bill Clinton himself.

>5 lriley: I agree with the author.

> 4, > 5

I am the last person on earth to be accused of being a conspiracy nut. E.g., I am one of the minority of Americans who accepts the beyond-all-reasonable-doubt fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone nut assassin of President Kennedy.

But when there is good evidence of a conspiracy then I must go with the evidence. E.g., the assassination of Lincoln involved a conspiracy, ditto the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand and wife.

It is obvious to any objective and thinking person that the DNC goon D.W. Schultz and the Iowa goon Andrea McGuire have rigged the system to elect $Hillary as they are trying their best to deep-six the Sanders campaign. The restricted and badly scheduled debates were so plainly, clearly and manifestly designed to keep people from hearing Sanders that even the meanest intellect could figure out what is going on. It was undeniably blatant, brazenly obvious, overtly transparent, tastelessly conspicuous, offensively flagrant, and unmistakably easy to discern. Egregious, for sure, and dastardly. Ya know what I mean?

And, yes, somebody (who has the power?) needs to put the proper pressure on the Iowa Democratic establishment to release the raw vote. The fact that they refuse to do so tells us one thing - Sanders won the raw vote.

I have now changed my mind. I owe nothing to a bunch of stinking scumbag cheating lying a$$holes. I will cast my vote in November for Sanders, even if it has to be a write-in vote.

$Hillary Goddam Clinton can fucking eat my unwashed Fruit-of-the Looms and choke on the oversized crotch.

(Not to panic, mothergrabbers - I live in a red state wherein whatever evil republican clown is nominated will win my state's three pitiful electoral college votes by several hundred thousand votes, as usual.)

#7--I don't think the likes of Wasserman Schultz ever believed that another democrat would ever mount a serious challenge to Hillary but limiting the number of debates and putting them at times when people wouldn't watch would just make it so much easier to make that much expected conclusion inevitable. FWIW Wasserman Schultz was a cheerleader on the Hillary team the last time around. She's the lead cheerleader this time around and trying to lock the nomination up for Hillary this time around went without saying. She's had a job to do and is trying to accomplish that to the best of her abilities. That it might not work shows us that the unforeseen should never be taken for granted.

I look at the Sanders campaign even if it doesn't win as a breath of fresh air---a sign that a lot more people get it than what I would have thought even a short time ago. It shows as well that a Presidential campaign that runs on real issues can get broad based voting and economic support without going to the usual sources of corporations and financial entities for the cash. One thing that can be said about his campaign compared to all the others is it doesn't have even a whiff of the corrupt. The money he's got comes from the people and it is the people he owes if he wins--not this bank or that lobbying group.

Seems that the transcripts of Hillary's speeches are more top secret than what you'll find on her email server.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article59010478.htm...

>lriley

Totally Agree.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/hillary-not-truthful-abou_b_9185412.ht...

Another banks and Hillary story.

Some more:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-and-elizab_1_b_9185022....

http://www.fortune.com/2016/02/09/clinton-speeches-goldman-sachs/?xid=yahoo_fort...

There are some very interesting links you can follow in the Huffington article. One to a piece done by Atlantic magazine describing Hilary's unusual intervention on the behalf of USB in a dispute the Swiss bank was having with our IRS during her time as Secretary of State--the subsequent positive outcome for USB leading to a large monetary donation to the Clinton foundation and a number of paid for Bill Clinton speeches commissioned by USB for which they paid Bill well over $1 million. All of which is relatively recent history. There's also a link to VICE which I at least know from its HBO show. Hillary receiving plenty of campaign cash from privatized prisons which is a curious thing for someone who wants people to think of her as a progressive democrat IMO.

> 12

I do wonder - how many "undecided" people will actually ever be exposed to this information to a degree wherein it will be enough to make a difference? Hillary is still what is termed "the prohibitive favorite", whatever the hell that means. Most Bernie Sanders supporters are a little too high on life right now to understand that but an old fart like me sure as hell does.

Hillary is one pissed-off, er, person right now. I'm convinced she is determined to secure this damn nomination by any means necessary, up to and including murder, probably. She is NOT planning on blowing this last opportunity after getting whipped like a rented mule by some unknown Black guy back in '08.

I think the race to be the Democratic nominee will turn on the results in S. Carolina. Not that it itself is the deal maker or breaker, but if one candidate wins "big" that will pretty much tell us who is really likely to win.

As is said, the S. Carolina primary "is Hillary's to lose." The vast majority of S. Carolina voters are Blacks. Bernie's only chance is to get many Black surrogates out there everywhere, in every town and village in S. Carolina, to convince enough Black folk that checking the box by the name "Bernie Sanders" is the way to go, and to disregard the box by the name "Hillary Clinton". They have a assload of ammunition they can use, and only need to "go positive" for the most part, just mentioning in passing the over 100 million that the Clintons have accumulated over the years being influence peddlers to rich white people. The story of Sanders civil rights activities in the '60s should be a really good sell - especially if it is a volunteer Black campaign worker from S. Carolina who is doing the selling. (They would also mention that back then Hillary was a volunteer in the campaign of Barry Goldwater, the "David Duke Lite" candidate. lol)

That is going to be what all this turns on - fucking South Carolina. But if someone has a better theory to proffer I'd like to hear it.

#13--the massive amount of small donors could keep Sanders campaign viable for a long time. People giving $25 to $50 at a shot can just keep on giving and giving. Clinton's SuperPac's and wealthy donors meanwhile are in the spotlight. Which is to say I don't know if a big loss in South Carolina would mean the beginning of the end for him. It could. But that's a perspective that you look back at from some distance and say--yeah it was there. In the meantime she's lost ground to Sanders because she can't give a good answer to things that have had a negative impact on her campaign. Nationally Sanders has pretty much closed the gap. IMO Sanders campaign has had the momentum--how close it is to peaking is the question.

Would Hillary resort to murdering Sanders?---maybe she'd like to at this point but that's farfetched. Anybody though with a clue about politics and it doesn't matter who you're for has to know that the e-mail thing and now the speech transcript thing are going to dog her the rest of the way. If she gets past Sanders the Republican nominee is just going to town on those issues. Even if she were capable she can't murder everyone. It's obvious to me why she would not want people to see those transcripts of Goldman Sachs speeches. You don't take $225K from Goldman Sachs and insult and/or run down the bank. And they certainly don't ask you back twice more if they don't like what you say about them. The old adage of not biting the hand that feeds applies here.

On the subject of who is establishment?--Clinton has the corporations and banks--congressmen/women, governors and Senators and tons of other super delegates. The super delegate score the last I looked was Clinton-340 Sanders--14. Just from that I don't even think it's arguable that she's not establishment. She's trying to say that she's left when she's been in the middle all along. IMO she'd be better off arguing from and for that position than to deny that she's a centrist but is a progressive instead. Wanting to be all things to all people--- with all the party support she has I can only surmise that there is a large disconnect between democratic party leaders and a significant % of their rank and file. Somewhat the same thing is going on with the republican party and it's rank and file as well.

IMO the democratic party establishment has been moving to the right for a while. What we're seeing is resistance from the rank and file and I think that resistance was apparent even back in 2007-08 with Obama's candidacy. Obama ran as a left wing populist. While he didn't eschew super Pacs or wealthy interests the most significant portion of his financial support came from the voting public. By his second term a lot of the public's enthusiasm had been tamped down and it was more business as usual. I see Sanders campaign as kind of a second wave with the objective of taking the party left again and this time for real.

> 14

Well, like Mr. Trump kidding around about shooting someone on 5th Avenue - lol - I wasn't really thinking of Hill actually whacking Bernie, or having him whacked.

Of course, the republican conspiracy theorists are all over the internets with elaborate stories about how the Clintons have had dozens and dozens of political opponents (or witnesses to the Clinton's crimes) whacked over the years. According to them Vince Foster was only the tip of the iceberg. lol.

All that slaughter seems very improbable to me. Very.

But there is real evidence about Bill Clinton's 30-woman rape count. And, since forensic evidence is lacking now, witness or victim testimony must be weighed against the accuser's denials. I see Juanita Broaddrick's testimony as believable and compelling. If she is a liar one wonders about her motivation, given her background. Hard to imagine she is a republican operative. Plus we have Kathleen Willie and Paula Jones and many more giving detailed accounts of what precisely Bill did to them, including sadistic acts. The testimonies are amazingly consistent. It is Very similar to the Bill Cosby situation, only differing in trivial particulars. Hard to consider conspiracy as the likely alternative theory. Really hard.

The charge by Broaddrick that Hillary attempted to intimidate her into keeping her mouth shut about being raped by Bill - that is most disturbing to me - and that is why this is not only about Bill. Being raised in the south I tend to put women up on a pedestal - and not as a patronizing exercise but with the thought being that women are the moral sex as compared to men - men stereotyped as "dogs" with some real basis in truth.

I am completely horrified by the thought that Hillary is not only capable of such behavior but has actually done such a thing. If Broaddrick is lying (as said I really don't think she is) then I do not know what to think of her - and how horrific her behavior thusly is. I look into Broaddrick's face and listen to her voice and I intuitively feel pity and sadness and compassion for a fellow human being. To my eyes there is no vamp or enemy agent here. Now, when I look at Hillary's face and into her eyes, a H.P. Lovecraftesque shiver goes up and down my spine.

We already know Hillary will lie without compunction - the landing under sniper fire in Bosnia that never happened. That lie was for self-aggrandizement only - just like Brian Williams' lies, and just like sick asshole Bill O'Reilly's lies. The clinical term for such behavior is narcissistic personality disorder.

If Hillary Clinton has NPD then I for one don't want her anywhere near the Whitehouse, anymore than I would care for a President Williams or a President O'Reilly.

(Except of course as a citizen visiting on a tour - like the rest of us. lol.)

#15---I don't know if Bill has ever really raped anyone. I think it's possible. I've looked at the Broadrick thing and think she's very believable. Serial rapist?--that's a hard case to make. There's Cosby for an example of someone who say 15 years ago you'd never believe it but even so. My impression has pretty much been that Bill has had numerous affairs and that he has used his position of power at times to manipulate people into doing what he wants and that includes younger women than Hillary for sexual favors. He's not really a good person in my estimation but.......

Back in the day when the impeachment thing was going on the sexual stuff was pretty much a side issue to the Whitewater stuff and what have you. I'm remembering the Clinton White House borrowing and misplacing the FBI files on all the US congressmen/women, Senators shorty after he became POTUS. He maneuvered all the scandals circling around his head quite skillfully to the point where it all became about this philandering and then turned the tables on Gingrich, Livingston, Burton and that holier than thou fall on his sword catholic congressman from Illinois (can't remember his name now--my dad used to like him) who all of a sudden were being dogged by their own past sexual indiscretions--I always thought those FBI files--what were in them? The point then wasn't about Clinton's possible corruption and sexual affairs anymore. It turned around on his would be stone throwers---the same pointing out how evil and became clear they were just as bad---the result being the whole shebang fell apart. Well the Republicans pushing that weren't just vindictive--they were too eager and arrogant and that made them stupid. If you're looking to why some republicans have hated Bill and Hillary so much for so many years--you look there. He beat them badly at their own game.

Something I thought that was really fucked up--about the same time Bill gets into a fight with Hillary and the next thing you know we're bombing Afghanistan (looking for Bin Laden) and the Sudan (on bad intel). That was ill conceived angry child kind of shit. To me the military option should always be a absolute last resort thing and looking at past POTUS's LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, both Bush's and Clinton all could be examples of being too trigger happy for my blood.

One of my main reasons for disliking the Clinton's is the Nafta thing. To me that was a betrayal of his base. I don't how things are in the south where Bill came from but in the northeast and the rust belt unions had always meant something. Traditionally the working class that made all that strong voted Democrat--yeah Reagan swept everywhere but congress and the Senate were always controlled by a democratic party that had strong union support. Right after the Nafta the GOP and Gingrich the house of representatives--I don't think that was a coincidence. Clinton represents in my eyes the new neo-liberal democrat like Blair would come to represent a new neo-liberal labor party in Britain. In my eyes Clinton and his administration carried forward way too many of the economic polices of the Reagan and first Bush administrations that were anti-labor pro corporation just as Blair carried the same water for the previous Thatcher/Major governments.

Wow! That was over with quickly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/us/politics/new-hampshire-primary.html

> 17

And now on to South Carolina, where the competition will be brutal between a white woman and a white man for the Black vote.

I am placing my chips on Killer Mike and Cornel West but who knows where the dice will land. The bastards in Las Vegas always kick my ass when I visit - so there is that.

Carly and Chris are out:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/carly-fiorina-suspends-presidential-campaign?google_e...
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/chris-christie-suspends-2016-presidential-campaign?go...

>18 JGL53:

Well, I'm the guy that said, "There's no way the American people are stupid enough to reelect George W. Bush!" back in 2004, so you probably shouldn't listen to me, either. :)

> 19

"...I'm the guy that said, "There's no way the American people are stupid enough to reelect George W. Bush!" back in 2004, so you probably shouldn't listen to me, either..."

I made the same dead wrong prognostication also. I just couldn't effing believe it. At the time I switched insurance agents because the one I had then mentioned to me he was voting for Bush. I asked the sumbich if he had lost his fucking mind and then walked out of his office.

I was actually depressed for a couple of weeks after the election. But a few months later I happened to read the rather famous book "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds". Then I was able to go back and understand what had happened. I.e., if you can scare people bad enough they will react like hydrophobic sheep and stampede as directed.

The scary thing is - it could happen again, under the right circumstances.

Sanders has his work cut for him for a while now. He'll need to make up some ground. These next couple weeks could be crucial for him.

>20 JGL53:

The scary thing is - it could happen again, under the right circumstances.

You better believe it. It could be worse, actually. I think Dubya, for all his faults, genuinely did have good intentions, however misguided and myopic I personally feel them to have been. OTOH, Trump and Cruz, the current Republican front-runners, are merely pathological narcissists who sole purpose in running for president is to demonstrate to the world that they're as amazing as they think they are.

Interesting article. I agree with Weisbrot's analysis of the economic polices of Bill Clinton's administration.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2016/2/sanders-surge-marks-public-outrage-...

Unless they have coat-tails to bring along the Senate and House, neither Clinton or Sanders will be able to do much more than block some of the worst ideas. Which one, if either, has coat-tails?

> 24

The best laid plans of men and mice and all that, but - Sanders is talking about a energized voter base - energized by his election wherein he can use the greatest bully pulpit in the world to, in effect, rally the troops for the promised democratic and non-violent "revolution". Sanders talks about this idea all the time and will not quit painting this picture, I think, until he either loses the party nomination or the election.

I think the plan is - when republicans try to either crash or stonewall some progressive action Sanders will call for email and letter writing and all-out social media blitzkrieg to light a fire under reluctant democrats and harass the dog crap out of republicans - day and night. Maybe even picketing congressional office or just having hundreds or probably thousands of people just clogging up the works in Washington - and also making life Hell for any governors who are likewise anti-socialistic and pro-fascist. To coin a phrase just "flash-mob the bastards until they shit, go blind, or give it up."

What I thinking of is - maybe sit-ins, lie-ins and other forms of Civil Rights Era type non-violent non-cooperation. Bernie is, after all, an ex-Civil Rights worker who was arrested once back in the '60s for protesting segregation, and there the famous/infamous photo of him in about the second or third line with a Martin Luther King march back when.

Bernie was a member of Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition and campaigned for Jackson in his run for President in 1988 - this was while Sanders was mayor of Burlington, if I remember correctly.

