RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Galindez writes: "While the corporate media painted a picture of Bernie Sanders riding off into the sunset after throwing his support behind Hillary Clinton, Bernie was rallying his troops for another fight. This time the fight isn't for the Democratic Party nomination, but to transform the party and the country. That was always the focus, but the media only understood the horse race."

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. (photo: AP)
Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. (photo: AP)


Bernie Sanders: I Have Not Suspended My Campaign

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

14 July 16

 

hile the corporate media painted a picture of Bernie Sanders riding off into the sunset after throwing his support behind Hillary Clinton, Bernie was rallying his troops for another fight. This time the fight isn’t for the Democratic Party nomination, but to transform the party and the country. That was always the focus, but the media only understood the horse race.

Bernie Sanders did endorse Hillary Clinton and pledged to help her beat Donald Trump in November. A few hours later, Bernie was on the phone with his delegates letting them know that there was still work to do and to prepare for a possible floor fight at the convention. Bernie wants to reform the nominating process. End the influence of the party bosses who were exposed in this election. Bernie thinks the super delegates should no longer have the influence over the process that currently have.

Sanders also believes the primaries and caucuses should all be open to all voters. Not allowing independents to vote in the Democratic Primary is exclusionary. Bernie believes by opening up the process the party will grow and will get more support on Election Day. As I have been saying for months, both parties are shrinking while more and more people identify as independent. Open primaries will help the Democrats reach out to those voters.

Senator Sanders also told his delegates he wanted them at the convention for the roll call. He has not released his delegates. He acknowledges the math but wants to come out of Philadelphia united in the struggle for the progressive issues he raised during the campaign. Most of the media failed to report that Bernie did not suspend his campaign. Bernie Sanders is still a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president.

He does not have any delusional plan to steal the nomination from Hillary Clinton. It’s no longer about the nomination, and really never was. Of course a win would have been nice and would have accelerated the rate of the political revolution.

On July 24th Bernie will speak to his supporters in FDR Park in Philadelphia and declare victory. No, he won’t be saying he is the nominee. He will be declaring victory for the progressive movement. Bernie is proud of the progress we have made. The progressive agenda is now a mainstream agenda. Bernie told his delegates that the right wing agenda has dominated the discourse long enough and together we have changed the conversation.

He acknowledged that there is still a long way to go to implement the agenda. Along those lines he announced that in the coming weeks new organizations will be launched to replace the campaign. One of the major focuses will be to elect progressives at the local and national level.

In explaining why he decided to endorse Hillary Clinton now, he praised her for agreeing to the most progressive platform ever. He praised victories on the minimum wage, college affordability, Native American rights, criminal justice, and the environment. He acknowledged that while progress was made we fell short on trade, health care, and the Middle East.

Sanders told his supporters that they must organize to make sure the TPP does not come to a vote in a lame duck session of Congress. Sanders sounded optimistic, but warned that he thinks it is possible that the TPP could pass in this Congress. He urged his delegates to contact their members of Congress to tell them to block a vote this year.

I watched Bernie’s speech with Hillary on YouTube. I saw the chat explode with people saying that Bernie was a traitor. Many were posting F bombs. Bernie Sanders has done more for the progressive cause than any of those posters. I know that many of them worked hard over the last year and have been active for years. That does not give them the right to show such disrespect for a man who has spent his whole career fighting for the progressive cause. Bernie Sanders got 13 million votes. Compare that to Dennis Kucinich and other past progressive candidates. Bernie has moved the progressive cause forward. He will continue to fight for us and I bet he will accomplish more than all of the haters combined. I’m still with you Bernie.



Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott will be spending a year covering the presidential election from Iowa.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

We are going to return to our original fully-moderated format in the comments section.

The abusive complaints in the comment sections are just too far out of control at this point and have become a significant burden on our staff. As a result, our moderators will review all comments prior to publication. Comments will no longer go live immediately. Please be patient and check back.

To improve your chances of seeing your comment published, avoid confrontational or antagonistic methods of communication. Really that is the problem we are confronting.

We encourage all views. We discourage ad hominem disparagement.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+83 # caphillprof 2016-07-14 08:46
The "media" is not the "media" but a partisan, establishment player and have always and everywhere "misunderstood" /opposed Bernie Sander's campaign. They know full well what he is doing and they are against it!

