Excerpt: "Fukushima Daiichi plants are 'not under control at all ... and the situation with nuclear reactors in Japan is like vehicles being driven without a license,' Mr. Murata told a news conference at the foreign correspondents' club of Japan on June 5."
Japan's Environment and Nuclear Minister Goshi Hosono, second from left, inspects a pool containing spent fuel rods inside the No. 4 reactor building at Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s tsunami-crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Okuma, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan, Saturday, May 26, 2012. (photo: Toshiaki Shimizu)
Mitsuhei Murata: Fukushima Plant "Not Under Control at All"
08 June 12
�
he Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant Number 4 reactor presents a security problem for the entire world, Mitsuhei Murata, Japan's former ambassador to Switzerland said.
Fukushima Daiichi plants are "not under control at all... and the situation with nuclear reactors in Japan is like vehicles being driven without a license," Mr. Murata told a news conference at the foreign correspondents' club of Japan on June 5.
Four nuclear plants in Fukushima Daiichi were damaged by last year�s great earthquake and tsunami. Recently, people have expressed concerns about Unit 4�s spent fuel pool which stores more than 1500 rods. The unit would be too fragile to withstand an M7-class earthquake.
The Japanese government also thinks that the Unit 4 problem is critical, and are planning to move many of the rods from the pool in 2013.
324 Civic organizations from all over the world have submitted a petition called "An Urgent Request for UN Intervention to Stabilize the Fukushima Unit 4 Spent Nuclear Fuel", Mr. Murata said noting that those organizations are also demanding a moratorium on Japan's nuclear reactors. "This reflects a loss of confidence in the government and Tokyo Electric Power Company, TEPCO,� he said.
Expressing strong anxiety regarding Japan's nuclear policy, Murata revealed he had advised PM Yoshihiko Noda that the only way to restore honor for Japan and himself as prime minister is to establish a national policy by August of non-dependence on nuclear energy.
Warning of the acute danger of Unit 4. at Fukushima Daiichi, Murata said that recent revised estimates by the Japanese government found that the probability of a 7.0 magnitude earthquake in Fukushima within the next three years is 90%. "But Unit 4 reactor, which was substantially damaged by the tsunami and subsequent explosion will not survive a 7.0 magnitude earthquake," he said.
He pointed out "the nuclear village and nuclear dictatorship is exposed, and public opinion and their movements are strong.�Nuclear village is a term for the Japanese distorted social structure in which the pronuclear politicians, scholars and companies have more power than those who are skeptical of nuclear energy. Anti-nuclear protests have been ignored for more than 40 years.
He concluded that "the lessons of Fukushima have reminded the whole world of the great principle for humanity. The possibility for unbearable consequences must be zero" and stressed the need for �the shift from priority of economy to priority toward life. The true cause for the present crisis is lack of ethics."
Mr. Murata was Japan�s ambassador to Switzerland form 1996 to 1999.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
ho ho
and how many 'listening' tours did Hillary go on?
and how many didn't know that it was just a sham to keep her from having to say anything that would show who she really was?
Democrats don't need to listen so much as they need to act on behalf of Americans.
Sitting in a room with some people for a couple of hours between fundraising banquets ain't gonna cut it.
But I also believe that, while his agenda might not be the same as ours, his goals and constraints might not be the same as ours, his actions are rational and do not preclude our working together.
Maybe his goal is to reform the party, and maybe he can succeed. Maybe he didn't have confidence he'd get a fair election and didn't want to give up being outreach cochair and budget committee minority leader.
Our goals and means are different but even when we disagree on specifics we can help each other.
I am worried about his support for HRC and Ellison, but I still trust him more than Pelosi or Schumer or a thousand others, and we desperately need insiders.
They still talk about 20 years now gone how the party lost because of McGovern as he was to radical. They would not have had a chance for a progressive candidate for another 20 years if Bernie had stood strong.
Sad as it is they, tyhe party regulars have to continue to loose and loose big till they tehemselves see being progressive is the only way/ 2018 should be that loss that should turn them.