IOW, I think electing Bernie Sanders POTUS would be sort of kind of like electing Abbie Hoffman or Jerry Rubin as POTUS. Bernie is pretty up front about this. We will NOT be getting the same old same old with President Sanders. You want pragmatism, business as usual, safe-and-steady as SHE goes - the you vote for HER.)

That's how things have changed in this country, if you haven't noticed. I.e., a guy who was a conscientious objector during the Viet Nam era may possibly be the next POTUS.

Because the alternative may very well be - a guy who wants to build a wall across the southern border and "make Mexico pay for it.", who thinks we can actually have a religious test for allowing non-citizens to even visit the U.S., who thinks soldiers who get captured in war are losers and admires only those who were smart enough to avoid capture, who thinks his years as a teenager at a military academy counts as military service, who uses words like "fuck" and "pussy" in his campaign speeches, who makes jokes to the faces of women reporters about them being on their period, and, oh, about a thousand other things that are guaranteed to get about 60 per cent of the country to hate the motherfucker's guts - the other 40 per cent or so apparently being gross and disgusting assholes themselves who think Trump would make a great POTUS - even though he is just a citizen who has never held any elected public office in his life - not even school board member, local constable, dog catcher, NOTHING. The assholes qualifications for POTUS? - he is a failed casino owner, a three-time bankrupt realtor and a tacky inane Reality TV show host.

If Sanders or Trump becomes our choice then the country in the majority will see democratic socialism as our only road into a future isn't an immediately trip into the depths of utter Hell on earth and final and absolute destruction of Western Civilization.

But if the nominees turn out to Clinton and Bush then, gee, I don't know. Muddle along I guess, and massive death by boredom.

Sanders---'I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend'. I am happy to say hoo-fucking-ray. It's about time someone said something like that. Kissinger may be the most evil and sinister person who has ever had real power in this country. When I hear conspiracy theories of him being an alien reptilian from another planet I'm tempted to believe it. Sorely tempted. I'm not a believer in the death penalty. I think I'd make an exception on his part. I'm not even sure Cheney is a worse human being. Personally I'd rank these people with the likes of Margaret Thatcher and her friend Augusto Pinochet. And by the way Kissinger played a big part in Pinochet's murderous coup and dictatorship. He's a main reason why the Vietnam war lasted twice as long as it did.

curiously, I just posted on facebook a photo of Hillary on Kissinger's lap

>26 lriley:

When Kissinger was up for a professorship at Columbia University, Noam Chomsky said "his actions as Secretary of State make him 'admirably qualified' for a position in the Department of Death or the Department of Lying.'' (http://spectatorarchive.library.columbia.edu/cgi-bin/columbia?a=d&d=cs19770427-01.2.8)

>26 lriley: "It's about time someone said something like that."

Haven't people been saying things like that for about 45 years?

#29--people have. Politicians not so much.

And the fact that Hillary and Bill Clinton love themselves some Henry Kissinger prove that they are utterly ignorant of who or what Kissinger is, or they are as evil as he is.

Take your pick. There is no third choice.

And for those who are interested in delving into the cesspool that is Henry Kissinger there is this book by Christopher Hitchens, who did his usual masterful expose and analysis: The Trial of Henry Kissinger - ISBN 145552297X

Seymour Hersh did a good job on Kissinger in his book as well (The Price of Power).

>32 JGL53:

The film version of that book (co-scripted by and featuring Hitchens) is up on YouTube:

https://youtu.be/DwGtctUYhRI

Wasserman Schultz thinks the grass roots need to know their place:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/dnc-chair-superdelegat...

And here is how Hillary is going to fight corporations and Wall St.

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/hillary-clinton-plans-raise-money-indus...

Canada offers Presidential candidate (not Cruze this time!):

:-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCyzdD0vYOw (2:12)

Just in case things weren't crazy enough for you already this year:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/antonin-scalia-death.html?_r=0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/2016-supreme-court_us_56bfaee3e4b0c3c55051ad...

Gee, I'm sorry I missed this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/debate-rips-open-gop-wounds-and-party-ri...

John Oliver's take on voter ID fraud. You might be surprised at some of the fraudsters:

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/15/10995512/john-oliver-voter-ID

"There is no magic wand to accomplish change. No candidate or president can promise change—he or she can only make it possible. What makes change happen, history and current U.S. politics show, is principled and courageous commitment and integrity—not Clinton’s fatalistic pragmatism, which insists that pushing for more is unrealistic and therefore capitulates before the fight even starts. On the other hand, it is entirely pragmatic to expect a President Bernie Sanders to fight hard for the justice and equality issues he has championed his entire political life—giving these ideas a chance, rather than no chance at all."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-pragmatic-case-for-berni...

#43--it's a big reason why the Clinton campaign doesn't have the enthusiasm than the Sanders campaign has. Clinton tells us accept things as they are and maybe we can make them a little better. She claims she's a fighter--there's no fight in that message. She leaves little to hope for---but if you think things are basically okay maybe that's not so bad. Now if you think things are pretty much screwed up or could be a lot better than they are that kind of message should leave you a bit underwhelmed.

>43 lriley:

Yeah, precisely. There are quite a few people on the left that are doing okay now; they will probably vote for Clinton - that's to be expected. But some of us (a lot more of us than people thought before the Sanders campaign got rolling) really do want the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes; we really do want everyone to have access to decent health care; we really do want working Americans to earn a living wage. If Clinton is elected president, I don't think those things are going to happen; if Sanders is, there's at least a chance that some of them will.

> 43

On the subject of "enthusiasm" - also sometimes the word "excitement" is used - in past contests the candidate who generate the most of that always seems to get the party nomination - even if he does go on to lose in the general.

The enthusiasm gap is tremendously in Bernie's favor - even most pundits of all stripes now agree and they all can see a path to the nomination for Bernie, just based on the observed enthusiasm he generates - which HRC does not match.

I certainly hope that history is followed in this instance. I hope Bernie can duplicate Obama's 2008 seeming miracle. But can an old socialist Jew from New England inspire enough to win, as did a young slender elegant suave Black guy from Chi Town via Hawaii? Maybe not. I guess we know pretty much for sure the morning after Super Tuesday.

#44--yeah, those are all things that Sanders would push for and things that I'd hope to see happen. When you look at the fast food workers fighting for better wages--things like that are encouraging to me. These multibillion fast food chains don't respect the people that work for them--and a lot of ordinary people do not have enough for people and the work they do. Our governments subservience to the health care industry is insane. We need blue cross/blue shield like we need a hole in the head. We need big Pharma raking in govt. subsidies and then charging people outrageous amounts to the tune of billions of $'s profit year after year. No other western working democracy puts up with this shit. But these are interest groups that can buy politicians by the score---that's why we have what we have.

#45--all we can do is wait and see. It's a game of patience for now. Hopefully Sanders comes out on top. It looks like Nevada will be very much in play. He's closed the gap in South Carolina but that's a really really big reach at least right now. If he can win some primaries more people in states he wouldn't win right now will undoubtedly give him a second look--and comparing his message and Hillary's message a second look for Bernie is going to play strongly in his favor----IMO.

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/02/the-jonathan-capehart-saga-or-why-...

To smear or not to smear.

The fundertaker:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNX3ZYRFG0c

>46 lriley: I'll just note that it doesn't have to be a game of patience. You could be phonebanking right now if you were so inclined.

New to the collection of mail sent to my father is a message from the Cruz campaign, explaining that Rubio is in bed with Clinton and Harry Reid. Interesting to see who Cruz considers a threat.

> 48
If there were some magical way to get every Democratic voter or person who thinks they might vote Democrat to watch this seven minute video then HRC would not only get beaten by Bernie Sanders but she would get crushed in any and all states just like happened in New Hampshire.

This is all a matter of just educating people - exposing them to the facts of the matter and not just HRC's 1984-level of lying, day after day.

If the truth could actually be known by all Americans about the Clintons not only would they be unelectable to any public office anywhere in the U.S. they would probably have to move to another country - because living here would become intolerable for them, as everywhere they went people, Democrat, republican or Independent, would be shunning them like they had a particularly virulent form of leprosy.

Every day, in every way, I despise Hillary and Bill Clinton more and more.

(the republicans? - it goes without saying I despise them more. But it is now just a matter of degree and not of kind.)

The (current) POTUS weighs in on the election:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/16/obama-trump-wont-be-presi...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/afl-cio-endorsement-2016_us_56c4cdc7e4b08ffa...

APWU--the union I (in retirement) still belong to endorsed Sanders some time ago. Trumka here does not automatically come on board for Clinton and IMO he has good reason not to. The Clinton's and other neo-lib democrats have always taken union endorsements and votes for granted. They've passed and/or supported numerous trade deals that have undercut unions and caused much job loss of union and non union workers. Hillary's recent backing off of TPP was a purely political move on her part and IMO if she were elected it or something like it would go forward again. Her saying she was against the Nafta all these years later is a bald faced lie. H. Ross Perot was against the Nafta. Ralph Nader was against the Nafta. Jesse Jackson was against the Nafta. They used to say shit like 'who you going to believe all these former presidents and secretaries of state or Perot, Nader and Jackson'? H. Ross Perot debated Al Gore on television solely on that subject. The media decided Gore was the winner which was bullshit but Perot like Jackson was always made out to be something of a whack job. Al Gore was Bill Clinton's Galahad. Hillary was by her husband's side on that all the way. She wasn't with the people the media made out to be whackos or does anyone here actually believe what she says now? And we've all gotten a good look at the Nafta and all the subsequent trade deals and how they've fucked over millions of american workers and their families in the years following. As I said she lies. Sanders offers a lot more for unionized and non unionized workers than Clinton will ever. Sanders has always supported unions and Sanders has always railed and consistently voted against neo-lib trade deals--the kind of deals that undermine Main St. to the benefit of Wall St.

On Michael Bloomberg's possible presidential aspirations:

http://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2016/2/19/11063798/bloomberg-president-c...

delete.

Quinnipiac on Sanders unelectability:

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Quinnipiac-Poll-Bernie-Sanders-Win-GOP/2016/02/1...

As of now Hillary squeaks out a win against Trump and loses to all the other GOP candidates (including Cruz)--getting thumped by both Rubio and Kasich. Sanders beats them all--thumps most of them. So is he really unelectable or is that what the media in general would like people to believe?

The reason why?--might be found in the favorability section of the poll. Sanders is a net +15 positive at 51-36 and Clinton is a net -21 negative at 37-58. You either like Hillary or you pretty much hate her. Republicans absolutely hate her--a lot of independents hate her and a lot of democrats don't like her either. When more people actively don't like a politician more than like him/her--that politician has a problem. Between her and another republican she's going to lose a lot of independents and her candidacy is likely going to suppress democratic numbers IMO.

>3 margd: ...Trump: ... nice that he wouldn't allow people to die in streets...

Never mind, under attack from conservatives he's backing off universal coverage, says he meant pre-existing conditions (NYT).

>57 lriley:

An even bolder article from The Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-is-the-only-dem-candida...

From the article:

53.8% of all American voters have an "unfavorable" view of Hillary Clinton.

67% of American voters find Hillary Clinton "not honest and trustworthy," compared with 59% for Donald Trump. Yes, more people trust Donald Trump.

***

71% of men and 64% of women find Clinton "not honest and trustworthy."

74% of Independent voters find Clinton "not honest and trustworthy."

35% of Democrats find Clinton "not honest and trustworthy." Yes, even Democrats.

> 59

As previously mentioned Hillary is a damnable liar but we are lucky that she is really terrible at it, as she seems not to understand the concept of video tape - a permanent recording of what you said in plain English at time A and then what you said weeks, months or years later at time B, and the later does not only contradict the former but the later is a denial that she ever said the former, which is insane, because we have the FREAKING VIDEO TAPE of her saying what she said she never said. Examples:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0H1AosZdv0

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI

But Hillary is not only bad at lying she also is, incredible though it may seem, equally bad at lying about the fact that she lies.

Yes, you read that correctly.

She is not as good as lying as a small boy, as demonstrated recently on the Steven Colbert show:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0H1AosZdv0

I think the problem here is that she thought the interviewer was getting ready to fire up a video or two and she decided to provide wiggle room for herself and claim she has a bad memory or some such shit.

I keep telling people that Hillary Clinton - and Bill Clinton - are lying pieces of shit - based on video proof. The word needs to get out before it is too late and this filthy narcissist is nominated or even elected.

>60 JGL53: I think you are supposed to lie about your lies--I mean, to be fair.

> 61

Of course. But she is terrible about both lying and lying about her lying. It really makes me god damn sick that so many people admire this piece of shit and her piece of shit rapist husband.

She may - will probably - still win because uninformed voters, republican, democrat, and independent will be the ones who will decide the eventual nominees and the eventual next President - most probably.

That is so very fucked. I am steeling myself now for the eventual proverbial turning over a new leaf in my life. The time is rapidly approaching wherein I must drop this hobby of mine. It seems that caring about politics is a real dead end for me - and my god damn brain.

Pretty soon, apparently, I will have to join the "I don't give a good shit." party - just as a overt effort to maintain my mental health - such as it is. lol.

And, realistically, having only one vote in a very red state, I now see this is the sensible stance I should have had from the get go. I already have a lot of other hobbies so maybe the solution is to just add more time spent to each of them that I had previously spent following the latest political bullshit.

So what is the cliché - this is my swan song? OK - I'm a swan, metaphorically-speaking - and I am now singing my last god damn song. lol.

Looking again at the Quinnipiac poll I posted in #57.

The two highest unfavorables (Clinton 58-Trump 57) in either party field look like the most likely party nominees. None of the others come close to those unfavorable numbers. IMO--if that's how it turns out I would venture to guess that the November election will have a really really low turnout. Maybe the lowest % wise of any recorded election in modern times.

Apart from fans of either who seem to see these two as the most worthy and the mainstream media which favors the two of them as well--there's zip for enthusiasm for either. That's not likely to change with Trump's harebrained ideas or Clinton's meme of incremental moves towards the middle/right. She's a fighter?--I think not. The fact seems to be that unless you're an actual fan of Trump or Clinton you're in the I don't like them camp. I see him pulling out the stops and hammering her with the e-mails and speeches and the hundred or so other scandals true or not that spill out whenever her closet door opens up.

Anyway---when asked the other night about Hillary and her email thing Donald Trump pretty much said that if he became president she would be prosecuted for it--not that he really could have said anything else without really disappointing his audience.....and why would he do that? Anyway I found it interesting and I imagine at least most Hillary fans would be up in arms if that were to come to pass. Trump added that how could he not go ahead on that when others who have done less have been prosecuted and imprisoned.

.....and really the law and whatever justice comes from it should be applied fairly to all--no matter who they are.

So.....any case the Donald himself has been under investigation for running a financial fraud and on May 6 is required to be in person in court. That's interesting too and it makes me wonder if they are the two nominees whether the eventual winner is going to get to watch the eventual loser be tried, prosecuted and imprisoned?

Look for the ironic wherever you will.

Sanders releases transcript of paid speech:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-c-frank/sanders-shatters-clintons_b_9276584....

Sanders scored a whopping $500 for that and donated that very large sum to charity. Hillary's turn?

> 66

Apropos to the speculation regarding the eventual Democratic Presidential nominee I just ran across this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/02/11/the-democrats-dile...

This woman is a right-wing columnist or blogger who views Obama as a failure at foreign policy, probably despises Sanders because he is an irresponsible socialist whose main appeal is his promises of "free stuff", and no doubt does not care for HRC either. She seems to be what is now referred to as a mainstream or establishment republican, meaning she understands Trump is the death knell for the republican party.