Anything that threatens the establishment, they are against it!
 
 
-40 # rocback 2016-07-14 10:49
allowing independents and even Republicans, is a mistake and can only invite primary "mischief" from outside forces who's only agenda is to;

1. elect a more beatable candidate for "their" other party or

2. drag out the primary to keep Democrats from turning to the Republican opponent.

This is the "Democratic" primary not the general election.
 
 
+22 # guomashi 2016-07-14 11:55
Quoting rocback:
allowing independents and even Republicans, is a mistake and can only invite primary "mischief" from outside forces who's only agenda is to;

1. elect a more beatable candidate for "their" other party or

2. drag out the primary to keep Democrats from turning to the Republican opponent.

This is the "Democratic" primary not the general election.


if you want a monopoly on candidates, and you want to exclude 2/3 of the country from voting, how does that make your party Democratic?

The best thing that could happen to America is for the Democratic private party to burn to the ground.
 
 
+25 # Anonymot 2016-07-14 11:59
Actually, I've stopped using the word democratic for the Democrats, because they are not. The Democrat Party is what they are.
 
 
-4 # Robbee 2016-07-14 14:02
Quoting Anonymot:
Actually, I've stopped using the word democratic for the Democrats, because they are not. The Democrat Party is what they are.

- we all are what we are! - mot? are you a small cap democrat?
 
 
+14 # economagic 2016-07-14 19:21
Yeah, lately I've taken to referring to the as "the not-so-democrat ic party."
 
 
+9 # RMDC 2016-07-15 06:57
the right name should be "republicrat" party. A friend who is a Green calls the two hegemonic parties "two cheeks of the same ass." That about says it.
 
 
+3 # DaveEwoldt 2016-07-15 21:34
That reminds me of a joke from the Bill Clinton years: Q. What's the difference between Democratic and Republican economic policy?

A. Deciding which of Greenspan's ass cheeks to kiss first.
 
 
+1 # Caliban 2016-07-15 22:37
Say what, # Anonymot? Let's try again.

"The Democratic Party" is the political organization that boasts among its leaders Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Barak H. Obama.

The members of this party call themselves "democrats" (as well they should), and most democrats work to promote social and political programs and policies that support the well-being of the middle and lower classes and non-white as well as white constituents.
 
 
-23 # rocback 2016-07-14 12:08
You are confusing a party particular primary with the general election. The idea of a party in the first place is to nominate (not elect) a viable candidate who's principals and issues are most in line with members OF THAT PARTY not the general electorate.

When you allow non democrat others which can negatively influence the vote to effect that process, you open it up to mischief.

There were numerous examples in states where Trump was going to win anyway of Sanders getting Trump supporters to cross over and vote for Sanders soley to hurt Hillary and drag out the process to divert her attention and resources from Trump.

If you don't like it no one is forcing you to be a member of the party. Join another one if you want.
 
 
+16 # librarian1984 2016-07-14 12:49
blah blah blah
 
 
-12 # Robbee 2016-07-14 14:08
Quoting librarian1984:
blah blah blah

- in crossover states? nothing prevents conservatives? from crossing over? to support bernie? just to hamper lesser progressives they identify as less challenging than hill? - from voting bernie? - s garbage vote? - this is the dilemma of open primaries!!!
 
 
+8 # librarian1984 2016-07-14 15:59
Hi, R!

I know the argument and I believe the strategy has been used. My mother is a canny voter and shifts her party affiliation often, though I don't know how many people there are who would do this.

But there is also an argument to be made for allowing the Independent voters to participate. Being 42% of the electorate now, more than either party, gives us a better understanding and predictor for the general election. Maybe it's a good idea to have some open and some closed, but we should glean the information that situation gives us.

Maybe in other election cycles this policy works, but it was used to turn away many young voters this time around, and I think that was a mistake.

Hope you (and your lawn :-) are well.
 
 
-4 # Mako 2016-07-14 17:56
Quoting librarian1984:
Hi, R!

I know the argument and I believe the strategy has been used. My mother is a canny voter and shifts her party affiliation often, though I don't how many people there are who would do this.

But there is also an argument to be made for allowing the Independent voters to participate. Being 42% of the electorate now, more than either party, gives us a better understanding and predictor for the general election. Maybe it's a good idea to have some open and some closed, but we should glean the information that situation gives us.