And they will loose as the Shumers and them, that side is still running the show despite a bone thrown our way Ellison.
If that were the case then the Republicans would not have gone all out to prevent the Jill Stein initiated counting of the paper trails (such as they are) and uncounted provisional ballots.
Their frantic efforts are nothing short of an admission of guilt!
As usual the Republicans won the White House and who knows how many other "contests" with their callous and unpatriotic deployment of an ever growing array of election theft devices both manual and electronic.
Again, the truth is so obvious:
Hillary cheated to "win" the nomination!
Trump cheated to "win" the election!
Progressives will never gain power as long as our elections can be so easily stolen!
The Clinton team still runs the Democrat Party. Her lackeys are in positions of power, and the whole focus seems to be a coup against Trump over this phony Russian hacking.
I'm pretty sure that Boris and Natasha don't really care who runs our government, they know from 70 years of experience that American policy has always been anti-Russia, and that despite Trump will remain confrontational . Moose and squirrel will not change their spots.
I say once again that Bernie needs to move on from the Democrat party, they are stroking him now, in an effort win his backers support, but when the chips come down they'll be backing Daddy Warbucks or Mommy Warbucks again and Bernie will be ignored. You can't teach an old Blue Dog new tricks.
Democrats have learned nothing, and Clinton still controls the party:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4lbUeO1dCY
To me, the most credible explanation is that the fix --I gotta assume put in by deep state machination -- was in for Donny all along. To my thinking, such a deeply repugnant candidate was probably brought forth exactly for its humiliation value.
And yes, Trump bragged about being "The King of Debt," and during the campaign his filings showed he owed $315 million (and we all know to whom he owes that blood).
But a couple days ago, the Wall Street Journal dug a bit deeper, and it looks like he owes closer to $ ONE BILLION DOLLARS!
http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-debts-are-widely-held-on-wall-street-creating-new-potential-conflicts-1483637414
That doesn't excuse Hillary's lousy campaign. A decent candidate would have had more of a cushion so that the loss of those votes wouldn't have effected the outcome. But it is still wrong.
And across various delineating borders, there are temporary coalition, bargaining, jostling with one another.
That could be the single most important bit of information that almost no one knows.
I think that the level of repulsion the public felt toward Hillary's many, almost grotesque, faults were not imagined by DS back in 2007. She was put in as Secretary to build her stature. Her opponent was to be Bush.
After 8 years of Obama, either Hillary or Jeb was perfectly acceptable for both were members of DS and commited to serve that mindset.
Along came Bernie & Trump. This wasn't in DS's playbook. They fixed Bernie, because it was just he or she and they controlled Schultz & Podesta. The Republican side was a crazy can of worms if you think back on it. No one imagined Trump coming out on top and surely not the mindset-minded DS folks.
So Hillary's loss was a totally unforeseen rout of DS and its main enforcement arm, the CIA. Clapper, the ultimate responsible and Brennan, #2, countered Assange & Snowden with the Putin nonsense which is supercilious save to those who believe in the infallibility of the CIA. That's not me. And that's what I think happened.
Want my backup? Read THE DEVIL'S CHESSBOARD, Talbot. It'll change the way you see our world.
Basically, HRC would have been a fine spokesmodel, but if they could get a neo-fascist elected, then they could cut right to the chase.
I believe that before the end of February Trump will be 100% on-board for a war on Russia ('cuz of Putin hacking the DNC in his parents basement.)So expect a more war, unless something very big happens before then.
The "deep" state got its name, in no minor part, precisely because it approves BOTH major candidates.
It always wins the majority always loses.
It's deeper than that, Dem's under Clinton control truly is one of the heads of the two headed Koch snake.
Is Obama, who's pledged to work on state politics, going to prevent progressive candidacies? Will the DP continue to lock out progressives? Is the DNC going to sabotage progressives? If so, we need to coordinate a voting strategy that might include abandoning the party and letting them lose in 2018.