So, if she and I were to attend the same cocktail party (not much of a chance of that) I think if we discussed politics we would soon be in a slap fight and have to be separated by cooler heads.

Having said that, I certainly hope her prediction of Sanders beating HRC comes true. I still have severe doubts he can pull it off, even with all the enthusiasm of the youths he has generated.

Anyway, from her lips to the Big G's ears on that prediction. lol.

#67--Descriptions I've heard of DC cocktail parties--supposed bitter opponents of one side or the other pretty much having sing-alongs with each other. Ginsberg and Scalia going to the opera together. What to make of shit like that? It's like belonging to a special club and it's like the population of our nation is up against a many tentacled clique of money, power and entitlement and being slowly squeezed to death. A lot of these politicos are really would be aristos and their realities are far different than most all the people they supposedly represent. And the major media is in their pocket. I watched a video of Jill Stein (the Green Party) being interviewed on the Young Turks (Sanders supporters) recently--her saying that they (in the Green Party) term the mainstream media as the--O-press or the Re-press and I thought that summed things up rather perfectly.

I'm afraid I've never be a person you'd invite to functions such as this. I'm strictly a beer and shot person and if there's someone I don't want around me I can get nasty. The hands across the sea thing of the elites of both parties is something that I'd find intolerable. Clinton's name dropping of Kissinger a couple weeks ago. What the fuck was she thinking? Does she really have no idea that for people who are really and truly on the left that Kissinger is one of the most evil human beings to ever walk on this planet? To see someone who says they're a democrat/progessive/lberal or leftist sharing a drink and/or laugh with the likes of Mr. Kissinger is beyond the pale.

The Clinton's tossing an 8 year Marine sergeant with two tours in Iraq out of their campaign rally for asking a question about Bengazi--he also asserted that Hillary whitewashed her own part in it. However you feel about that---having this guy yanked out of there like that is going to be an effective campaign ad for Donald Trump. From the feed I saw Bill is talking down to this guy like he's some kind of 4 star general and the sergeant is some kid just out of boot camp--not a peep from Hillary about anything.

Now the Marine is more than probably conservative but even so he deserves a lot more respect than that.

Putting the Hillary thing in perspective (and pissing a lot of people off in the process, as Bill Maher will):

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/bill-maher-calls-blacklivesmatter-activists-you...

Mr Sanders received a sound thumping in South Carolina. He's failed to broaden his appeal and it will likely cost him the nomination.

The question that will be Monday morning quarterbacked is why Mr Sanders didn't run as an Independent. He could have bypassed the Democratic primaries and saved all the cash he's raised for the fall election.

Descriptions I've heard of DC cocktail parties--supposed bitter opponents of one side or the other pretty much having sing-alongs with each other. Ginsberg and Scalia going to the opera together. What to make of shit like that?

That's how a healthy government functions. Possibly the only way a representative democracy can function. Our government works almost exclusively as a result of a willingness to compromise, and a recognition that even though the people on the other side of the political aisle disagree with you, they are still countrymen and you still have to work with them.

This isn't to say all opposition must be that which you can socialize with. There are some positions that are, and probably should be, beyond the pale. A Klansman who was a member of Congress probably wouldn't be very popular, and shouldn't be. But normal political disagreements shouldn't eliminate these sorts of social contacts that form the basis of agreement and compromise.

The primary problem right now is that there are loud voices - in the Republican party especially - that are screaming that compromise is for the weak, and dealing with the other side is a crime that they will punish their representatives for if they ever indulge in it. This is a recipe for disaster, and it is causing our government to careen off a dangerous cliff even as we speak.

#72--Sanders was always losing South Carolina and I wouldn't make too much out of one single state. As for who will get the nomination I expect it will be Hillary but I'd reference you back to post #57 in this thread. Hillary barely squeaks out a victory against Trump in the Quinnipiac poll. She loses to the other republicans--not that it matters they're not going to make it. She has almost an identical favorability/unfavorability rating as the Donald. I know for Hillary supporters that one is hard to fathom. There's this persistent perception she carries water for banks and corporations. So let those favorability/unfavorability numbers sink in. Another thing the Quinnipiac poll tells me is that a Clinton-Trump presidential race is going to be low turnout. Both of them have a massive amount of supporters but outside those masses there is no real enthusiasm for either. Establishment Bush/McCain type of republicans are not going to be enthusiastic about Trump and many first or second time voting millennials supporting Sanders are going to see a democratic nominee who is a friend of the Banks and insurance companies and are not going to be happy about that. As well I think a lot who swing back and forth between parties are not going to have a lot of enthusiasm either. They won't like Trump's more extreme positions and a lot of them see Hillary as a crook. That's not much of a choice. The ability of either to win over the less enthusiastic is compromised by the negative perceptions that the public has of both of them.

You don't think Hillary's uber-support among African-Americans in SC will translate to the same level of support in other southern states? Even if she only gets only gets 60% instead of 75% in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas (not to mention Arkansas of course), Sanders will be hopelessly behind in delegates.

> 75

Ironic, no?

What's sad is that a tier of southern states has an out-sized influence on who gets to run for President just because of when they schedule their primaries.

#75--those southern states she's depending on now usually wind up in the republican electoral vote column in November. Hillary needs a bit more enthusiasm north of the Mason-Dixon. Iowa is a state that could go either way--very narrow (and disputed) victory for Hillary. New Hampshire usually it's close in November but tends more towards the Democrat. She lost that by a lot and I'm not sure that portends very well for her in November. Nevada is another that could go either way but seems to be trending towards democrats. But then again that trend starts with Obama who won his first presidential election in a landslide and his second was a comfortable win and Obama was very popular the first time--though somewhat less so the second. Hillary is nowhere near where Obama was in terms of favorability.

So back to Hillary's 37-58 favorability/unfavorability pollling. A minus 21 which is almost identical to Trump's. She'll probably get the democratic nomination and she even might win in November but anyone thinking she's a slam-dunk to win or that she's in a good place as far as popularity is as John Lydon would sing in Pretty Vacant---out to lunch. This isn't to say that Bernie Sanders doesn't have baggage but it's not years worth of resentment by a good half of the country and it's pretty much scandal free and most people even if they hate what he says think he's at least sincere about the things he tells them and he's not telling them lies or trying to hide anything.

> 78

Yes. The really bad thing for Hillary is that there exists a very deep well of very, very bad things she and Bill have been involved in over the years, things she and he have done or said, giant lies they have perpetrated, and possibly even criminal activities either or both have engaged in.

There is always the chance that some of the most disgusting stuff may become public at some point, this year or, worse, when Hillary is President. I'm talking Richard Nixon type stuff. She had better hope all videos, photos and tape-recording have been destroyed. But you never know.

Those two fucks make Bernie look like a new born lamb in comparison. Too bad Bernie probably will not be nominated because he would win too. His election would have been the ultimate symbol of repudiation of much that has done to our country and the world by the soulless bastards who have been in power in the last few decades, both republican and democrat. (I'm excepting Obama, in case any one is wondering.)

I saw a interview with Dick Van Dyke and he said Bernie was a New Deal Democrat. I think that is right. But the deal is dying if it is not already dead.

So fuck all of us.

#79---I agree with Van Dyke. That's pretty much the comparison that Noam Chomsky made as well. Bernie's a New Dealer and IMO we as a nation need a New Deal and a New Deal is a new direction and something that's inclusive for the people of the nation. What FDR did with his New Deal pretty much touched everyone in some kind of positive way. It gave hope and put people to work--it pulled in people from everywhere to rebuild what had been destroyed or taken away from them altogether. I'm afraid none of this is going to happen if Sanders isn't elected in November. The democrats had FDR with his New Deal--they had JFK challenging us to put a man on the moon. They had LBJ and his great society. These were inclusive movements. Another reason why there's a lot less enthusiasm for Hillary is she doesn't give anybody anything to hope for with her can't do this, can't do that--maybe we'll have some incremental change here and there agenda--an agenda that's at the mercy of all her rich donors who like things exactly as they are. So again New Deal, Man on the moon, Great Society---what we've gotten from the Clinton's is Vote for me.

What the future may hold for HRH--nasty general election, Progressive Latino for veep:

Inside the Clinton Team’s Plan to Defeat Donald Trump
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-gener...

VP chatter turns to Tom Perez, a pick that could help Clinton with progressives
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/tom-perez-the-dark-horse-vice-presidential-pick-2...

The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

http://www.newyorker.com/news/benjamin-wallace-wells/never-trump-and-the-rise-of...

A quote that stuck out: “He embodies virtually everything I strive to teach my young sons not to be and not to emulate.” I have a young daughter rather than a young son (or sons), but otherwise the quote applies to me exactly. Had a conversation with said daughter on that very topic earlier this week, as a matter of fact.

#83--I think there's somewhat of the same issue with Hillary. Though to be fair I know Clinton people who voted for McCain/Palin in 2008 just because they were pissed off that Obama 'stole' the nomination away from her. For them her coronation has been a long time coming. Anyway a percentage of them aren't going to switch to Bernie. A lot of the millennial support behind Bernie are pissed because as a group they've been targeted and victimized with debt and little future prospect. What Hillary has promised is 'No future for you' with her everything's great--very little needs to be changed economic agenda and I have to think many millennials will be thinking---'neither of these nominees give a shit about me so why should I bother'? If I were to guess Hillary will lose a lot more in the mix than Bernie would. Clinton/Trump IMO will be low turnout. Too many people hate both of them.

>84 lriley:

I hear what you're saying, but I don't know if there is the same level of animosity toward Clinton that there is toward Trump. There certainly isn't the same kind of shock at the her success this year versus Trump's.

PS Loving all the Sex Pistols quotes this week. Election season got you in a punk rock kinda mood? ;)

My 17 year old son won't be able to vote this year but he's a complete Bernie fan. He thinks that Clinton is completely owned by Wall Street and I'm not sure that he'd bother to vote (if he could) if it were Trump vs. Clinton.

So far, Ms Clinton has captured most of the Obama coalition (i.e., self-identified "liberals," "latinos," and "blacks"). Mr Sanders has mostly been successful in gaining the support of ("white") voters under 30. His mistake, probably caused by his rather late embrace of the Democratic Party, was a failure to recognize the existence of a ready-made coalition and a failure to align himself with all segments of it. His tagline "political revolution" doesn't resonate at the level of practical politics and the actually existing Democratic Party electoral landscape.

#85--I have a lot of vinyl from the late 70's and early 80's punk rock bands--United States Britain and elsewhere. It's a vibe of mine.

Both Clinton and Trump have huge camps. I'm not going to deny that--it's obvious but if you're not in those camps........anyway my daughter is 25 and a Bernie fan but she'll vote for Hillary. She'll wonder why I won't---more than less because of the Trump factor. There are mainly two reasons---first--I'm registered Green Party and I like Jill Stein and I like the Green Party platform even better than Bernie's which is very similar though in most respects but in the few differences the Greens are better---it's just that Bernie has a chance and Jill Stein doesn't and I would love the chance to vote for Bernie in the November election--I've been watching him for years. The second reason is if Hillary wins it's an 8 year (not a 4 year) commitment for the Democrats. They will circle the wagons arounds her to get her a second term. To me the Democrats if they lost would almost certainly self correct in 4 years until the next election and be better for it running with someone like Warren and someone like Trump will not last into a second term IMO. 8 more years with the likes of the Clintons, Schumer's, Wasserman-Schutltz's and all the other centrists running the Democratic party and I'm not sure what that is going to look like but I don't think it will be good and there's a very good likelihood they'll have completely lost their chance to self correct and lost their way.

The Democratic party IMO has to stand for the masses of people--have to stand for women, blacks, hispanics, LGBT, workers and unions. They have to stand for the social safety network. Not corporations and not Wall St. In earlier times that's what FDR, JFK and LBJ at least tried to do. I don't have a huge problem with most democrats. I do have a problem with the Clinton's. My preference is to vote with the Democrats but it's not a lock--they have to be worthy in my eyes. Under no circumstances could I ever see myself voting for a republican-----though when someone like Ron Paul says we should shut down overseas military bases I agree with that or when his son Rand says that our drug laws unfairly target minorities I agree with that too.

>88 lriley:

I have a lot of vinyl from the late 70's and early 80's punk rock bands--United States Britain and elsewhere. It's a vibe of mine.

Then you are a man after my own heart (although I mostly listen to my punk and other noise on vinyl's soulless and evil digital counterparts these days).

I'm registered Green Party and I like Jill Stein and I like the Green Party platform even better than Bernie's which is very similar though in most respects but in the few differences the Greens are better

I like Stein, too (voted for her in 2012 and for Ralph Nader in 2000), although I'm still registered as a Democrat. Looks like I'll end up voting against Trump rather than for anybody this year, though. So it goes.

#89--I don't have a turntable so I just have them. I have quite a lot of that music on CD and iTunes so I'm listening to it all the same way. It's a lot easier. The first records of Black Flag, Dead Kennedy's, Minor Threat, Bad Religion, Bad Brains (1st recording was actually a cassette put out by ROIR), Stiff little fingers, Crass, the Fall, the Clash and the Pistols and a load more. I like Celtic punk and ska a lot too. One of the best English Punk bands was the Ruts who were especially good when it came to incorporating dub reggae into their music. If you've never heard them and you'd like to listen to examples of that look for 'Jah War' or 'Love in vein'.

I suppose I might hang with Clinton if she names the right VP---like Warren---otherwise I don't think so. It's not going to matter--if New York is even in play Hillary will be dead. With or without me those electoral votes should easily be in her win column. If she's going to have any trouble here--she's screwed.

Hot off the presses--Chicago Tribune:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-immunity-clinton-email-server-...

I don't know exactly what this is going to portend but they usually don't give people immunity if they don't have some kind of prosecuting in mind.

. . . . . if (Clinton) names the right VP -- like Warren

Iʻm a Liberal and, in my heart, think that nomination
would be ideal, but my head tells me that an all
female ticket would be unthinkable according to
current conventional wisdom of politics.
Iʻm reminded by this possible ticket that thereʻs
also the possibility of a Trump/Palin ticket,
and - - donʻt get me started!

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/03/hillarys-conundrum-she-cant-afford...

Looks as if Bernie's going to be around for awhile.

^

The Clintons continue to be bribe-taking criminal pigs. And $Hillary continues to be the odds on favorite to win the nomination.

Same old same old.

Please wake me if something new develops.

(I fucking hope it will because otherwise I'm afraid we are looking at President The Donald - who, BTW, has given $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation himself. One wonders what the quid pro quo was.)

Here's an interesting endorsement for Sanders:

http://www.usuncut.com/politics/gordon-gekko-sanders/

Is this now a thing?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-rally-chicago_us_56e366ece4b0b25c91821...

If so, I rather like it and admire these protestors for showing up in such hostile territory. At the same time, it makes me nervous - quite likely someone could get killed at a Trump rally.

> 96

His reasoning makes perfect sense to me. E.g., the more money available to the lower 90 per cent the better the economy will function since well over 90 per cent of the 90 per cent's money will be spent on goods and services whereas most of the money going to the top 10 per cent will either put in banks offshore or otherwise taken out of the economy. The more the turnover of free-flowing money there is the better and stronger and more resilient the economy will be for everyonel, including the big investors.

> 97

Read up on the U.S. Civil Rights movement (the struggle for equal civil rights for black people) in the sixties. A lot of black people knew they were putting their lives at risk - also whites who participated with them - but they toed the line and many of them did pay the ultimate price. Some just had the shit beaten out of them, e.g., John Lewis.

At some point oppressed people will always just say "enough is enough, motherfuckers." and engage in revolution, generally a violent one but a non-violent one certainly can be had, e.g., those led by Gandhi and King. Well known examples of the violent type include those that occurred historically in here in the pre-USA, in England, in France and in Russia.