Maybe in other election cycles this policy works, but it was used to turn away many young voters this time around, and I think that was a mistake.


Actually you're wrong. The percentage of TRUE independent voters is closer to like 20%.

http://republic3-0.com/myth-independent-voter-stefan-hankin/

Most people who claim they are "independent" are actually not. They just say so because they feel that whichever party that is close to them ideologically.. . Isn't ideological *enough.* True, actual independent voters are a small percentage.

The gallup poll you're most likely referencing doesn't truly break down what it truly means to be "independent" in actual ideology or true centrism. Furthermore, as the CBC explained, doing that would also dilute minority voting strength in MANY districts across the country where their voices hold sway. It's a terrible idea.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-07-15 07:52
I haven't checked your link yet but I will.

If what you say is true, and it sounds plausible, then wouldn't it make sense to welcome those Independents who are 'close' to the Democrats? I think we turned away a lot of enthusiastic young voters who feel disrespected by the party.

I understand the risk of having outsiders manipulate the primary, but I think we might agree the process could be improved?
 
 
+6 # Mako 2016-07-15 10:39
Quoting librarian1984:
I haven't checked your link yet but I will.

If what you say is true, and it sounds plausible, then wouldn't it make sense to welcome those Independents who are 'close' to the Democrats? I think we turned away a lot of enthusiastic young voters who feel disrespected by the party.

I understand the risk of having outsiders manipulate the primary, but I think we might agree the process could be improved?


Well, this is probably the most relevant, nuanced and cogent discussion we've ever had, and I appreciate it.

I definitely DO think the process can be improved. Same day registration should be the standard, for one. I think commitment to the party should be required (to prevent people going to more than one primary and sowing discord), but registration shouldn't be an odious and longwinded process that hampers participation. Also, we need more polling places so a situation like Arizona is never repeated.

Ideally, a constitutional amendment enshrining the right to vote would be ideal, as would fixing the Voting Rights Act the Supreme Court massacred. Those are long term goals that need to be done.
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-07-15 12:20
I appreciate it too. Thanks.

I agree completely that the registration process should be easy and fast, and we need more polling stations. Agree with your other points too.

I think we need to get rid of the black box voting as well. Canada uses paper ballots, right? And they get their results pretty fast.

We have to have honest elections.

We also need to fix the voting rolls and get people back on there. How is it fair that someone gets disenfranchised and they're just supposed to shrug and go home? Oh well, next time?!
 
 
+1 # Hooligan 2016-07-18 02:17
Quoting librarian1984:
I appreciate it too. Thanks.

I agree completely that the registration process should be easy and fast, and we need more polling stations. Agree with your other points too.

I think we need to get rid of the black box voting as well. Canada uses paper ballots, right? And they get their results pretty fast.

We have to have honest elections.

We also need to fix the voting rolls and get people back on there. How is it fair that someone gets disenfranchised and they're just supposed to shrug and go home? Oh well, next time?!

Voting machines are totally corrupt. They can be hacked quite easily. Registration should be automatic as soon as someone turns 18. We need HAND COUNTED PAPER BALLOTS ONLY. The Voting Rights Act should be restored & vigorously enforced. Also Voting should definitely be a Constitutional Right.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-07-18 15:33
Exactly. I find it one of the more disturbing developments of recent years -- that the Dems seem to be adopting GOP tactics of election fraud and voter suppression.

We need to move to paper ballots.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-07-17 09:14
Hey Mako. I finally checked out this link and it was interesting. The work seems plausible, though I think it would be more informative if pollsters asked people to break down their affiliation based on social vs. economic positions. Some respondents (8%) called themselves "confused". Maybe the parties' actions lately leave people wondering if the parties stand for what they used to.

But honestly, when I am called for a poll, I lie up the yazoo, just for fun.

Also, I didn't see how the respondents were polled. If it was a phone poll, that skews toward older folks who have landlines.

Interesting but not necessarily conclusive. Thank you.

I still think we should let Independents into the primaries.

Hope you're well.
 
 
-7 # Robbee 2016-07-14 20:21
Quoting librarian1984:
I know the argument and I believe the strategy has been used. I don't how many people there are who would do this.

But there is also an argument to be made for allowing the Independent voters to participate.

Maybe in other election cycles this policy works, but it was used to turn away many young voters this time around, and I think that was a mistake.