Right now we have the attention of intelligent pols. Can we parlay that into action?
They laughed in our face, and now blame us for following through on our end.
The question is simple: Is the Democratic Party capable of learning from its mistakes, or will it continue to blame "the Russians"?
why would they give up their free ride on the gravy train for us?
for victory?
for legislation?
for anything?
the ride's the thing!
the job don't mean squat, except that they get to ride the gravy train.
we need another party.
we are dead to those people, and as far is i am concerned they are dead to me.
Remember Harry Belafonte and Thomas Frank pointed out the deficits of the Wall Street Dems in 2004, how long do they think we should wait for Hope and Change? And Obama, a great article about him on Truthout by Pitt... He is hand in glove with the Bushes and Clintons...
Good for Bernie for saying the real reason for Trump's win, but he should break with the evil, insane, Obama Party line and denounce the anti-Putin hysteria, and join with Trump to make the breakup of the TBTF by restoring Glass-Steagall the No. 1 priority for the new Congress. Everything else can wait.
Climate change is real. And doing something about it WILL mean the end of the coal, gas and oil industry.
They are obsolete and need to be replaced.
Worry about coal jobs now, and you can start worrying about American FAMINE in a few more years as the climate change shit hits the fan.
Yes, FAMINE (IN AMERICA) is what we're staring at, unless we can find Democratic politicians not already wholly owned by the obsolete fuel industry.
But my presumption is they lost the blue collar voter in many states like pennsylvania. Blue collars who used to vote den automatically. So automatically few paid attention to the demographic anymore.
TPP and Billl's connection to NFTA is my guess.
Bwahahah that sounds like a total comedy line . How can it possibly be true -- but it is?
I have close friends of every political stripe from communists in Europe to fascists in America. I've met German ex-Nazis and those who escaped camps. Had a business partner who got out of Auschwitz. I've been able to have deep conversations with them all.
Since the election I've talked to the winners, losers, and bystanders.
BUT there are 3 exceptions. They are all single American women, all in the 60+ age range. Two spent most of their lives as single mothers. Each has bluntly told me what Susan just said and that they never wanted to talk with me again, because I opposed Hillary. Period.
Now that's serious and important. As is Susan. Was their vote vaginal? Fear of losing SS benefits or health care? All 3 are middle class, well educated, comfortable, one is rich. One is a prominent academic, one was well-known and now does books. One has a small business. All 3 own their homes
I've been staggered by the Susans. America mustn't abandon them. Yet they're so emotionally blinded that they have disengaged thinking. A friend said, "They'll get over it." Maybe.
I think the NYT article today that gives 7 Human Interest stories about opoid addicts' 33K 2016 deaths with no conclusions is what made my Susans. There's a profound sickness about. It's due to terminal dumb & promises & hopes unfilled. Irresponsibilit y by authorities & media to even grasp the root problems.
There are entrenched neoliberals in the DP and DNC, but this is a different problem and it would be a mistake to ignore them. They are the suburban moms and UWS ladies and they are delusional -- but we need to reach them. We need to turn them progressive.
I talk to my mom, who supported Hillary, and when I can talk calmly and give her facts about Clinton's actions, it reaches her. Not enough, but we're still friendly afterward, which is something.
Maybe they really identify with Clinton in a personal way, and see her rejection as an attack on their generation, who bear the scars both of misogyny and early feminism.
Saw Tina Brown on something today. She was reasonable for a while but then, after predicting a good year for women ahead, said: "Even these young millennial women, who think a tweet is a vote, realize (important rights are in jeopardy)" (!)
(Later she said, after dismissing skeptics, "Do people REALLY believe the Secretary of State is lying?" Precious. I guess pols don't lie in the UK?)
So they are easily identified by their arrogant snark. Now, what do we say to reach them?
So they are easily identified by their arrogant snark. Now, what do we say to reach them?"
I have no idea. Maybe we need a psychologist to figure out how to break through denial. They don't seem to be influenced by facts.