It is hard for privileged people like us to imagine themselves putting our lives on the line for being institutionally and nationally always treated like shit - but revolution certainly does happen, again and again.

Either Bernie will win or his doppelganger will win. So - apparently - it is a win/win.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3iBb1gvehI

Thomas Frank and an opinion piece for the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/03/14/has-bernie-sanders-been-underest...

> 100

Thanks. I enjoy predictions of Bernie's ultimate success. But I am pessimistic at this point. I think the math may be too hard to overcome at this point. But I do have some hope. All Bernie has to do is win something like 55 per cent of the remaining delegates and I think that would do it - but can he do it?

I am still pessimistic. I think too many people (democratic primary voters) remain ignorant of who Bernie is and what he really stands for - and, at the same time, they are ignorant of HRC's secret life - which if it is not criminal then it is as close as it gets. But at least her record of being an influence-peddling money-grubbers scumbag is at least partially known to most of the public and maybe that will be enough to do her in. Pray whatever god there is that it will be so.

If Bernie has a big day tomorrow--I think the possibility would be a lot greater. IMO if he manages to grab two out of three of Ohio, Illinois and Missouri he's doing okay. If he grabs all three--then Hillary could be pretty much seen as coming up short north of the Mason-Dixon line. She's had a narrow win in Massachussets and a very, very narrow and disputed win in Iowa and a decent win in Nevada after Harry Reid pulled a few strings with local unions for her. Everywhere else she's won has been in the south and there will be no more confederate states other than Kentucky left after tomorrow. That doesn't mean I don't think she'll win more states (I think she'll win New York for sure) but the longer Bernie maintains his relevancy it's going to get harder and harder for her to win. Bernie probably needs to win some states pretty big.

IMO--he should hang around just in case she gets indicted.

>102 lriley: the longer Bernie maintains his relevancy it's going to get harder and harder for her to win.

She's won 775 delegates; he's won 552. (And that's not counting superdelegates.) 58% of the delegates versus 42%, or 19% versus 14% of the final pledged delegates. We're a third of the way through the Democratic primary; Sanders doesn't have to be "relevant", he has to have a long string of strong victories to make it hard for her to win.

IMO--he should hang around just in case she gets indicted.

What if he gets indicted for accessory to computer hacking? You're supporting a man whose team hacked into the Clinton database of supporters, and hoping his opponent will get indicted for having an insufficiently secure server. No hypocrisy there.

IMO--he should hang around just in case she gets indicted.

Anyone who is banking on an indictment has as much chance of having their hopes come true as a basketball team has of making a shot from the other end of the court.

#103---FWIW I would rephrase that as harder for her to win states the longer Bernie hangs around---Hillary will still be adding delegates no doubt. The math is very much on her side.

Anyway your second assertion is more than a bit ludicrous. Sanders is hardly going to be indicted. It's questionable whether any crime was committed by 'his team' and even more questionable that he had anything to do with it.

There is an ongoing FBI investigation going on about Hillary and her emails---with one of her staffers having been given immunity for his cooperation. Hillary herself has admitted cognizance of having 'made a mistake' and the decision to use her own home for State Department business is hardly something she can deny as anything other than intentional . Whether the FBI investigators eventually go to DOJ interpreting that her 'mistake' is instead a 'crime' or a series of such still remains to be seen.

>104 StormRaven: Mr Sanders supporters have long been banking on indictment.

> 105

I think the fix is in for HRC - it is next to impossible that she will be indicted. It is certainly a beautiful dream however - I would give my eyeteeth to see $hillary frog-marched in shackles into a Federal building with a hundred or so news creeps elbowing each other in the mouth to get closer for the best photo op.

By the fix is in I mean the DOJ in a Democratic administration is hardly to be expected to ever indict the frontrunner in the Democratic primary race, even if she were to shoot someone in broad daylight on Times Square.

I think there is certainly overwhelming documented evidence she violated our espionage laws but such hardly matters regarding one who has ipso facto political immunity. As an example of what many people are not aware of - the two servers she finally turned in after quite a long delay were both wiped clean. Gee - wonder how and why that happened? We will never know what those tens of thousands of emails contained - probably proof of her taking bribes from foreign governments and foreign nationals - probably even China and Russia. It would all probably relate to the Clinton Foundation, one of the biggest scams in history.

The only difference between privileged persons like HRC and O.J. in terms of getting away with felonies is that she is a white female and he is a black male - and their crimes are of a different nature, i.e., a two billion dollar level of bribe-taking vs. two 1st degree murders.

> 102

Tomorrow is not just a big day for Bernie, it is THE big day. If he does not perform then he is probably politically dead. He needs to come out a winner overall by, I would think, 50 delegates. If he just breaks even or HRC comes out ahead then he is probably toast.

The reason is - tomorrow will be the bellwether for the rest of the primaries - i.e., whatever his performance is tomorrow will probably be duplicated to the end of the primaries. Thus, tomorrow will be the beginning of the end for somebody.

I will not lose any sleep either way. We have survived worse than HRC. Of course, Trump is another matter.

#108--effectively it could be over tonight for Sanders. I expect however he is going to take his campaign to the democratic convention---and why not?--it's not like his campaign is going to go bankrupt. As well he's very effectively dragged the Clinton campaign from its center/right moderate positions to the left on a number of issues. The Clinton's are Machiavellian past masters of the art of the about face--so I wouldn't expect her to govern any differently than from her center/right agenda.

Technically the Clinton's are not criminals as they've never been convicted of anything. Going forward with that logic though none of Reagan (Iran Contra), Kissinger (you name it--Viet Nam, Chile, Timor etc. etc. etc. etc.), Bush1 (Panama and his nefarious career with the CIA) or Bush2/Cheney (their Iraq murder spree and all the corruption that led to tanking our economy and lots of other economies) are criminals either though in my mind they all qualify.

Some people I suppose and god bless them really believe the Clinton's defense of being victims of a vast right wing conspiracy that's followed them implacably around since at least 1991. They might not have been guilty of everything they've been accused of but............anyway I'm not a fan and I'm not a center/rightist.

And Al Capone was a mere tax cheat? Shit, war criminals commit war crimes, so they are criminals whether a court gets hold of them or not.

>104 StormRaven:
I happen to be a big fan of the Harlem Globetrotters!

effectively it could be over tonight for Sanders

Seems it pretty much is...

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-17/bernie-sanders-may-not-pre...

'gives voice to a set of policy ideas that lie closer to the hearts of most democratic voters--and especially the democratic voters of the future--than Clinton's do. That's why the "revolution" he's repeatedly called for won't be quelled for long, even though Clinton will be the one accepting the party's nomination in Philadelphia. This is as much a demographic certainty as a political one.'

I'd envision some of today's Clinton middle aged voters pulling the lever for republicans when they hit their social security years. Older people worrying about their future--trying to maintain some standard of relevance have the strong tendency to become status quo people.

Happy St. Patrick's day.

Contemplate the travails of the dinosaur of our times, the misogynistic, racist white man, that natural-born fascist:

As Hillary Clinton Sweeps States, One Group Resists: White Men

For all of you pulling the "it's the economy, stupid" card, consider this: these same shits supported her when she ran against a black man; these same shits express readiness or outright support for Republicans--EVEN TRUMP.

But, see, suddenly it's all about private e-mails and her wealth and privilege--the latter of which, somehow, doesn't prevent them from going to the Republican side!

It would be even funnier if it weren't so transparent...

Who cares if a woman gets into the seats of power? The problem is with the power.

>115 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

Who cares? White men apparently care more than anyone else--to the point of preferring, some of them, to vote for the Republicans. If it's about "power" how the fuck does one explain that?

And how does one explain that, contrary to white men, black and Hispanic men support Clinton? And women?

If it's about good old honest "working class" concerns, how come the poorest demographics--blacks, Hispanics, women--would support Clinton, but white men won't?

Power, you say? Yeah, it is about "power"--the kind those jerkwads think is kept in one's pants.

Behold "power":

As Women Take Over a Male-Dominated Field, the Pay Drops

Women’s median annual earnings stubbornly remain about 20 percent below men’s. Why is progress stalling?

It may come down to this troubling reality, new research suggests: Work done by women simply isn’t valued as highly.

What, we're not supposed to rage about this unless we're fucking cashiers and shit-scourers in male-owned businesses? Too much "glass ceiling" for cretins and bastards?

Don't believe women are oppressed for being women at every, including lowest level of economical and political ladder?

At the other end of the wage spectrum, janitors (usually men) earn 22 percent more than maids and housecleaners (usually women).

Where are comrade janitors and other honest working class folk, are they gonna do something for the maids and housecleaners, do they feel their pain?

>115 Jesse_wiedinmyer:-117 Far be it from me to wedge into the mind of a Wiedinmyer, but I am guessing his point is that Clinton elected will change nothing structurally. I would hope that either Clinton or Sanders would put an end to the attacks on Planned Parenthood, which is important because no one in the US is going to change anything structurally, and that particular issue suggests a rights rollback that has to be stopped real fast or it will not be stopped at all.

White men not voting for Clinton? It seems evidence of misogyny, yes. Why the poorest demographics vote for Clinton? A great political bamboozle similar to the poor white demographic that supports the Republicans that do worse by them.

I know a number of longtime and rabid democrats who were so angry at Obama winning the democratic nomination in 2008 who voted for McCain/Palin---they really wanted Hillary. There are multiples of ways that individuals will work out why they vote for this person or that.

Personally I could never ever vote for a republican---not even for dog catcher. I wouldn't waste my time with them---wouldn't waste any gas on them---wouldn't stand in line for them--wouldn't waste two seconds of my time for them. That doesn't mean however that I'm going to vote for the democrat. I don't deal with forced either/or situations nor am I going to listen to a bunch of nonsense--saying that a vote for a third party was the same as voting republican because it's not. I vote for who I vote for because I think they're the best choice irrespective of their actual chances of winning according to polls or whatever. I actually like to like who I vote for. I will attenuate a bit as I did in 2008 voting Obama instead of Nader because I actually thought Obama had a great chance of winning and would do good things though overall I felt closer to Nader on the entirety of the issues. I like to like who I vote for. That's a litmus test for me. If I decide I don't like somebody I'm not going to pull the lever for them.

Many Berniebros are more rabidly anti-Clinton than pro-Bern. Many of them evoke Republican- and Fox News-sourced innuendos against Ms Clinton. So it doesn't surprise me that many of them will vote Republican, which means voting for Mr Trump. This a choice that only the most privileged among us can make. They are, to borrow the lingo of disgruntled Republicans, DINOs.

>121 theoria:

Many Berniebros are more rabidly anti-Clinton than pro-Bern.

So they are, and for reasons given above. If blacks, Hispanics and women will generally rally around the Dem candidate even if that candidate is a white woman--and white men generally don't--the differential is gender. Not economic class, not political power.

If this is a bitter pill to swallow for male leftists, think about how it strikes leftist women. Yes indeed, the most radical of feminists have been right all along--misogyny IS the mother, the father, and the Holy Ghost of all problems.

This a choice that only the most privileged among us can make.

Only the most privileged? Not according to the article. Trump gets his share of well-to-do bastard support, but he also gets a share of "salt of the earth" ("you know, idiots") economically not-that-privileged support.

If Clinton's "style" is something even worth mentioning--dontcha know it, her "style" rubs these guys the wrong way--what more can we say...

>122 LolaWalser: Yes, the article quotes older male Democrats. What I have in mind are the younger committed Sanders supporters (i.e., male traditional leftists) who say that if Clinton is the Democratic nominee, they'll vote for Trump.

>123 theoria:

I don't think age alone makes a difference. Look at the pigs hounding Anita Sarkeesian (look at the comment sections anywhere on the net really), the Gamergaters, the 4chaners, the hipster "meninists"--plenty of young/ish men fuelled primarily by misogyny too.

Want to add though--if they thought for a moment Sanders was REALLY representing them, either they misread him, or all the rest of us who have/would have supported Sanders misread him.

Is Sanders going to vote for Trump too? :)

>125 LolaWalser: "Is Sanders going to vote for Trump too?"

That's a good question to put to them! What's interesting is that (some) Sanders supporters are misogynistic towards Clinton whereas Sanders himself is not (he's avoided personal attacks of any sort).

>126 theoria:

Avoiding making misogynistic attacks is good (although one might think it's a basic decency requirement, same as not attacking Obama's race), but if it's really a considerable chunk of his supporters who'll vote Republican (to say nothing of voting Trump), then one wonders whether he shouldn't have done something to get rid of them, or get them in line.

When I spoke up for Sanders, against Clinton, that's what I was told--that he refrained from such attacks himself, but that he allowed vocal misogynists around himself.

....and still missing the point that Hillary--Bill for that matter--is neither progressive nor left. That they've both sold themselves out to Wall St. That they have friends such as Henry Kissinger and friendly relations with people such as George W. Bush. That they take money from the private prison system, from fracking and gas companies, pharmaceutical companies etc. etc. Their corporate friendly trade deals have cost millions of people their jobs. Not friends to the environment, not friends to labor and a lot more likely to involve our military even more than it is in the middle east.

I think Reagan would have been pleased with B Clinton's help dismantling the safety net. H Clinton is certainly among the corporate elite, the oligarchs, see her work in Honduras to revisit the Reagan years. Yet, all that being true, if you support Sanders, and you are male, the logical move upon the defeat of Sanders would be either to vote for Clinton or opt out, not swing over to a farther right position. And, again, at the very least with H Clinton there is hope for a stop to the bullshit assaults on Planned Parenthood, etc.

I'm a woman, and I'm pretty much as liberal as they come, and Bernie seems like the natural choice to me. Hillary barely even seems like a Democrat. Plus, it seems like she just tells whatever lies she needs to in order to get through the day. She's dug herself in so deep I don't trust a thing that comes out of her mouth.

>121 theoria:

I have my issues with Secretary Clinton, but I swear I would let somebody shoot me in the face before I voted for Donald Trump.

Signed,
Art
(middle-aged white dude)

>127 LolaWalser:

FWIW, Sanders said in a television interview that if his supporters are making misogynistic attacks against Clinton, "they need to stop".

>130 weener:

Plus, it seems like she just tells whatever lies she needs to in order to get through the day.

Agreed. From the article linked to in >114 LolaWalser:

But white men were {among her supporters}, at least when Mrs. Clinton was running against a black opponent: She explicitly appealed to them in 2008, extolling the Second Amendment, mocking Barack Obama’s comment that working-class voters “cling to guns or religion” and even needling him at one point over his difficulties with “working, hard-working Americans, white Americans.”

She could not sound more different today, aggressively campaigning to toughen gun-control laws and especially courting black and Hispanic voters.

This smacks of opportunism, to say the least. You can say what you will about Sanders' politics, but he is the same as he has always been - he has not changed his policy positions to curry favor with voters.

ETA: used comma instead of apostrophe in final paragraph

However many old duffer Sanders supporters go over to Trump in the general election are probably going to be offset at least for the most part by republicans who won't vote for Trump but will hold their noses for Clinton. I wouldn't be surprised if Tim the founder of this site were one of them. On the issues of all the other candidates who have run on either side Clinton most resembles John Kasich. They might grit their teeth a bit but some will vote for her.

There might be a smaller number of Sanders supporters saying hello to Jill Stein and one of them might be me. They'll mostly be from the millennial crowd.