- hi lib! hope you, family, dogs are well!

- i was just disappointed you blew off roc with "blah blah blah" - there is "dilemma" in open primaries - just as in closed

- like you and bernie - i resolve the dilemma in favor of open primaries - yes - it was a mistake to turn away young folks unregistered as dems - but it wasn't like we didn't know the rules - or get out the word to young folks - we did - changing the rules now - as bernie engages the rules committee to do as we speak - only helps future candidates - still a worthy aim

what gripes me here are folks here who call hill's win "fraud" - like they know what the word means - superdelegates are undemocratic! they are not fraud! - closed primaries discourage folks who don't register as dems from voting in dem primaries - meanwhile they encourage folks to register as dems - before this year i never registered as dem or any party - i registered as dem only because i had to in order to vote for bernie - in any event closed primaries are not fraud! - they discourage fraud - there's our dilemma

- go bernie! and go dem!
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-07-14 21:28
I see what you mean. It WAS lazy of me. It just seems he's rehashing the old tropes from past threads. I agree it's a good discussion to have, just not with rocback, who's such a tool :-)

I agree there was nothing to 'do' about the primaries this cycle, but there WAS information to be gained from the open vs. closed primaries that the DNC and MSM ignored.

I think some people perceive your posts as chaotic because of the structure, but I think you choose your words carefully. Not everybody does, but I try to discern the meaning even if they are imprecise. I know I make a lot of mistakes myself.

When we're young we're so certain about everything. Right and wrong, black and white, good and evil .. experience teaches us that very few things are that simple, very few problems easy to resolve.

But then OTHER times we think things are impossible but there is a direct and simple solution, like the Gordian knot!

Aren't you worried about HRC and war, R? About HRC and Wall Street? You seem so sure about what we should do. But there are really smart people here who are diametrically opposed, and I dread having the Clintons back in the White House. Climate change, the disappearing middle class, war .... I don't think HRC will improve any of those desperate situations.

Take care.
 
 
# Guest 2016-07-14 15:39
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
# Guest 2016-07-14 21:31
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-07-14 22:10
Obviously more than you.

You're insulting him even though he's absolutely correct. Kind of like your whole presence here.
 
 
# Guest 2016-07-15 03:36
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+31 # grandlakeguy 2016-07-14 12:14
Yes rocback, it would be a terrible thing if the American people actually had a voice in choosing their candidates!
As long as the DNC can control the process we can sleep at night knowing that we are safe from the ascendancy of grassroots insurgent candidates, with an agenda to improve the lives of people everywhere and protect the environment, who might upset the gravy train of corporate corruption and the military industrial complex!
 
 
-21 # rocback 2016-07-14 13:30
no one is stopping you from joining another party that is more to your liking. Your real problem is there is not enough people that think like you to make a difference (thank God).
 
 
+18 # CL38 2016-07-14 12:53
Take it to CNN, MSNBC....

You haven't convinced anyone here...you, lights, etc.

This IS supposed to be a Democracy, not an oligarchy ruled by 1% Democrats.And THAT's exactly what Bernie and supporters are fighting against.

There are MILLIONS and MILLIONS who 'think' like 'progressives' -- in other words want EQUAL representation from 1% Democrats who rule today.
 
 
+30 # lorenbliss 2016-07-14 11:16
@caphillprof: You are absolutely correct the mass media opposed (and in fact destroyed) Sanders' campaign, but you are absolutely wrong about the reason why. It is not because the mass media is "a partisan, establishment player"; it is because the mass media or so-called "mainstream media" is owned by the same One Percenters who own all USian governments at every level.

USian mass media is therefore quite literally the world's first privately owned, for-profit ministry of propaganda -- the 21st Century, let's privatize-all-g overnment-servi ces version of the agency Josef Goebbels ran for Nazi Germany. Welcome to the Fourth Reich, where the prison bars -- which include total surveillance, total censorship and an ever-escalating campaign of minority extermination -- remain invisible to all but the capitalist regime's targeted victims.
 
 
-36 # rocback 2016-07-14 12:11
Lorenbliss, I guess a communist like you profess to be would rather the "state" have control of the media.
 
 
+20 # nice2bgreat 2016-07-14 12:26
.
Not surprising, rocback: your guesses are as bad as your opinions.

I don't know Lorenbliss at all. But the most basic extrapolation of his past contributions in no way suggests that he would "rather the "state" have control of the media".