If someone can figure out how to do it might be worth trying, but it might be more productive just to nominate someone who really appeals to millenials so they will come out to vote.
The first truly viable woman candidate should have been a great bonding time for generations of women. Instead the elders attacked the younger, not bothering to reason or discuss but resorting to snide comments. Really? That's what the brilliant Clinton machine came up with? Or, according to the Podesta emails, was it something the campaign had to keep dealing with, covering up and 'interpreting' -- Clinton's arrogance and I-just-dont-giv e-a-flying-t-f^ k attitude? Both. They DID cry 'sexism!' a dozen times a day.
Maybe we need to communicate that this is NOT a rejection of women or feminism or anything other than a resounding comeuppance for Clintonism, neoliberals, the DP's embrace of militarism and Wall Street.
MANY of us DID vote for a woman, and look forward to a woman president. But Clinton was just TOO corrupt, TOO hawkish, TOO untrustworthy.
TPTB that chose Clinton gave US the middle finger first, and Americans flipped Donald Trump right back. THAT's who people should be angry with.
We need to unite against our common enemy: the oligarchs.
Seriously, we need reform of the election process badly. Paper ballots, elimination of computers and gerrymandering and Interstate Crosschecking System, Without reform we continue to slide downhill towards fascism with the mega rich solidly in control. Who want this except the top tenth of one oercent?
Condescending, sexist and agist comment!
What happens to all that lovely money that was contributed? Was it all spent? Does the party get to keep what's left, or does it find a new home?
One thing the DNC needs to work on, is finding a more consistent red herring.
When you have 50 or 60 imaginary enemies to blame for your stupidity, it may be that you're just trapped in a hall of mirrors.
Putin's fault.
Not Hillary's.
Hillary is blameless for her actions.
Good one!
I was one of those pissed off Sanders voters who you all laughed at and told to fuck off.
Blame me!
I'm proud of it.
Next time, instead of blaming Gremlins from the Kremlin, and Abominable Snowmen, try listening to me.
I meant "DEPLORABLE" snowmen.
The "Democratic" party is a criminal entity, which went out of its way to subvert democracy and sabotage one of its candidate's campaigns, and their lying in bed with the heinous, murderous CIA and "intelligence" community, only cements this. Hillary paraded Kissinger before us as one of her best friends, as she has said of Mubarak, and the despicable leaders of the Saudi government, started a war in Libya, giving territory to ISIS, an she now is hell bent on starting WWIII with Russia, whether she sits in the White House or not. She is a monster, and never deserved our support.
What a load of cartilaginous, indigestible blech! Bernie conceded gracefully and worked to help HRC.
The Democratic Party, with but few exceptions (one of those being our very progressive Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley) are a bunch of Blue Dawgs!
There is no chance whatever that some new left-wing party will kick aside the Democrats in the near, or even the medium, future. (Anything might happen in the far future, of course, even a sharp swing leftward by the Republicans--bu t don't make any plans on it.)
Old age is a terrible thing.
Ageism is pretty disgusting, isn't it?
"Sexism" trumps Ageism.
And Trump trumps sexism.
Tell Hillary I said "Hi!" at the inauguration!
1. It is crystal clear. If you are Secretary of State and foreign governments are giving $millions to your foundation, you are one of the most corrupt politicians in history.
2. Her speeches to the banks also show why very wealthy donors contributed to her - she was their buddy all along and the money they gave was not for her to change any positions but to keep working in their behalf.
3. She privately admitted lying to the public.
4. Most of the money donated to state Democratic organizations was funneled to Clinton (i.e. her campaign)
And on and on and on.
How many facts can Clintonites ignore? How many claims of right wing smears be asserted?
If there are any blind "bots" in the primary campaign they were overwhelmingly Clintonites.
How long will it take for Clintonites to admit that a dead hippopotamus could have beaten Trump by a mile. Hillary Clinton was the worst, most unpopular Democratic candidate in recent history, perhaps ever.