Clinton losing a few hundred thousand Sanders voters to Trump and maybe 100-150 thousand to Stein (I'm picking these numbers out of the air) is not really much of a problem for her--they will be offset somewhat if not more than offset by anti-Trump republicans. Shit like this tends to happen every election. Crossover and spillover. Clinton's biggest problem seems to me to be how to connect with the under 30 millennials that so far in the primary season have voted for Sanders in huge numbers--more than Clinton, Trump and Kasich combined. We're talking the potential for millions of voters here. Half or more of these are women too and they are the real future as far as voters and their tendency is to the left and their tendency is not to be put off by terms like 'socialist'. Politics is a game of adapt or be fucked. When the republicans threw away the hispanic vote they began losing southwestern states that they'd always won before. They couldn't help themselves being racist. That's called not adapting. Many millennials will have taken some part or supported the Occupy movement. The times they are a-changing. They don't regard MSNBC, CNN or the NYTimes as progressive media sources. Try the Young Turks. The Obama who ran as a leftist populist in 2008--then bailed out Wall St and governed as a centrist is not the hero to millennials that he is to most of the over 30 democratic party rank and file. He largely ignored Occupy while at the same time Bill/Hillary were writing and giving speeches to corporate and Wall St. interests. Occupy never was on the radar for the Clinton's then--now they need to be---and it's up to Hillary to try to work out the contradiction and close the gap between her past and these skeptical younger voters.

It's not to say a great number of them won't show up for Hillary in November but I'm thinking a lot of them are not going to. There's no real enthusiasm for her amongst millennials. The question really is will it be enough to make a difference.

If I were betting Clinton will beat Trump in November. It might be a lot closer than it should be but I suspect she'll prevail. They are both polarizing candidates but Clinton is going to control the center--because basically that's where she stands on the issues.

There is no sensible reason at all to go from Sanders to Trump. Anyone who does so is insane (the conventional sexism required to compel a voter to do that is included in my definition of insanity here). I hope that a lot is being made of very little here because if not the implications are pretty scary.

#133---I believe there are some folks that are going to go that way though. I've gotten that from reading blogs and from comment sections on articles all over the internet. There are people who support Sanders and his opposition to neo-liberal/conservative trade deals are a main thing that led them to Sanders. Trump has made a lot of very vague and negative remarks about past trade deals. As is usual his critiques are very unspecific--there are some who think that if Sanders doesn't last that Trump is at least somewhat on that same page. Trump has a create jobs message and again he's never--not even almost never--he never has any real details---he just says shit.

Anyway there's almost no way you can control how someone else is going to look at something. I agree with you that thinking Trump is comparable to Sanders is moronic but hey there are a lot of idiots wherever you go.

As for the Nafta, Gatt, Cafta, TPP----all of them are entirely bank and corporation friendly and all have turned out to be anti-labor and anti-environment. What I would like to see is someone say like Richard Trumka--the head of the AFL-CIO and some comparable figure for environmental causes--say Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or Erin Brockovich sit in on these actual negotiations and have veto power. Trade should be about progress---not just huge profits for corporate entities. Get the labor issues right--get the environmental issues right and then you can worry about the business end of things.

>134 lriley: Opposing the trade deal would be to attempt to halt decades of momentum that direction. Sanders is the only candidate who would have a real mandate to do that. As a reason to look for an alternative to Clinton it makes sense, but not as a reason to vote for Trump. I believe you that some feel this way, but I doubt that's definitive for many.

#135--Trump is a PT Barnum figure. Anyone who actually trust him needs to have their head examined. He'll follow through on his wall if he gets elected (which is the stupidest thing anyone has proposed in this election cycle)--I wouldn't expect him to keep his word on anything otherwise. I don't expect he'll get any legislative support. The republican establishment hates him--if he wins they'll want to change him out in 4 years and the best way to accomplish that is block anything he tries to do. Whatever they try to accomplish they'll keep separate from him and then he can veto it or not. I suspect that they'll do worse to him than they've done to Obama which has been pretty extreme. Trump would be a 4 year lame duck.

>136 lriley:

Trump is a PT Barnum figure.

Heh. Anybody who doubts that "there's a sucker born every minute" is a truism needs only to take a glance at this year's election results. It might be funny if it weren't so goddamn sad.

Except that people never rioted against PT Barnum.

>132 lriley: "However many old duffer Sanders supporters go over to Trump in the general election are probably going to be offset at least for the most part by republicans who won't vote for Trump but will hold their noses for Clinton."

A new poll indicates that in reddest-of-red-states Utah, Clinton would beat Trump (and so would Sanders): http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865650513

#139---to be honest I think that even if Hillary campaigned to the left (and I don't think she will because she's too cautious) she would still control the center. Campaigning to the left would probably help her pick up more of the left tending millennials and increase her margins. She might worry some of her bigger donors doing that as well. She's been forced left by the Sanders campaign. I think once Sanders is out she's going to reclaim all the middle ground. That's where she's most comfortable.

Trump could very easily self destruct at any time. A Trump--Clinton matchup is going to get really nasty. It's been edgy between Sanders and Clinton for a while but that IMO is going to be nothing when it comes down to just Donald and Hillary.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/liam-miller/bernie-sanders-has-a-clea_b_9500258.ht...

......which is not to say that the Sanders campaign has given up by any stretch.

>141 lriley: I was thinking that until last Tuesday. If Sanders can't do better than tie Clinton in the Midwest, then I'm not sure it matters how well he does in the upcoming West and Northeast states.

#142---I was thinking the same actually and am not at all convinced that there is much of a path for Sanders to win at this point. Still--I've always taken him at his word that his campaign was going to be around at least until the democratic convention closes out and whether or not he had any chance of winning.

Anyway I don't see him winning New York or California--the two biggest states left--not that I've seen any polling on either. I would expect him to do well in states like Arizona, Wisconsin, Washington and Oregon. More of a struggle for him in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Connecticut. We'll see I guess.

On the other hand, Illinois was Clinton's state, and he has received far less news coverage than Clinton. It's remarkable he's done as well as he has so far. And those NY and CA voters are pretty savvy.

ETA: in fact, I just got a message from an L.A. writer who covers Israel/Palestine, remarking that her AIPAC speech could have been written by Netanyahu. It was so aggressive and over the top that it may actually cost her in both those states.

#144--The Clinton's and Rahm Emmanuel have been linked for a long long time and Emmanuel is a very deeply disliked and polarizing mayor of Chicago. Sanders made very good use of that. I expect NYS to back Hillary--she is a former senator. She has 98% of the democratic political establishment in her pocket.

Western NY---kind of from where I live in Elmira and west towards Jamestown and north towards Rochester and west of that to Buffalo is the most conservative part of the state--well maybe north of Utica and Saratoga but the mass of the population is around NYC and into Westchester and such. Anyway I'd be astonished if Bernie won NYS. Looking at cpg's polling link---Sanders numbers in California don't look all that bad considering he's done better than the polling in a number of states.

That speech must have been pretty ugly to get that kind of reaction. Netanyahu is fucking awful.

Speaking of the state of Washington:

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/as-hillary-clinton-bolst...

Our next POTUS could be Hitler (and it's not Donald Trump or Ted Cruz):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jim-bakker-bernie-sanders-hitler_us_56f0ca7b...

You might have thunk that this guy would have just disappeared already--that he has any kind of audience is astounding. Is televangelism just an American thing? I'm thinking it is. Bakker is another one that if you had asked me yesterday I would have thought he was already dead.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-24/free-trade-opposition-unit...

...mainstream politicians and corporate media beware.

What could possibly go wrong? :D

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/28/more-than-42000-people...

Cool. Let God sort 'em out.

As a Party that promotes promiscuous gun laws, it is incumbent upon the Republican Party to allow open carry at its convention.

#151--it would have been interesting but you could figure that wasn't going to fly. Scott Walker and his pals in Wisconsin--currently trying to squash voter registration in the state--made it legal to carry firearms into their legislative chambers a few years ago--at the same time making it illegal for visitors to use cameras--including cell phone cameras to film any of the proceedings. Go figure. Their conclusion was cameras are more dangerous than guns. Rabidly anti-union Walker is supposedly one of the future GOP stars and one of its more 'reasonable' national figures--kind of like slightly to the right of John Kasich. The Koch brothers have been bankrolling him for a long long time.

How can this be??

The Border Patrol union endorses Donald Trump: The National Border Patrol Council, which says it represents 16,500 agents, made its first-ever endorsement in a presidential election, touting Trump in a letter as a break from "the perfect Washington-approved tone."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/30/politics/border-patrol-union-endorses-donald-trump...

The National Border Control Council, which is the exclusive representative of approximately 18,000 Border Patrol Agents and support personnel assigned to the U.S. Border Patrol. The U.S. Border Patrol falls under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)....is restricted by federal regulations from making political contributions to political parties or candidates
http://www.bpunion.org/index.php/about-nbpc

#155---the union is separate from the Agency. The US Border patrol is not endorsing anyone. Police unions tend to be a lot more conservative than most other unions. In the case of Border patrol agents--the current status quo is a good deal for them---immigration reform that they might get from Sanders wouldn't be good and from Clinton might not be good. Trump's targeting of Mexicans and other central American hispanics could be manna from heaven for them---carte blanche for all kinds of shit.

In the same way police departments around the United States love the war on drugs--love to seize money and property (whether with some real cause or not) which is directly linked to the war on drugs. They don't want that to go away. The private prison system benefits as well--the more incarcerated the better whether there's any history of violence or not. Lobbyist groups like the NRA love the war on drugs as well--it's a boon for arms dealers whether for lone criminals or gang members or people thinking they need to protect themselves. It's all a vicious cycle as far as I'm concerned. Unlink the chain.

Stop militarizing the police. Legalize marijuana and some other narcotics. Regulate and tax the growing/producing and the sellers. Marginalize cartels and other criminal organizations--take the profit out of their business. Drug offenders can be treated like alcohol abusers. It's not like the pharmaceuticals aren't putting a lot of product out that can be harmful too. We've helped to create a criminal industry with negative implications on numerous levels--as well as create its unnecessary militarized law enforcement antidote. We don't need any of it. It needs to be undone and then rethought.

The border control union's endorsement of Trump sure SOUNDS contrary to spirit if not letter of Hatch Act. Moreover, if I feel uncomfortable with it, how must it compromise their credibility with Mexican- and Muslim-Americans crossing the US border under their scrutiny. Yikes!

#157--The language in their endorsement statement is pretty disturbing. An unapologetic right wing stance from a federal law enforcement union. Unfortunately it's what it is and whether Trump wins or not--it pretty much promises that they'll continue to be both a militant and reactionary entity. The emphasis on militarizing the border region came previous to Obama's administration but it's not really been dialed back at all during Obama's presidency. This militarized situation has taken on a life of its own and killing it is not going to be easy. An incoming administration will have to confront it head on for that ever to happen.

I'm very pro union by the way but that's a joke of a union to me. My APWU (which I'm still a member of--even in retirement) endorsed Sanders and is very inclusive of all races, genders and gender choices, and religious beliefs--which it should be. Members have no business of standing in judgement of each other. This thing of theirs--I agree with you is racist and anti-Muslim.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/...

which links to but I'll link it anyway:

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-g...

The upcoming NYS primary I would expect Hillary should win rather decisively......but there is a large number of anti-fracking people in NYS who take that issue very very seriously. Ithaca NY may be the most liberal city in NYS--it was also command central HQ vs. the gas and oil companies and we won. NYS and Vermont (Bernie Sander's home) are the only two states in the USA to have banned fracking.

Anyway the Greenpeace link has some interesting information. Connections to BP, Chevron, PEMEX, Exxon, Hess amongst others. Heather and Tony Podesta (once married--now separated) are individuals who bundle huge amounts of cash into the Hillary campaign. Bill Koch as in Charles and David's brother makes an appearance as does former NRA (up until 2015) lobbyist Jeffrey Forbes. There's Warren Buffett. Former democratic politicians along with close relatives of current democratic stalwarts--former congressmen now lobbyists for gas and coal companies Martin Frost and Dick Gephardt. There's Elizabeth Gore. There's Martin Durbin nephew of one of the more 'liberal' members of our current Senate--Dick Durbin. Vice President Joseph Biden's son Hunter and maybe even a link to current Secretary of State John Kerry--all to the tune of about $4.5 mil in campaign cash.

Anyway on climate and ecology the republican party has its collective head in the ground/sand. They deny science. Well they're use to denying science on a lot of other things too. So it's almost to be expected. Our carbon footprint isn't something we should be proud about and many climatologists are promising upcoming calamities that should make us take a step back from the precipice we're heading headlong into. They have been more and more adamant about time running out to change our course. Yet the Greenpeace link above pretty much is an accusing finger at the democratic party establishment that knows and should know better. If democratic pols can't control their greed (the republicans certainly aren't) and do the right thing we're kind of going to be fucked.

.....and the other thing is everyone listed above is extremely well off. They don't even need it.

http://www.yahoo.com/news/clintons-frustration-grows-primary-race-drags-13431154...

....the flap over the greenpeace activist. The Greenpeace organization as far as I know haven't endorsed any candidate yet--just as a by the way.

....anyway one of the commenters on the article captkona3 takes a game of thrones turn and had this to say:

'A message from her majesty the Queen

As you know, my dear people, the last year for me has been an #$%$ horribilus. The Royal House of Clinton has been tormented by queries about our handling of finances and subjected to some some questions about the tragic events in Benghazi? in the furthest regions of our empire. And, sadly, also questions about my Royal e-mails.

Nevertheless, I will not be daunted in my desire and commitment to serve you the people. For the next eight months I will be traveling among you as one of you, to listen to your deepest longings and needs. I will be with you in your Wal-Mart's and beside you in your Chipotle's. I will drive with you down the busy interstate highways of our land sharing your poverty and needs with you.

How well I remember the days when the Duke of Arkansas and I were impoverished. After we were expelled from our Washington Palace we hardly had two mansions to rub together. We were so poor we had to remove thousands of dollars of china, flatware, carpets and gifts from the Washington Palace just to survive. Now, happily, benefactors from around the empire have given just enough for us to scrape by.

During those difficult times we had to cut back. When the Princess of Manhattan was married we only had three million dollars to spend on her wedding. I remember our hopes as she moved into her $10 million dollar apartment that one day she would be able to move on from that humble abode to something more fitting. We were pleased to hear that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge decided to name their daughter after our Princess Charlotte--how nice. So as I travel across our land to meet you all, I will be listening and sharing with you. Then when the time for the royal election comes, I know that all of those problems will just melt away and you will crown me as your sovereign monarch so that we can all live happily ever after.

With sincerest of sincerities,

HRH HRC'

Anyway I did not get captkona3's references to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge or Charlotte but but the rest of it seemed kind of spot on. The Bush's---the Clinton's pretty much America's versions of teflon coated royalty.

>160 lriley: The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are more commonly known as Prince William and Kate Middleton, and their second child is Princess Charlotte, but I have no idea what the connection is to the Clintons. I was trying to figure out whether the names Chelsea and Charlotte were somehow connected, but I can't really see it.

Chelsea Clinton's daughter is Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky.

The world's most celebrated conspiracy freak has endorsed Bernie. I'm not sure if this is a plus for Bernie or for Hillary. lol.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/oliver-stone/why-im-for-bernie-sanders_b_9576984.h...

I had missed this but the Vice Chair of the DNC Tulsi Gabbard resigned back in February so she could endorse Bernie over Hillary - looks like a good deal for Bernie and not at all for $Hillary. Unfortunately, according to Madeleine Albright, Ms. Gabbard is destined for Hell and, according to Gloria Steinem, Ms. Gabbard is only supporting Bernie to curry favor with her boyfriend. lol.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/28/tulsi-gabbard-rising-demo...