Since you are incapable of extrapolating from any point of view, aside from corporatist D-Party dictates and pronouncements, you cannot possibly understand any independent point of view.

And unless you are a total sociopath, nor do you comprehend the consequences of your point of view put to action -- aside from its consistent continuation and perpetuation of corporatism; if you give it any thought at all.
.
 
 
+15 # librarian1984 2016-07-14 12:51
"And unless you are a total sociopath"

Bingo!
 
 
-12 # rocback 2016-07-14 13:37
It's not a guess and Lorenbliss can correct me if I am wrong.I got my information from Lorenblisses own website. He says he is a communist as I recall. That's not my words, they are HIS.

We need only to look at every communist nation and see the "state" controls the media in those nations.

As for claiming I am a "corporatist" I am not sure what you mean, but I make my living suing corporations and govt on behalf of mostly poor and disabled people.

Now if you mean I am a capitalist, I plead guilty. I think a well-regulated capitalist system has it's flaws but is the best system in the world.

It's a hell of a lot better than communism. But everyone has the right to be whatever they want.
 
 
+9 # nice2bgreat 2016-07-14 15:04
.
Maybe it's just that you are plain too stupid to make observable distinctions -- must be some lawyer; the poor truly get what they can't afford.

Two points for you, doctor -- distinctions you've proven incapable of making, despite having them literally spelled out for you -- beginning with the point, which YOU SPELLED OUT YOURSELF.

First, as you wrote:
Quoting rocback:
Lorenbliss, I guess a communist like you profess to be would rather the "state" have control of the media.


Your "guess" is not about Lorenbliss being a communist.

Your "guess", to which I specifically referred AND QUOTED, is that Lorenbliss -- again, QUOTING YOU "would rather the "state" have control of the media."

Are ya daft, man?

Second point: I never referred to you as corporatist.

I wrote -- quoting me: "...you are incapable of extrapolating from any point of view, aside from corporatist D-Party dictates and pronouncements, you cannot possibly understand any independent point of view.

... nor do you comprehend the consequences of your point of view put to action -- aside from its consistent continuation and perpetuation of corporatism."

Meaning -- as is spelled out: The consequences of your point of view and your D-Party apologism put to action is the consistent continuation and perpetuation of corporatism.

Your personal activity, expanded out through others of your ilk and point of view, is the breeding ground for corporatism -- and through time, fascism.
.
 
 
+10 # nice2bgreat 2016-07-14 15:14
.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions; although I doubt yours to be good.
.
 
 
-8 # rocback 2016-07-14 15:30
Lorenbliss admits he is in favor of and is a communist. Communism by definition means everything is owned by the state including the press. Communism means only one party controls everything including the press. There is not a single communist country with a free press.

Facts are stubborn things.
 
 
+10 # nice2bgreat 2016-07-14 16:26
Quoting rocback:
Lorenbliss admits he is in favor of and is a communist. Communism by definition means everything is owned by the state including the press. Communism means only one party controls everything including the press. There is not a single communist country with a free press.

Facts are stubborn things.


Yes, rocback. Check your facts. And more importantly, present them accurately.

Wikipedia -- Communism: "In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal") is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state.

... The primary element which will enable this transformation, according to this analysis, is the social ownership of the means of production."

Wikipedia -- Social Ownership: "... The two major forms of social ownership are society-wide public ownership and cooperative ownership. The distinction between these two forms lies in the distribution of the surplus product. With society-wide public ownership, the surplus is distributed to all members of the public through a social dividend; with co-operative ownership the economic surplus of an enterprise is controlled by all the worker-members of that specific enterprise."
.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-07-15 07:58
But why do you think calling someone a socialist or a communist is an insult?
 
 
-2 # rocback 2016-07-15 16:03
I didn't insult him. I simply said he was a communist. Whether that is an insult or not depends on the perception of the reader. I DO find it interesting that you find it insulting. Telling...

:-)
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-07-15 20:29
I don't think that's true. You make it sound like you state it in a neutral way, 'Loren, your communist views blah blah' and I'm misinterpreting your neutral statement.

But the truth is you pack a lot of sneering into it when you say it, such as 'I guess a communist like you .. '

What is wrong with having different viewpoints represented? Do you think you have nothing to learn from anyone else?