Just this alone gets my vote for the most LOGICAL THING SAID IN JANUARY 2017
Horse shit. The reason the Democrats lost is because they insisted on a coronation of the only person in America who could lose to Donald Trump. Had they not rigged the primary for their truly flawed candidate, we would be celebrating the election of a truly great man to the presidency.
Democratic wing of the Democratic party. Bernie needs to sign on and join the party, and realize he is part of the problem.
Are you KIDDING ME? Sanders was busy filling the Hollywood bowl while SShillary couldn't even fill a bakery. You seriously think she had ANYTHING to offer the American people? The only people still in her thrall are the latte drinking, head iin the sand old school of Democrat activists who bought the Bill Clinton and Obama BS because the republicans were much worse, while their leadership fiddled and made zillions and forgot to pay attention to the sinking ship.
And 2nd- "You've got to go out and mix it up and be with ordinary people."
Connection to the common man is essential to a new DFL. Keith Ellison heading the DNC is a solid beginning,
How's that communication going when you're tone deaf, Nancy?
The dems have lost the WH, senate, house, a gazillion governorships and "communication" is the problem? I can't possibly support a party so stupid, out of touch and concerned ONLY with fund raising
Maybe we are witnessing the end of the Clinton control of the democratic party. That's the best news all Americans could ever hear.
Ma
That's only part of their problem. Most of their base has lost confidence in them.
Another is that a motivated group of supporters will volunteer and "advertise" a candidate's campaign through social media, saving tons of money.
He was also correct in noting that the people and organizations that make those big donations are not stupid. They know they are buying influence, and they get their money's worth... regardless of which party flavor they buy off.
We lost, because the party's candidate was unelectable to the point that she could not even beat an opponent as unbelievably bad as Trump. And as we speak she still controls the party, not Bernie!
Go back up and re-read Susan's comment. That's what put Trump in and lost us the election. Blind dumbth, not Trump, Putin, Comer, Assange or Sanders. The people of Lalaland who showed up at Hillary's party last night.
And if you will note, the surplus was all from the West Coast. The figures are that a 4,269,978 excess for Hillary came from California alone. If you get rid of the electoral college system our future Presidents would be CA elected and the rest of us could just stay home.
We HAD a candidate that was PERFECT for the Zeitgeist: Bernie Sanders!
Instead, we got STUCK with a candidate who EPITOMIZED "the same old Washington"!
Why? Because of Hillary Clinton's AMBITION to be 'The First Woman President'!
She was BLINDED by her ambition; if she'd looked at the situation OBJECTIVELY, she would have seen that it WASN'T HER YEAR!
But she HAD to follow HER ambition, and as a result, we have Donald Trump!
There's just ONE 'educated white lady' that's what's wrong with the Democratic Party...
Trump has repeatedly made Democratic-styl e promises, much to the puzzlement and concern of the GOP. He is not an ideologue and has no real loyalty to the GOP. That makes him a very unusual Republican president, and we'd be foolish not to take advantage of those things.
Further, yes I will defend anyone against the CIA. That group needs to go.
These are different things than telling Trump he's pretty.
As for the CIA who we know has done wrong but without their help, I believe would leave this country much more vulnerable to threats. If you want to get rid of it, you better have a better idea to replace it.
Ow, those hurt!
And many people were prevented from voting.
But the fact remains that HRC was a horrible candidate who did not motivate people to show up in the record numbers that Obama had.
She NEEDED to appeal to progressives and millennials FROM HER OWN PARTY instead of siccing trolls and provocateurs on them, insulting them and pivoting to the right. Remember the support she got from Kissinger, Wolfowitz, Cheney et al? Not good.
She rejected Democratic values of peace and generosity, supporting military adventures as often as John McCain and promising desperate people incremental improvement. She ignored people's economic concerns and was an establishment candidate in a change year.
The events you characterize are indeed nonsense, but they are inaccurate and incomplete.
And progressive independants. Among millenials I think they outnumber Dems.