This chart shows Bernie supporters to be doing the best in life compared to the supporters of all other candidates, including $Hillary. Well, I hope they continue to enjoy life but it really looks like evil will defeat good in the end among the democrats, and then it will be evil vs. evil in November. I bet that scenario will put a crimp in their day - I know it will mine.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-trump-optimism_us_56fd4151e4b0daf53a...

#163--Gabbard's been doing a lot of stumping for Bernie. There's been at least some buzz that she might be his VP choice. At least I've seen her mentioned with maybe half a dozen others. As far as congress people supporting him so far though there are not a lot to choose from. Elizabeth Warren has the most buzz. Warren still hasn't endorsed either Clinton or Sanders.

Current congress people on the Bernie bandwagon----Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, Raul Grijalva-Arizona, Keith Ellison-Minnesota, Peter Welch-Vermont, Alan Grayson-Florida (currently running for Rubio's Senate spot), Marcy Kaptur-Ohio and Collin Peterson--Minnesota. Kaptur and Peterson are more conservative as far as social issues. Kaptur is fiercely anti the free trade neo-lib/neo-con mentality. The rust belt district she represents has been hit really hard by the Nafta and the procession of trade deals that followed it. Peterson--a blue dog waited for the Minnesota primary/caucus to make his choice and went with the people's choice--which in Minnesota was clearly Sanders. I wish more super delegates wouldn't jump the gun and wait for their state to decide but that's not what's been happening. All the above House members are super delegates. One former House member on record--Brad Miller from North Carolina--no longer a super delegate.

Bernie has no Senators besides himself. He has two former Senators--Robert Kirk--Massachussetts who filled in for Ted Kennedy after he died. Kirk is a super delegate. The other former Senator Donald Riegle of Michigan is not. If I remember correctly he was one of those forced out by the Keating scandal.

Sanders may or may not have former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura who seems to like Trump as well.

Sanders definitely has former Clinton cabinet secretary Robert Reich.

>162 Taphophile13: Ah, thank you for that info!

> 164

Yes, but it will all just be part of a sad history if Bernie does not win Wisconsin. Also, if he loses New York big then that would be the final nail in the coffin of the people's revolution, and corporate money will go on to win out.

I am pessimistic at this point. It is quite a challenge for Bernie to overcome $Hillary's horde of muscular hairy FemBots, who work in coordination with most of the media, not to mention the DNC and its Chairperson D.W. Schultz, $Hillary's BFF.

However, Bernie is still alive at this point and I will not give up entirely until the doctors turn off the machines and pronounce. I'm basically with Brother Jackson - "Keep Hope Alive." - until and if the day comes one really can't anymore and one is forced to stare into the abyss.

#166--FWIW the polls have Bernie up in Wisconsin and usually when he's been up he's done better than the predictions. As for NYS he's narrowed it to closer than I would have expected it--already. Do I think he'll win? No--but I'm beginning to think it's not going to be a blowout.

As for Wasserman-Schultz she has not endorsed anyone--though I'm sure that has something to do with her heading the DNC and taking a neutral position until there's an actual nominee. She's also facing a serious inter-party attack for her congressional seat--one she might not survive.

On the subject of money and corruption in politics--this link from John Oliver isn't about presidential candidates but congressional politicians which pretty much puts the onus for the problem on the parties themselves.

http://www.theweek.com/speedreads/616402/john-oliver-shows-how-congress-members-...

I was watching my Rangers this afternoon on MSG (Madison Square Garden) and here came this really good television ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4kcH42oxYw

Elizabeth Warren going after a squirming former FED regulator:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKt3oFldOJM

Years ago I glimpsed an interview of Donald Trump and wife #2 or 3 "at home". The place was GILDED--it glittered with so much gold-colored stuff. Apparently, seatbelt latches are gold-plated on his jet. Wonder how he would decorate the White House and Air Force One? (That ought to get people of style to vote! ;-)

This is from 'The Hill'. It's the DC paper that specializes in all things congress. This is where you go if you want to see how you're congressman/woman or Senator voted on this that and the other.

http://www.thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/278085-poll-one-in-fo...

Of Democrats--75% in their poll will vote for Hillary in November. 11% will vote for Trump. 11% for a third party candidate. 3% are figuring on a big sleep in that day. That's pretty bleak. We're not even talking about Independents----though if Charles Koch is thinking about voting for Hillary you've got to think she's going get a pretty decent spillover of republicans who can't stomach Trump (or Cruz).

I would guess this is going to be a low turnout affair. I would also guess that third parties such as the Libertarians on the right and the Greens on the left are going to do unusually well---maybe even put up real percentage points. Wouldn't that be a laugh? Independents---for instance all those who can't vote in closed primaries---haven't shown a lot of love for either Trump or Clinton. Both of them are polarizing political figures. You either love them or you don't like them at all. Political figures such as Clinton-Trump (look at that I've hyphenated them into a married couple) are often the reason why people decide not to register with a major party or leave the party they were in--so as to find some distance between such. Many independents might look at this election as having no place to go and stay home all day (maybe drink a few beers and have a nap) though some will do like some of the more disaffected of the major parties and find themselves a third party candidate that won't keep them up all night with a case of acid reflux thinking about the shitty choice they felt forced to make.

I spoke briefly with an activist, Sanders supporter from Wisconsin yesterday. He believes the Republicans capable of settling down once it is necessary and taking the election due to their control of much of the process itself, including their ability to suppress voting. The problem on the Democrat side, then, would be all those who supported Sanders and consider Clinton worse than Obama not voting--and the inevitable number of voters who don't because they think Clinton can't lose.

Still, at this point it really IS hard to see Trump winning.

#172--I really don't know Rick. That same link I linked has Trump and Clinton dead even as of now. And generally speaking Clinton tends to win in most polls I've seen her against Trump but it's very narrow margins. I expect Trump to hammer her on the FBI investigation. Sanders has pretty much laid off of that. I expect him to hammer her on her Wall St. transcripts. Sanders has gone after her about her Wall St. connections but I think Trump will go a lot further with it. The Clinton's have a long history of things to get hammered on. The Clinton's are very good at negative messaging themselves. I expect playing fast and loose with the truth--down and dirty and disgusting after they get started on each other. I don't expect a whole lot of substance--either candidate wasting much time talking at length about actual issues or policies. It will be general lowbrow stuff--'I'm for this--I'm against that. Just to let you know my opponent is a fuckhead'--a cheerleading extravaganza. I expect a lot of voters being turned off and tuning out. It's headed towards a low turnout IMO. Historically low turnouts aren't good for the democrat though at least in my lifetime there's really no one to compare to Trump so....... Both these candidates though have negative popularity numbers and both of these candidates are going to go all out to drop their opponents negative numbers even further.

There seem to be lots of right wingers on the right hand and lefties on the left hand who figure the losing side will actually be the better for it soon afterwards. That a Trump victory will shatter the GOP into a bunch of pieces they'll never be able to put back together and that a Clinton victory will take the democratic establishment firmly to the right and leave a significant minority plotting against it and/or looking to secede altogether and create something new.

Y'know, presidential elections just aren't any fun until the Satanists weigh in:

http://www.chron.com/news/politics/tedcruz/article/Satanic-Church-spokesman-Ted-...

Lucifer is out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/04/us/politics/ted-cruz.html?_r=0

#175--this was written for Margaret Thatcher but it's very republican appropriate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhBCiEEMkrc

So Ted--you've got your one way ticket to hell.

and to the winner goes the spoils:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50LwbnBlk6A

It will be interesting to see how HRC tries to attract dismayed Republican voters AND Bernie fans. Is it even possible? If not, who will she choose? More future for Democrats in Bernie's young people, I think. Mind you, probably enough for Republicans that she doesn't consult National Enquirer! Will Dems lose "Reagan Democrats" to Trump?

My analysis six months out from the Nov. election:

1. HRC will win. But not by that much.
2. It will be the biggest screwball election in U.S. History, as many republicans will vote for HRC, many other republicans will not vote, and many liberal democrats will either vote Green or not vote. Minor parties like the Greens and Libertarians will get substantial votes unlike in past national elections.
3. The unknown is which way the independent vote will tip - their vote, according to polls, make up something like forty per cent of the electorate.
4. If for some unforeseen reason the independent vote tips to Trump and he wins then that will be interesting. He has never held public office. Will he defer to those who actually know something about government or will he go bananas? Hard to say, as he is basically an actor and no one really knows the real Trump. (Some still suspect he is a democratic plant. Unlikely in my view but still possible.)
5. If HRC wins as expected then I predict she will wind up like Nixon.
6. As regards #5 - you heard it here first.

Who will Trump pick as a running mate? I expect he's going to want a woman to attempt to balance his self-inflicted negatives with women, but what woman would stoop to being paired with Trump?

> 179

Sarah.

Or, perhaps, Cruz's wife.

#180--Cruz's wife--that's a good one. Of course now that 'lying Ted's proven to be 'loser Ted'--maybe? Margaret Thatcher might. Oh---I keep forgetting----she's dead. She also was a Brit. Michele Bachmann?

Personally I'm not convinced he chooses a woman. Really--with his personality anyone would almost have to be nuts to take the second banana role with him as primary banana.

At least Trump wonʻt have any
Dick Cheney to "advise"
the appointment of himself
as Vice President. (I do know Bushʻs
disclaimer that D C was the presidentʻs
own choice.)

Omarosa?

As bad as Trump promises to be if elected--he is not Dick Cheney who is pure unadulterated evil. And FWIW his competency for a job isn't any worse than George W. B. When you look at what George W. B and his administration did you'd have to work really really hard to be worse.

Establishment republicans who have officially said they will not vote for Donald Trump in November:

1. Jeb Bush--Former Gov. Florida and recent presidential candidate
2. US Sen. Lindsay Graham--South Carolina recent presidential candidate
3. US Sen. Ben Sasse-Nebraska
4. Gov. Charlie Baker-Massachussets
5. US congressman Carlos Curbelo--Florida
6. US congressman Scott Rigell--Virginia
7. Former US Senator Mel Martinez--Florida
8. Former Gov. Christie Whitman--New Jersey who has endorsed Hillary
9. Former US congressman J.C. Watts--Oklahoma
10. Eliot Cohen--noted neo-conservatie who worked in George W.'s administration
11. Pete Wehner--worked in both Bush 1 and Bush 2's administrations
12. Kevin Madden--Mitt Romney apparatchik
13. Mark Salter--McCain's speechwriter during presidential run who has endorsed Hillary
14. US congressman Bob Dold--Illinois

There are many other seemingly reluctants:

Both George W. and George H.W. Bush's, Charles Koch (multi-billionaire super duper financier), Bill Kristol, Mitt Romney, Erick Erickson, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina, George Pataki, Gov. Bruce Rauner-Illinois, Gov. Larry Hogan--Maryland, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, other US congressmen Reid Ribble-Wisconsin, Mark Sanford-South Carolina, Justin Amash-Michigan, Richard Hanna-New York, Mike Coffman-Colorado, Rod Blum-Iowa, John Katko-New York, Former Senator Bob Dole, Glenn Beck, Jay Caruso-Red State, Steve Deace-talk show guy, Doug Heyes, Former US congressmen Bob Inglis-South Carolina, Ron Paul-Texas, Former Pennsylvania Governor and Homeland Security guy Tom Ridge, Matt Kibbe, Steve Schmidt--McCain's 2008 campaign manager, US Senator Susan Collins-Maine, Philip Klein-Washington Examiner, Ben Howe-Red State.

Anyone should feel free to add to the list. Pretty fucking amusing to me. Trump has real potential to rip the GOP into shreds.

Bob Dole endorses Trump.

>185 lriley:

So here's my hypothetical question: let's say I'm a traditionally Republican voter ("I've always voted Republican, Pa always voted Republican, Grandpappy always voted Repulican, etc.") (There are still a lot of folks out like that out there, I think)). I'm thinking about voting for Trump. How does your list not, at the very least, give me pause?

#186--even if you're a lifelong republican it still might give you incentive to vote for the Donald. There is something to this being the year of the outsider. From the point of view of a lifelong republican---a lifetime of hearing promises from politicians that they have no inclination to deliver once in office. The noises made over right to life, the 2nd amendment, immigration, defense of marriage for instance. Easy for a republican voter to think they are stuck in the mud or going backwards on all sorts of things--even when their chosen party controls both the senate and the house. And their party is not at all interested in creating living wage jobs and that's something that crosses back and forth to both major parties. It's also something that ratchets up anger. People on both sides--democrats and republicans and even independents are sick and tired of the failed economics of neo-liberals and neo-conservatives. Meanwhile many of the established republican pols are cashing in--schmoozing with the super wealthy--angling for lobbying jobs after their political careers are over. The bought and paid for thing that Trump trumpeted at the beginning of his campaign and has somewhat toned down struck a nerve with plenty of republican and a decent number of independent voters. Trump saying he could pay his own way and didn't need any help from corporations or other wealthy interests certainly helped him. Being independent of these outside interests does make him more attractive to some. However actually independent he intends on being is another question.

> 186, 187

Perennial republican voters in the main will vote for trump. There might be a million or two dissenters, like in 2012, but not enough to make a difference.

In all my conversations in 2012 with many diehard republican christian voters in my very red state I think I met one who possibly did not vote because mitt was a mormon.

ALL the rest, who had definitely hated mormons up until then, suddenly decided that, weird as some mormon beliefs were, nevertheless mormons were definitely christians with christian family values and thus all christians were justified in voting for a mormon. Besides which Obama was a muslim and a fake President.

The same will happen regarding trump. Diehard republican voters will convince themselves that trump was just spouting rhetoric about women and minorities and immigrants and muslims and such and in reality he is a good guy - just like them. Plus HRC must be stopped at all costs - and I mean at ALL COSTS. (pun alert) - And hatred of HRC, just like hatred of Obama, trumps all other factors.

The leaders in the republican party may scream bloody murder regarding trump but - hey, have you noticed? - the republican electorate are radically pissed at their leadership at present - because the leadership had PROMISED them that Obama would be taken down - impeached or something - but instead Obama has kicked the republican leaders' asses day in and day out for over seven years now- or so it seems to the republican electorate. So screw those guys. Time to go to DEFCON 1 - which means voting for the guy who is completely over the top in opposing all things democratic and especially all things Obama - and who apologizes for NOTHING - i.e., NO more Mr. Nice Guy - at ALL.

If trump draws seriously less support than mitt among the republican hoi polloi then I for one will be fairly surprised - and pleasantly surprised.

#188--I expect Trump to try to find a more moderate tone for the voters whilst at the same time ratcheting up his attacks on Hillary. He's of course going to go after the emails, the Wall St. transcripts, the Clinton foundation, all the past scandals of both Bill and Hillary. There's almost an endless supply of shit to throw against the wall---how much he's able to make stick is going to be kind of important for his chances. The fact of the matter though is he's got a lot (maybe not nearly as much but still a lot) of his own shit that Hillary can toss against walls. He's still to answer for the Trump U. thing for instance. Trump knows how to manipulate the media but Hillary's more of a media darling. I expect the dirtiest campaign ever. I expect low turnout. Both candidates are polarizing and both are widely disliked not only within their own parties but even more so with independents. I expect the Green's especially are going to have an uptick in their voter counts but the libertarians will also do unusually well. I expect Hillary to win but that win to be bigger on the electoral vote count than the actual population vote count will suggest. I'll say it again---both of them are just about the most unpopular candidates their parties could run. It's almost strange to me that the Republicans establishment get Trump's unpopularity a lot more so than the Democrat establishment get Hillary's unpopularity.