And is capitalism in particular, as much as you love it, really so perfect it has no improvements to make? It may be great for you but a LOT of people are suffering under the current system.

Do you really believe the distribution of wealth is equitable or sustainable?
 
 
+4 # CL38 2016-07-14 23:50
terrific comments nice2bgreat.
 
 
+10 # fuzzbuzz 2016-07-14 12:33
Quoting rocback:
Lorenbliss, I guess a communist like you profess to be would rather the "state" have control of the media.


If the state actually does the bidding of the population, then absolutely, why not? That's precisely what we want.
 
 
-10 # rocback 2016-07-14 13:39
and just how does a state do the bidding of an entire population unless they engage in group think and everyone thinks exactly alike?
 
 
+11 # CL38 2016-07-14 14:30
says one who's constantly engaged in promoting 'group think'.
 
 
+10 # CL38 2016-07-14 14:35
slander, bullying, name-calling but NEVER FACTS, TRUTH or respect for other's views.

pathetic.
 
 
-10 # rocback 2016-07-14 15:35
It is not slander to merely repeat his own words. It is a fact the HE posts on his own website. On the other hand his posts are FULL of slandering a good and decent public servant like Hillary.

As for bullying, it is rampant on this site by the Hillary haters. In fact that's why i stick around. A group here slanders and lies about Hillary and then attacks anyone who dares to defend her with facts.
 
 
+9 # lorenbliss 2016-07-14 17:43
Rocback denounces my website, but to support his McCarthyite hatefulness, he cravenly neglects to provide a link.

Here it is, so RSN readers can view it for themselves: published by TypePad since 2009, it is called "Outside Agitator's Notebook." Beginning last year, it is subtitled "Dispatches from Dystopia," which my younger readers urge me to make its primary name. The URL is

http://lorenbliss.typepad.com/

Immediate visitors will note I have not updated OAN since 31 May -- by far the longest hiatus in its seven-year history, a reflection of how devastated my life has been by ongoing crises.

Their source was the infuriatingly stressful temporary eviction imposed on the residents of the senior housing complex in which I live. (Such evictions, which a Tacoma city official tells me are illegal in every other state, are allowed by Washington's savagely anti-tenant, pro-landlord real estate laws, which enable landlords to renovate their properties without any loss of rental profit -- never mind the ruinous physical, emotional and financial impact on tenants.)

Then as a direct result of all this stress, I was laid low by the onset of congestive heart failure.

The eviction -- which because of the landlord's requirements was infinitely more disruptive than moving -- is behind me, and my heart condition is now said to be stable. Hence I will be updating OAN very soon.

Meanwhile, rocback -- a coward hiding behind anonymity -- spews his McCarthyite venom...
 
 
+8 # economagic 2016-07-14 19:56
He is also an ignorant crackpot, and I wish people would stop allowing him to distract us all from what are sometimes serious conversations about significant issues. For several months I routinely posted the admonition, "Please don't feed the trolls; it only encourages them," but to no avail.

I'm glad to hear your life is settling down at least a little, and I've bookmarked your web site -- thanks.
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-07-15 00:02
rockback, you, often lights, and others are the ones who bully & hate. Bernie supporters refuse to let you to get away with this. We challenge the personal opinions you post as facts and truth. I doubt you've actually researched Clinton's stands on the issues, behavior or votes. Most of the time you post what she SAYS she does, rather than what she actually did! When you collude in that, don't you think maybe that makes you her dupe??

BTW, YOU slander others on this site most of the time.
 
 
-2 # rocback 2016-07-15 16:17
I don't need to research what I have lived through for her entire career starting when she and I graduated from law school the same year and she was on law review at Yale.

I followed her career when she started out as a staff atty for the Childrens Defense Fund and then as a staff atty on the House Judiciary Committee for the Nixon Watergate committee.

I have followed and admired her ever since. She could have made a lot of money in the corporate law field and had tons of offers but has dedicated her life to helping the poor, disabled, disenfranchised , women and children. We are so lucky to have her as our next President.

It's time for that. We, men, have screwed things up for too long. She will not only be a better president than Bill who was the best president in the last 50 years but she is morally superior to him as well.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-07-15 08:03
Quoting rocback:
and just how does a state do the bidding of an entire population unless they engage in group think and everyone thinks exactly alike?

You have such an impoverished world view.