Well interesting to me, maybe not you, but Hitler, at face value, promised the Germans financial reform which he produced (at a great cost) No wonder the people voted for him. They were starving and about to give up. The other reason Hitler won, although perhaps not as overt as today's bought elections, was British, American and continental support. But no one suggests that Hitler's election was rigged. No one had that kind of hindsight or intoday's world, control.
We are not asserting Clinton stole the nomination because we 'feel it in our bones' or used our spidey sense. It is because six states had exit poll results varied from election 'results' by more than 10% when all monitors recognize a 2% difference as problematic. All six states' advantaged Clinton.
The odds of all that being honest are 76 billion to one. You know all this. We've told you dozens of times and you know what? Every time you try to rewrite history, we'll tell you again.
We were here. We saw all this unfold. We won't forget. We won't let the truth die.
I can't believe you, Eric, didn't see the zillions of followers on TV. and notice that Hillary didn't have any to speak of, just good old George Soros, who might have been a bit tough to chew on than the tasty morsels handed out by Bernie who proved on his website that if you take funds from the 10% you could actually clean up the country's debt and leave enough over for college, and health care... Just cause you hate that idea doesn't mean the US wasn't ready to entertain it.
The principle purpose of MSM is propaganda. And they played us like a Stradivarius throughout this election.
And still are.
I've lost track. What pet project?
So, even with the election fraud committed by both parties, he and the Republicans do not really have that deep of support.
And no one here is talking about converting "misogynistic bigots."
Many of us are talking about building on the common ground we have with those Trump supporters who held their nose, and voted for his populist rhetoric, or to avoid war with Russia or because they could see what a crook is HRC.
Did anyone ever do a survey on that?
But yes, partisans tend to vote for their party's candidate no matter how much they dislike them. That's how HRC got as many votes as she did get, too.
Sound familiar? Twice over, when it comes to presidential candidates?? And didn't the whole "Arab Spring" concept sound just too much like an air freshener scent to be believable??? Aren't we now hearing about how many Millions of fake accounts set up by a bank to hold its money???
On Breaking Bad, the main character's innocent son is named in charge of the crowd-sourcing web page. He imagines his fundraising efforts to be wildly successful and has no idea that the donation accounts are not real. So poignant! His love for his cause is deeply real, even though his success in raising money is not.
Since we know that money has always "talked," I myself am rethinking assumptions on all sorts of populist movements. Thinking again about ol' honest Abe Lincoln studying by candlelight in his log cabin; White settlers in little houses on the prairie, on and on.
I agree with you that there is so much going on we don't know about. Who knows who fixed what with whom or why. In some ways we have to proceed without caring about that because it is unknowable. I like knowing but it's not necessary.
I disagree with you about some things but generally I enjoy your posts. You have an interesting perception of things. But it's insulting for you to say Bernie people were well meaning but naive. We have thought out our positions as carefully as anyone, maybe more than most, and we are not fools. If you look back over older articles I think you'll find those are the people who understood the issues and more accurately predicted what was going to happen.
If we could quantify all the positive and negative effects of Sanders' run I think we'd find he was a net good for her. He kept his word and campaigned hard for her. He didn't attack nearly as much as he could have (and remember she was supposed to be the stronger candidate because she had already been through decades of GOP attacks -- so how did gentlemanly Bernie 'I don't care about your damn emails' Sanders hurt her?). He brought millions out to vote for her and didn't break away to a third party even when it was clear he had been cheated and many of his supporters vilified him for not doing so.
Hillary lost for dozens of reasons. I could go on for HOURS :-)
Regards.
Well, even the NY Times acknowledged that HRC's State Department promoted it from the start.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html?_r=4&pagewanted=1&emc=eta1
And HRC's emails show she coordinated the same thing in Libya:
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/06/libya-gadhafi-french-spies-rebels-support.html#
And in Syria:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/u-s-admits-funding-syrian-opposition-1.987112
This article on Robert Ford goes a long way to explaining how John Negroponte's "El Salvador Option" was brought to Iraq and then Syria:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-is-us-ambassador-to-syria-robert-s-ford-the-covert-role-of-the-us-embassy-in-supporting-an-armed-insurrection/26873
Meg Anderson, NPR, neoliberal
David Weigel, Washington Post, neoliberal
Weigel, in linked article: Sanders is "pushing his (briefly) adopted party toward more activism", among other smeary statements.