Then again if Hillary's transcripts or emails are made public prior to election day that could be a game changer.

> 189

Regarding HRC's emails - she has already hard-deleted thousands of her emails. Thus we are forced to be agnostics if we are to just go with the facts because the facts to a great extent have been purposely destroyed.

Did she do something criminal or fraudulent or unethical reckless or not? We cannot know now. But a thinking person might ask the reasonable question "If she did nothing wrong then why the hard delete of thousands of emails?" To say this looks suspicious would be the understatement of the decade.

One thing many people do not know - HRC was the ONLY Sec. of State to ONLY use private servers and completely eschew the provided government server. Thus the situation is sui generis, i.e., it is not comparable to some other Secretaries of State who SOMETIMES used private servers for only SOME of their government related emails.

#190--for Hillary it was every day regular business. The other Secretaries of State she would compare herself to--you could say sometimes they did it--but it was actually very rarely they did it. I think Colin Powell was like two occasions. The way the Clinton campaign frames it really is almost outrageously generous towards themselves.

There is a conservative group--I believe they call themselves Judicial Watch who had filed a FOIA suit to get the content of the emails. This suit has been held up because of the FBI investigation. If the FBI investigation concludes before the November election and let's say there is no indictment--the FOIA suit will go forward and it's very probable that Judicial Watch will get their hands on all these emails and whatever is in them and I would bet that there is some content that would be very damaging to her election hopes. For instance if decisions made by her as Secretary of State or even by her office can be shown to coordinate with the activities of her husband and/or the Clinton foundation and especially regarding corporations, Wall St. entities or major banks or foreign governments or other foreign interests. She's a damaged and unpopular and polarizing political figure in the first place and that might be enough to be a game changer and put Trump in the White House.

>189 lriley:

Both candidates are polarizing and both are widely disliked not only within their own parties but even more so with independents... I expect Hillary to win but that win to be bigger on the electoral vote count than the actual population vote count will suggest.

I think the key difference between Trump and HRC (and HRC's ace in the hole, IMHO) is that voters may dislike HRC but they (your humble poster included) are actually fucking scared of Trump:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/us/politics/republican-democratic-voters-poll....

#192--I actually don't see Donald Trump accomplishing much. He'll have the democratic party united and entirely against him. They'll expect at the same time to get a lot of mileage demonizing him to make gains in both the house and the Senate and I'd expect a Trump presidency to put the Senate firmly in the Democratic party's hands by at the least 2020. I'd also expect the house to very much move more towards equal numbers by 2020 with a Trump presidency. So legislatively even if he had his own party firmly behind him (which he doesn't and he won't) things would be difficult. The list of anti-Trump republicans illustrated in #185 I look at as incomplete--I suspect there are more--a lot more. So legislatively Trump IMO is going to be a lame duck the second he's sworn in. If elected he's going to get resistance like no other President before him. And resistance is good.

Now on the subject of the United States with Trump as president being a laughingstock to people's of other nations---well it is what it is. He's a clown. He'll have executive orders. He'll have the right to nominate supreme court justices. That will be his main power.

Here is another thing. If Hillary Clinton decides to put lots of boots on the ground in the middle east--let's say in Syria--the congress being the congress will probably not do their job and debate it seriously and step up to stop her. They'll let her go on ahead. If Donald Trump however decides to do that though I think there's a very good chance they will do their job and they will stop him. The problem I see with Trump is it will be 4 years of utter stagnation. The problem I have with Clinton is it will be at least 4 more years (and possibly 8) of neo-liberal economics with the possibility of more war and nothing done on jobs, wealth disparity, infrastructure and ecology.

I look at them both as nightmare scenarios--much greater chance though of waking up from a Trump nightmare 4 years from now than waking up from the Clinton nightmare.

>193 lriley:

I am more optimistic about a HRC presidency than a Trump presidency. Hillary is to some degree riding in on the coattails of Obama's (now apparently resurgent) popularity and is not, IMHO, going to want to change his policies a whole hell of a lot. Trump? I don't know about you, but I'm convinced the guy is actually mentally ill. The kind of military power the POTUS wields in the hands of someone like Trump scares the shit out of me, and again, I know I'm not the only one who feels this way.

#194--Trump strikes me as somewhere between a PT Barnum figure and a narcissist and blustering buffoon. A very wealthy one. It's certainly not a good combination of character traits that I've assigned him. However--a president is a president and a president has a lot of power but that power is also subject to being restricted and can be restricted drastically by the courts and by the congress---at least if they set out to do so. And no one on the democratic side and a good % on the republican side are not going to work with him. He could win but then what? I suspect that the Donald probably believes that should he prevail in November that will make him 'supreme leader'. If he does think that I think his assumption will not prove to be accurate--at all. So anyway we look at this differently---which is okay--it's just the way it is. Much as I say I look at a Trump presidency (and a Hillary presidency) as a nightmare scenario I'm not particularly frightened of what Trump might do. I think he'll be controlled and I think it will be all up for him in 4 years.

>195 lriley:

Well, I think it can safely be said that neither one of us feel that The Donald or The Hillary are fandom-worthy, so we can leave it at that. "There's always 2020" shall be our mantra. :)

So Public Policy Polling (PPP) did this kind of smarmy poll on Donald Trump and found that he is less popular than lice by 54 to 28% and people prefer jury duty, root canals, traffic jams and Nickelback amongst a number of other pretty shitty things to Donald Trump.

On the Young Turks Cenk goes through the entire PPP list of that poll + highlights a number of very current polls in what I found to be a very hilarious rant against both party candidates---the DC and New York media and establishment eggheads:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8NQ7jUDbSl

With all that Clinton has a 1 point lead on Trump in Florida in an extremely important battleground state. She's even with Trump in independents and they have similar unfavorability numbers.
In Ohio Trump is leading Clinton by 4 points in another extremely important battleground state. In Pennsylvania--again extremely important battleground state Clinton leads Trump by a single point.

Trump says he won't release tax return before election.
Media seems to be giving him yet another pass?

I'd like to see Trump's health records, too...

> 197

Here's the crazy thing - on many forums, after establishing my bona-fides that I hate trump with a passion equivalent to a thousand white hot suns - if I (or anyone else) offer up any criticism whatsoever of HRC we are immediately and strenuously denounced by many $HillaryBots as being either fools who do not understand our support of HRC MUST be absolute - the fight against trump is too important to denigrate HRC in ANY way - or we are accused of being trump campaign operatives pretending to be against trump so that we can disrespect HRC. They just repeat over and over again that if we criticize HRC then we are encouraging voters in general not to vote or to vote third party - so that a vote which does not go to HRC is the same as voting for trump.

There is no way to get these bastards to get off this particular set of bullshit party lines. And I mean absolutely NO way. That is one reason I refer to them as (ro)bots. It is like they have been programed to repeat a set of arguments, over and over again, and not to even hear opposing arguments at all. They treat all other arguments as if they were white noise. (no pun intended)

It is really sick. I and others explain to these assholes, over and over again, that HRC will no doubt win, barring a miracle, and no one is telling anyone not to vote for her, and that we are merely pointing out she is the lesser of evils and not that great a deal for America - and the reply always comes back, robotically as outlined above - all criticism of HRC is evil and perverted and foolish at best and conspiratorial at worst.

If I tell them I personally am not going to vote for HRC but will vote Green they go absolutely nuts with the insults - I am stupid, I am helping trump, I must secretly be for trump, blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum.

I tell the assholes that I live in a red state that is guaranteed to give its electoral votes to whomever the republican nominee is - by hundreds of thousands of vote - and my vote is thus not going to matter and this has absolutely no effect on them except to increase their desire to call me rude names.

If this election has had no other use for me it has surely reminded me of how absolutely fuck-brained millions of my fellow Americans can be - both conservative and liberal. Not only can they not think outside the box, they can't fucking think at all. They are god damn robots.

#199--I've never been confused by whose side the Clinton's were on and Hillary was a Wal-Mart board member for christ sake. That should be enough of a clue to tell anyone whose side she's on even without all her banking and corporate ties. Worker's friend? Bullshit. I look at both Clinton and Trump as nightmare scenarios. I see Trump as a 4 year nightmare. If he manages to win it will be up to congress to completely fuck him over and I'd expect the entirety of the democratic house and Senate and a good portion of the republican establishment to pretty much kibosh any legislation he would have in mind. There will be some in the GOP sabotaging him for completely different reasons than the democrats but I expect them to anyway. Legislatively he should be a dead duck (not even a lame duck) the day he's sworn in. Trump will only be elected once and I'm thinking if that happens he's going to be the most ineffective POTUS ever no matter how much he blusters and bitches and whines. Hillary OTOH would be a 8 year nightmare or 4 years from now she'll be replaced by a republican that the Koch brothers can live with which would be a whole other kind of nightmare.

it's hard to believe that both parties have put up just about the two most polarizing unlikeable people possible. Trump got crushed in a joke poll by lice, jury duty, traffic jams and only narrowly beat out cockroaches and yet.....and yet...and yet he's polling pretty even with Clinton. How does that happen? Pretty even with Clinton even amongst independents. Their even in trustworthiness for fuck sake. I would say to democrats to WAKE UP---even in trustworthiness with Donald Trump is not a fucking compliment. And they're pretty even in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and if Trump can win two of those states it's a real race.

"I must secretly be for Trump, blah
blah blah. . ." (199)

You are right, JGL that declining to vote
for HRC is not "helping Trump". Itʻs a
common fallacy, especially among Democrats
that Ralph Nader helped GWB in 2000; a
few conservatives even believe that Ross
Perot "helped" Bill Clinton in 1992. Neither
Nader nor Perot carried a single state, so itʻs
hard to see them as affecting the outcome.
(I am familiar with the argument that Gore
"would have carried Florida, without the
Nader votes), but the fact is that Gore just
wasnʻt liked by enough voters, nationwide,
for a victory in the electoral college, though
he did win the popular vote. He
couldnʻt carry his own state or Pres. Clintonʻs
state.

Just because Nader didn't carry any states doesn't mean that he didn't affect the outcome within states. If you conjecture that Nader voters would have voted for Gore in Florida if he hadn't been on the ballot then Nader did cause Gore to lose. That's not a fallacy. You can argue that it's an invalid assumption, but not that it's a fallacy.

#202--the way I saw it the republicans were far more aggressive on the Florida vote recount than the Democrats. Buchanan in the meantime had taken away votes that might have gone Bush's way. Gore could and probably should have taken things all the way to the Supreme Court. Out of the blue he gave up. Roland Perkins (#201) is correct in saying that Gore was not that popular but also Gore was not a particularly effective campaigner or someone that many people felt a lot of enthusiasm for. As Bill Clinton's VP he was Clinton lite--and if you wanted a more scandal free neo-liberal he was a good choice. The voters that Nader attracted were on the left but they were definitely not neo-liberals. People should get this through their heads. There are people who vote who don't like neo-liberal/neo-conservative Ayn Rand style economics and are not going to vote for a politician who supports those kind of economics. I personally have more of an affinity towards socialism than capitalism. This has become a problem for Hillary too--the non neo-liberal left do not like or want her and there are greater numbers of them now than there were in 2000.

As well it's known now that the republicans in certain states fixed things. Florida was the prime example in that election and Ohio would be another in the next election.

Should Gore have won in 2000? I would say probably. I would also say he did a lot to undermine his own candidacy and that he showed a lack of fortitude in giving up so easily. One might wonder how the major catastrophes of the Bush/Cheney years might have been handled by a Gore administration. 9-11 probably would have happened anyway. Afghanistan probably would have happened. A good chance Iraq wouldn't have though the sanctions might have gotten even harder--and those sanctions were a human rights violation in their own right. The banking collapse would have happened IMO--maybe just not as drastically and it might have meant a McCain presidency instead of an Obama one. All the deregulation started during Clinton's presidency inevitably would have led at some point to a major banking disaster and if it had happened during a Gore administration right before the national election the republican candidate would have gotten a lot of momentum from that.

". . .the Republicans were far more aggressive on the . . . recount. . ."

I don't know what you call "aggressive",
but it looked to me as if both sides were
doing exactly what might be expected, as a
normal political reaction, in
such a case. Weren't the Republicans the PLAINTIFF
in the Bush v. Gore case? That is, they were
demanding that the Democrats cease and
desist from calling for
recounts. The FL Supreme Court voted against the
GOP, but was over-ruled by the US Supreme Court.
I, b t w, voted for Gore, so I was voting against BOTH
Bush and Nader. The Nader voters were voting against
both Gore AND Bush.

Other facts regarding the 2000 election in Florida -

Even a minority of the total vote of either of the Communist and Socialists parties, if they had gone to Gore, would have secured victory for him.

Because of the confusing butterfly ballots with the infamous chads it has been reckoned by those who are experts at reckoning these things that from 1,500 to up to 3,000 elderly Jewish voters in the Miami area mistakenly voted for Buchanan in an attempt to vote for Gore. Even Buchanan himself in an interview admitted this no doubt happened.

In 2000 we also had butterfly ballots in my state and I had to look twice to make sure I was voting for the guy I intended to vote for - it was indeed confusing and I can certainly see how a lot of people, especially old people of whatever ethic or religious group, could have voted for candidate A in a failed attempt to vote for candidate B.

With that many screw-ups going on I think it rather absurd to say some people caused Gore the election when they should have voted for him instead of Nader who had no chance. Hell, we don't know how many people actually tried to vote for Gore and failed.

And BTW, analysis by the experts has demonstrated to a high degree of confidence that the Perot vote was a wash and did not effect the 1992 election. Republicans who say otherwise are just ignorant plus being sore losers.

It's sad that Mr Sanders supporters are resorting to violent, misogynistic tactics, much like Trump supporters.

"Thrown chairs. Leaked cellphone numbers. Death threats spewed across the Internet.

No, this is not the work of Donald J. Trump supporters, some of whom have harassed critics of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. It was angry supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders who were directing their ire at the Nevada Democratic Party — and its chairwoman, Roberta Lange — over a state convention on Saturday that they think was emblematic of a rigged political system.

“It’s been vile,” said Ms. Lange, who riled Sanders supporters by refusing their requests for rule changes at the event in Las Vegas. “It’s been threatening messages, threatening my family, threatening my life, threatening my grandchild.” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/17/us/politics/bernie-sanders-supporters-nevada.h...

#206---or like 'The Wire' actor Wendell Pierce at a hotel attacking and then following three women back to their room and being arrested for assault--which all stemmed from an argument in the hotel bar--he being a Clinton supporter and they being Sanders supporters. It works both ways.

Anyway neither the Clinton nor the Sanders campaigns IMO have encouraged anyone to violence. Not going to say the same though about Trump.

....and just as a by the way Wendell Pierce is a hell of an actor and 'The Wire' as good a series as I've ever seen produced.

>206 theoria: It's sad that Mr Sanders supporters are resorting to violent, misogynistic tactics, much like Trump supporters.

"Thrown chairs. Leaked cellphone numbers. Death threats spewed across the Internet.

Thrown chairs may be childish, but it's not misogynistic.

Gee. Wow. So some BernieBros (TM) at the Nevada convention went all "bros gone wild" and threw some chairs and stuff because they were convinced democracy was being ass-fucked by hypocrisy?

Compared to the Russian Revolution - or the French Revolution - that seems a rather tame - and minor - situation. Couldn't a couple of dozen security guards wielding batons and tazers pretty much shut all that down if such were needed?

Probably too soon in the process to panic, methinks.

But if you are the type that enjoys panicking then go for it, I guess.