People don't need to all think the same in order to reach consensus or compromise, to share goals, to work together. Indeed, one of the very best things about America is the wealth of differences we bring together.
 
 
# Guest 2016-07-14 14:33
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+8 # Radscal 2016-07-14 15:31
The ultimate goal of Marxist communism is a stateless and purely democratic society.
 
 
+37 # Anonymot 2016-07-14 09:15
Sorry, Scott, but the presidency of Hillary Clinton would leave nothing for Progressives or anyone else to work with. In my humble opinion, our good Senator has been mislead, like millions of Democrats, into believing that she has changed anything but her lip movements.

If you read today's NYT there's already more mumbling about our evil adversary Iran (and the NYT says what she tells them to say.) Kerry may have hopes of agreeing with Putin on eliminating ISIS and al Qaida, but not our friendly terrorists, and the rumble continues about the Ukraine.

What is nasty about Trump is domestic regression, racism, abortions, minority rights, simple stupidity.

What's nasty about Hillary and her handlers is the end of the world. We've lived before with the former. We'll survive 4 years of it. I do not think either America or the world will survive 4 more years of DeepState/Clint on trade wars or international wars.

The Clintons and their controllers offer us much deeper threats than the Republican renegade.

I do not believe that Sanders will change the Democrat's establishment. He should have joined Stein. I'm still with him, also, but not to the point of destroying what's left of America. In FOUR years as Secretary of State she and her people eviscerated the entire Middle East (what was left post-Bush) and the Ukraine and what the EU left of Europe.

Imagine the level of harm they would do in four years of controlling the United States of America.
 
 
+54 # Scott Galindez 2016-07-14 09:26
Imagine where we would be without the movement we have built in the last year...The movement needs to continue.
 
 
+26 # Observer 47 2016-07-14 10:32
And where are we, Scott? Bernie has no lasting, binding power over Hillary. She'll say anything to get his delegates and his endorsement, but once she's elected, she can do anything she wants to. At that point, only Congress can---minimally ---hold her feet to the fire. And unless Congress magically becomes overwhelmingly Progressive in the next two election cycles, all the lip service Hillary paid to Progressive platform planks will be conveniently forgotten. Obama ditched single-payer, among other promises, and no one has been able to resurrect it. GWB got us into two wars, despite tens of thousands of protesters and disapproval from many quarters. Who's naive enough to think that Hillary will actually alter any of her 1%, war-mongering, right-of-center policies?
 
 
+10 # CL38 2016-07-14 12:58
which is why I wish Bernie had taken a stronger stance and would call out her corruption and that of the DNC for rigging the election and stealing/obstru cting votes across many states:

Racketeering Lawsuit Exposing Nationwide Vote Rigging in DNC Primaries Could Derail Clinton

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/election-fraud-rico-lawsuit-alleging-widespread-e-vote-rigging-dnc-primaries-derail-clinton-nomination/#J11uKYCgrBbAdGCG.99
 
 
+14 # DaveEwoldt 2016-07-14 14:04
Observer, I think we all agree that Hillary can't be counted on to do anything other than protect and enable the status quo, but barring a Bernie miracle of some type that we all keep hoping for, it's time to forget about Hillary and shift the movement electoral energy toward the progressive candidates still in the race.

At the national level, that means Jill Stein, and downballot, other Greens and progressive Dems. As the Sander's campaign showed, we are actually the majority.

Are you ready to act like it?
 
 
0 # Hooligan 2016-07-18 02:25
Quoting Observer 47:
And where are we, Scott? Bernie has no lasting, binding power over Hillary. She'll say anything to get his delegates and his endorsement, but once she's elected, she can do anything she wants to. At that point, only Congress can---minimally---hold her feet to the fire. And unless Congress magically becomes overwhelmingly Progressive in the next two election cycles, all the lip service Hillary paid to Progressive platform planks will be conveniently forgotten. Obama ditched single-payer, among other promises, and no one has been able to resurrect it. GWB got us into two wars, despite tens of thousands of protesters and disapproval from many quarters. Who's naive enough to think that Hillary will actually alter any of her 1%, war-mongering, right-of-center policies?

Bernie WILL have influence over what Hilary is able to do as long as we have his back & continue building a true Progressive Movement & don't simply go home after the election is over.
 