What I DO know is that Sanders has caucused with the Dems for twenty-five years and they have trusted him enough to give him committee chairmanships and positions of trust.
At one point the Dems would have been in the minority if he and Angus King of Maine hadn't caucused with them. They held the majority because of Sanders and King.
Even now Sanders has been given the minority chair of the freaking Senate Budget Committee -- a real plum. If the DP doesn't have a problem with him, why do you?
I notice that this meme is enjoying a bit of a renaissance among the LW slanderers who are trying to marginalize Sanders and the progressives.
We're not going to shut up and move on this time, eric. Progressives are taking over the DP or we are starting a third party. Deal with that.
Keep badmouthing someone progressives admire. Brilliant. Sounds like a Clinton tactic.
And he undeniably ran a strategically brilliant campaign, identifying and successfully exploiting the key weaknesses of his serial opponents. He correctly read the public pulse and the electoral college battlefield, strategically sacrificing two rooks on the west coast and the northeast to dispatch the opponent's queen.
- even if you don't get a BS
No, they just accuse a candidate they dislike of association with a child sexual abuse ring, of wanting to start a nuclear war with Russia and China, of having a would-be whistleblower killed, of plotting to become empress of America, of . . . but why go on?
If you had a child in the military, would you want someone like that as Commander in Chief? I wouldn't.
TPTB insisted on Clinton, the one candidate guaranteed to motivate the GOP and repulse progressives. Their fault. Don't be their puppet.
No Eric, we think someone ELSE may have made those accusations. They just were not up to our rhetoric, sorry.
Secondly, How many Democrats believe it? I think you'll find the number approaches zero. The progressives' list of grievances against HRC has almost no overlap with those coming from the GOP.
We do not care about Vince Foster or Benghazi bs. We care about her hawkishness, her WS connections, the Clinton Foundation, but especially her STEALING the nomination from the better candidate -- the man we needed to become president at this moment in our history. Instead of dreading the next four years we could be full of hope -- except for the Clintons' ambitions and selfishness.
They read the polls better than anybody. They, more than anyone, knew what her weaknesses were, what she needed to do, what her chances were. I assume they had also heard of the electoral college.
They, the DNC and the DP decided they would rather risk losing to Trump than have to deal with a genuine progressive messing up their cushy, corrupt gig.
There is plenty to quantify if one wants to make the case that Hillary Clinton is corrupt and violent.
The msm has utterly betrayed the citizenry and TPTB have proven they are incapable inbred psychopathic losers.
Why would an educated person buy this tripe? A mole?
The DNC has only itself to blame and we all will pay the price.
Road A) Stay inside the Dem. party and fix it. The old guard must go, corp, ties must be severed, amends must be made to the average 99% voters, convince Bernie and the millennials to enter party, and the hardest of all eliminate DLC and ties to Koch money.
This can be done as total takeover or a faction like Tea Party as librarian1984 has suggested
Road B)Link-up with the Green Party, convince Sanders and supporters to join
Road C)Start our own Progressive Party and convince all others to join
I don't know what is the best choice, a lot of work no mater what road is chosen. Input is welcome. Whatever we decide, it must be done soon and it must be done together.
You WISH we would move that way. THe way of A. I can't stand the smell up there. How do you fix something that's fuel source is Bilderberger money?
Over and over she demonstrated her love for the rich and famous and did nothing for us regular folks: The invites to HRC events asked for donations of hundreds or thousands of dollars for attendance which a retiree's social security lifestyle doesn't cover.
OF COURSE, they'll be there for the celebration. Their allegiances speak eloquently for themselves.