>208 jjwilson61: Ms Lange published screenshots of messages she received. Definitely misogynistic. I assume you didn't selectively ignore the matter of death threats.

>210 theoria: I'm just responding to what you posted. I don't always take the time to visit posted links.

ETA: Of course there's nothing inherently misogynistic about death threats either. Skimming the article quickly I didn't see any specifics about the death threats so I can't tell either way.

I have to say that if someone has the cell phone number of a political operative/representative or politician I don't see any compelling reason why they wouldn't share it to the public if the said political operative/representative or politician had done something to piss them and a large number of other people off. I don't see anything particularly sacrosanct about something that can be easily changed (a phone number) anyway. And after all if it's not illegal like it's not illegal to skirt around all kinds of campaign financing laws and such to solicit funds in a way that really goes against the meaning of what was trying to be accomplished in those campaign financing laws-- then why should I care about people finding ways of skirting other issues that are annoying to the same operatives,/representatives or politicians?

Another thing it's not like the Clinton campaign has encouraged any violence but Bill Clinton's administration has a past of dealing violently with protestors--even peaceful protestors. The massacre at Waco was absolutely unnecessary for one thing--killed a lot of children. The Seattle WTO riot in 1999 was maybe the largest case of mass police brutality since Mayor Daley's police cracked down on protestors at the National Democratic convention in 1968.

If Hillary's folks want Bernie's folks to support her in November, the last thing they should be doing is pissing them off by screwing them in the delegate selection process. It's already clear that Hillary will have enough delegates to win at the convention so why not throw the opposition some bones to smooth things over, instead they act like "we won, so screw you".

Because they don't intend to give the Sanders faction anything. It would only encourage them. The Democrats would rather Trump win than Sanders' position gain any traction in the Democratic Party.

I just finished reading about sixty of Orwell's essays and I was pleasantly surprised at some of his themes.

One of his major points, and I paraphrase somewhat here, was that to support a lesser evil as a political ploy to fight a greater evil might just be a load of shit. You really need to analyze whether the "lesser" is really that lesser and not pretty much the same - you might should oppose them both if you consider yourself a decent human being.

He was mainly referring to Stalin/Communism and Hitler/Nazism but I think if we substitute HRC/establishment democrats vs. trump/republicans we have the same dilemma, it damn sure seems to me.

Sure, theoretically, it would be better for HRC to win. But what kind of a "win" would that be? If the HRC administration, with WJC as 'first lady' sinks the nation in a ocean of corruption and sexual hijinks, and actually gets caught out in the end, making a republican comeback possible in 2020 and 2024, then how exactly are we better off?

The god damn Clinton foundation is a fucking shit-bomb just waiting to be set off. Unlikely it will happen next week or next month but what if it does in October this year - or two or three years into the HRC Presidency?

trump is a narcissist and possibly a sociopath. We know that. But too many people have this glowing view of the amazing hillary, the first woman President, isn't it all just so wonderful, blah, blah, blah. Here's the problem - once you get to know the real hillary - the actual face behind the mask - then it will be all you can do not to throw up in your mouth - IF you are a decent human being.

As it happens the other night at the democratic caucus in Nevada there was no major news conglomerate filming the event. There are random people's own downloads--photos of police presence though no arrests that I've heard of which makes this hullabaloo by the Nevada and pro-Clinton democrats look like much to do about not much. Chairs were thrown? 2? 3? Anybody ever been to a rock concert? Chairs never get a lot of respect. There was lots of yelling. People shouting profanities. Tsk. Tsk. Where are the arrests--destruction of property? Assault? Who? The cops were there. Who did they arrest? Have they tracked down any of the text messagers? Phone callers? Yes? No? Were they Sanders supporters? Were they from Clinton's black op Correct the Record group who shut down numerous pro-Sanders social media accounts with porn a month or so ago?

What seemed to be of concern to the Sanders people present was that 58 of them were disqualified for various and sundry reasons of whatever and only 8 Clinton people disqualified. I could get that Sanders draws a lot heavier from independents so maybe there was something explainable there--though no actual explanation other than the generic 'papers weren't in order' shit as to why people were disqualified. The other concern was that Ms. Lange did not follow the normal procedural rules already in place and having precedence in Nevada--deciding questions and rules instead by her interpretation of which got the louder response which favored Team Clinton pretty much every time even if the Sanders people decibel level seemed to be on a much higher level and as well denied or ignored each and every time she was asked to do an actual voter count so.......what it all came down to was a handful of actual delegates for the convention in Philadelphia.

??!?!

On the surface that seems hardly worth the effort. It should be pretty clear to even the most die-hard Sanders supporter that he's not going to get the nomination---at least not unless Clinton gets arrested and even then it wouldn't surprise me if the democrats stuck with her anyway and if push really came to shove it wouldn't surprise me if Joseph Biden came in as pinch hitter either. The neo-liberal wing of the democratic party which is still ascendant does not want Bernie Sanders as its nominee.

All the faux outrage spilling out of Las Vegas from democratic establishment party leaders and being filtered through the news media IMO is simply to get Sanders to drop out of the race like right now. Sanders winning Oregon last night is just another arrow right in the ass of a flawed candidate who even with an insurmountable delegate lead continues to lose states.....and with California not that far away. California very close or losing California would be a major embarrassment to the Clinton campaign.

The Clinton people know they've won. They want Bernie to fall in line and throw his support wholeheartedly for them. They want him to unify the party. It appears to me to accomplish that they're going to get down and dirty and I don't think it's going to work--at least the way they envision it to work. I have no doubt that Bernie will vote for Hillary in November--just not sure how much unity he could do and/or how much work he'll put into it and especially if the Clinton people aren't more gracious in victory than they appear they're going to be. A major reason why I don't expect Bernard to fold his campaign before the convention is that he has issues that have been dear to him for decades and unless and until the Clinton campaign addresses these issues there is going to be no peace and flowers.

A witness timelines the Nevada debacle with numerous links:

http://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4jid77/basic_stepbystep_of_...

The anti-democratic democratic party working for you.

>217 lriley: The cops were there. Who did they arrest?

So you want the cops to start arresting people instead of solving problems as peacefully as possible? The cops were there because the Democratic Convention was over, after the time they rented the room, and the casino wanted the space back, and the Sanders people refused to leave the room.

though no actual explanation other than the generic 'papers weren't in order' shit as to why people were disqualified.

They weren't Democrats early enough to qualify to be delegates. If you get a little out of your echo chamber, you might have heard the explanation.

#219--maybe you should take a look at some of the links in #218.

>220 lriley: Maybe you should offer a link to something other than a Reddit named SandersForPresident that does nothing to convince me of any sort of neutrality on first glance.

>217 lriley: The neo-liberal wing of the democratic party which is still ascendant does not want Bernie Sanders as its nominee.

Parties are guided by their members. Your position as an outsider and Sanders' position as a opportunistic recent joiner rightfully limits the amount of influence you have over the Democratic Party. If it upsets you what wing of the Democratic Party is ascendant, maybe you should join and influence that.

#221---That's not happening. I like the Green Party a lot more than the Democratic Party. The democrats come up with a decent candidate then fine--if not fuck 'em.

The Sanders campaign has run out of ideas and is running out of time. The candidate must now decide whether he wants to lose like a winner or lose like a loser.

I think that the reason Bernie is sticking it out until the bitter end is that he wants HRC/other establishment Democrats to understand that a very large part of their constituents are far to the left of HRC and that they must represent those peoples' interests, not just centrist ones. They might be able to squeak out 51% of the vote this time, but not for long.

> 224

Exactly. Even if the split is 44/56 in favor of HRC/establishment the rather large plurality is not going to be herded quietly along under threats that otherwise they are helping der trumpster.

HRC and the establishment want it their way. Sometimes in life you can't have it your way. You will fucking take it the way it is, like it or not.

As the situation is at present - the Green party is set to do extremely well in November. The asshole HRC people can only hope it will not be enough to consign her and her co-criminal hubby to oblivion in the short run.

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
H. L. Mencken

An important skill for any presidential candidate is ability to pick good advisors--even more important for know-nothings like Donald Trump. Alarming that in the matter of VP, he picked the DC lawyer who vetted McCain's veep candidates. Remember how that turned out? (!)

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/18/politics/donald-trump-ab-culvahouse-vice-president...

The template for the Democratic party should be FDR--not Bill Clinton. FDR with his new deal mix of capitalism/socialism took on the wealthy interests of the country and was a people's president. The opportunistic and corrupt Clinton deregulated the economy and dismantled/marginalized much of what the New Deal and subsequent safety social net programs had accomplished--and created a class of super wealthy and predatory business/economic interests. Socialism is demonized in this country by pols and a propagandizing media but it's really neo-liberal/neo-conservative economics that is the bane of the population. It has hollowed out to a shell American industry and manufacturing. It has destroyed some communities altogether and impoverished others. It's enriched a handful of people at the expense of the population. It's destroying the beliefs the people have in their own (bought and sold) political system. Those beliefs have been breaking down on the right (tea party), the left (occupy and the Sanders movement) and the center. Wherever you go it is not hard to find republicans, democrats, independents and those of other political parties and even those who have given up all together or never even bothered who believe our political system is nothing but a big and smelly turd.

We have created an aristocracy of the super wealthy. I have a dream that this aristocracy will be at least figuratively swept away, burned and/or buried along with all their symbols of power one day in the not so far away future.

> 226.

Yes. Quite a well-known quote of Mencken's.

I love me some Mencken myself too.

BTW, how does that quote relate to this thread - precisely?

>227 margd:

Alarming that in the matter of VP, he picked the DC lawyer who vetted McCain's veep candidates. Remember how that turned out? (!)

Indeed I do. I can already envision the bumper sticker:

TRUMP/PALIN 2016: WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?

Only whirled peas.

>231 LolaWalser:

Actually, things might work out that way. I can hear the heads of state of other countries now: "Better give the Americans what they want - those fuckers are crazy!"

‘America Was Never Great’ Hat Leads to Death Threats

As for the custom-made cap, Ms. Lake said she had ordered only one but planned to buy many more.

*ten thumbs up* *and a wombat*

Ugh, the YouTube shitsforbrains are out in full strength.

A little while ago I read about how Ta-Nehisi Coates gave up on buying a house in a certain neighbourhood because he grew concerned about safety, and I admit I thought, wellll, isn't that just a little exaggerated? He's just a journalist, and what exactly has he written that is so incendiary it would mobilize lunatics to physical attacks?

But now, seeing what's turning and what's pouring onto this woman... My god, there is even more hideousness and hatred than I thought I knew.

By the way, Krystal Lake is described as a Sanders supporter. I hope Berniebros are extending some support to her. You could, for example, haul ass to YouTube (video in the article I linked) and counter some of the shitstorm, reply to attackers, upthumb the few positive comments, downthumb the ocean of negatives...

> 236

About one-half or so of the Berniebros (TM) are women.

Go figure. (You might need a calculator.)

#237--probably a little better than half of Sanders supporters are women--and particularly among millennials. Actually I've heard that Bernie leads everybody in categories of under 45's. It's not surprising. The wealth gap is outrageous. The wealth that's been flushed down the toilet for our middle east adventuring would more than pay for free college education for everyone--go a long ways to rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. The jobs sent out of the country by our neo-lib/neo-con politicians to increase corporate bottom lines have left lots of people with no real hope for the future.

I concur with the 'America was never great' hat. I could buy and wear something like that. America has been a country too fixated on it's world power--world's policeman role. Keeping that identity intact has been paid for out of the hide of the population and we're down to the bone. It's an empirical ambition that cannot be maintained or sustained for any length of time and if we're not past our due date we're really really close. It's not a necessary role for us or any other country to have.

>238 lriley:

America has been a country too fixated on it's world power--world's policeman role. Keeping that identity intact has been paid for out of the hide of the population and we're down to the bone. It's an empirical ambition that cannot be maintained or sustained for any length of time and if we're not past our due date we're really really close. It's not a necessary role for us or any other country to have.

Have you read Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival? That's basically the argument he makes there, but he takes it a step further - not only is this policy unnecessary and unsustainable, but that there may not be an America (or a human race) around to discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of said policy if we continue on our present course.

#239--a politician's first goal should always be to take care of the home front. Creation of jobs, maintenance of infrastructure, nurturing of resources, a clean environment, affordable education, distribution of enough wealth through every segment of society---looking after the health and safety of the population--setting attainable and worthwhile goals to keep all those things in good order. All these things are more important that whatever foreign policy a politician might have in his/her cranium.

America really went bonkers after WWII with all the cold war crap. Meddling in the internal affairs of just about every country on the planet. We've always got some group, some ideology, some country to hate--to destroy. Politicians in both parties now are corporatists much more interested in the needs of large donors. The congress and Senate have become a clique of elites kowtowing to these wealthy interests. Their real role is to be public servants but there are very very few who take that seriously.

I've like Sanders for a long time because he does take his role as public servant seriously. There are a few others--Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown (both by the way talked up as possible Clinton VP candidates) the late Paul Wellstone would be examples. Obama at one time seemed like he could be one.

Highest rated comment on the video in the article:

There are over 300 international flights leaving the United States everyday....feel free buy yourself a ticket, and get the hell out, young lady.

Comment with 16 thumbs up:

America was great when bitches like this were in shackles
HAHA

Not a single comment supporting her on the whole page.

>220 lriley: How about http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/may/18/jeff-weaver/allegations-... ?

> 241 Lake lives on Staten Island--the only two people I know there would support her unequivocally...which means only that despite the wicked nature of the internet, it does not describe the entire picture.

>241 LolaWalser:

Looks like there are some comments supporting her now (including my own).

Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-fundraisin...

On party unity:

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/05/how-the-hell-we-got-here-pt-2-why-...

Pretty much encapsulates some of my thoughts on where the democratic party may be going (or not).

> 246

I hate $Hillary clinton's criminal guts.

The issue is - are there around 20 million people who usually vote Democratic who share my disgust regarding her and the DNC?

If not, then no problem for the criminal clinton family. They are set to make Billions more $$$$$$.

If yes, then she is going to get her ugly ass beaten by possibly the only other American politician more personally disgusting than she is. Perhaps not as criminal but more disgusting.

Vote Green 2016.

I just read the implication in a
write-up of Gary Johnson (L, NM)
that the Green Party and all other
minor parties (except the Libertarians)
have failed to get on the ballot in
EVERY state.

#247--the insinuation that Sanders supporters are violent which has come up recently--been pushed by Democratic Senators including Barbara Boxer who whilst fearing for her life in Nevada was mockingly blowing kisses at the Sanders people as she was leaving--the portrayal in the media of violent chair throwing neanderthals (and we're still waiting to see some video of that--I'm sure it's out there pretty much like they found WMD in Iraq)--comparing them to Trump voters is not really a great strategy to win them over to Clinton's side. I'm afraid there are going to be a lot of Sanders supporters who remember that. Let's unify but first we got to stick you in the eye--both eyes.

Flat out between Trump and Clinton I have to say I don't really care. They're both awful in different ways. Both nightmare scenarios. I can't see the one nightmare lasting beyond four years. His party is coming apart at the seams. The other has the potential for 8 and there's the very strong likelihood if that happens she'll splinter her party into at least two. There is a vast difference between the Clinton and Sanders wings on policy goals and particularly in the economic sphere. If Clinton wins and doesn't work hard to close that gap she's going to lose a lot of people particularly younger voters---who want serious action and not a lot of excuses. The Democratic party needs to remember who FDR and LBJ were.

>249 lriley: The Democratic party needs to remember who FDR and LBJ were.

"Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today!" That LBJ? The LBJ who lied to Congress to get us further embedded in Vietnam? You have odd heroes.