 
+14 # lark3650 2016-07-14 12:14
I totally agree, Scott!! True supporters of Bernie Sanders see the glass half full and not half empty.
What's that old saying: "How do you eat an elephant? Ans. One bite at a time."
Looking at Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump...the only way to go is up and support the revolution.
 
 
+5 # CL38 2016-07-15 00:12
people need time to be upset, angry and grieve. that's the natural process so let's stop pushing everyone to pretend like this doesn't hurt. many worked damn hard to elect him. THAT doesn't heal on a enforced schedule. People can continue to work to elect progressives and stay involved in other ways, but everyone who cares has the right to express their anger and grief.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-07-15 06:11
You are very wise.

And doesn't it seem like the trolls lay it on thick when we're most vulnerable? It is the most astonishing tin-eared tactic. Why would anybody do such a thing? Is it just out and out cruelty?

You've got to see the youtube video Radscal posted (sorry I don't remember which thread). It's at the 'Unity' conference on Tuesday in NH. It shows an HRC goon taking this petite woman's Bernie sign that she dared to lift as he was speaking! I am pretty sure the thug was rocback. He had that air of belligerent aggression we've come to know.

And if you watch Senator Sanders as he's endorsing Her Worshipfulness you can see he's blinking in Morse code: 'Help me. They've got Jane. Help me.' over and over.

Hillary has actually become part of the vast right wing conspiracy!

Gawd I wish Shakespeare was still around. He could write a quartet about the Clintons! Tom Stoppard maybe?
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-07-15 18:14
Morse code! LOL. Like other prisoners of war being tortured.

I see that HRC and Drumpf are now tied in some polls and he's actually ahead in some! I figure that's why the Corrupt the Record trolls are still hard at work.

I also note that Drumpf has been going out of his way to scare possible Democratic voters the last day or two. He's doing his part, but still can't seem to lose to HRC.

Here's that amazing video you mentioned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8svTegZe9UI
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-07-15 20:51
Hi, Radscal. Hi, CL38.

Have you seen Mako's posts? S/He raises some good points.

Radscal I am leaning toward the Greens, especially if we can coordinate a large movement in that direction. But Mako reminds us that if Trump is elected it legitimizes the racists who support him and that while it's easy for us white liberals to say 'damn the consequences', others will pay a much higher price than we will. We say HRC is worse for the world but Trump is a disaster here, so how do we contain either one of them?

I think we have to figure that into our thinking: each candidate's goals, their chances of accomplishing those goals and the odds of containing them.

They are both absolutely unfit for the office.

What a damn clusterf^ck.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-07-16 01:39
Yes, I’ve been reading and trying to communicate with Mako. Like most Hil-bots, she/he has been unwilling to learn or admit the facts about HRC (and the Dems more generally). And I’ve never seen a brand new RSN commenter come on so militantly and so prolifically, right off the blocks. This person almost assuredly did not just stumble onto us. What do you think?

But, I was impressed that you were able to get him/her to communicate more civilly.

To answer your question, first let me remind you that I’m one of the RSNers who thinks it likely that Drumpf is a set-up to scare us into voting for HRC. But, either way, his presentation is clearly further stirring up the racism, misogyny and xenophobia that is always at least simmering on the back burner of the USian zeitgeist.

Assuming he is for real, I don’t think he’d be able to do much of what he says that is so frightening to most of us. Most everyone in Congress would prevent most of it.

But, having an openly racist president would legitimize racism (again), and could embolden some people to act on their racism even more than they presently do.

And, if HRC so demoralizes progressives and younger voters that they don’t bother to vote at all, then the domestic social polices he promotes that are favored by Republican Congress Critters could pass.

cont.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-07-16 10:52
Quoting Radscal:
I’ve never seen a brand new RSN commenter come on so militantly and so prolifically, right off the blocks. This person almost assuredly did not just stumble onto us. What do you think?
It was a remarkable introduction, as you say, quite prolific!

At first I assumed a paid troll, but who knows who any of us are? I would have thought Barbara K was a troll but she's not. And I think rocback must be but who'd be stupid enough to pay him for such shoddy work :-)
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-07-16 01:41
So the key is to keep people motivated to vote for the most progressive candidates down ticket. And HRC isn’t doing that, and isn't likely to.

If we can keep people “feeling the Bern” by shifting that energy to the good Dr. Stein, so that they will vote, we could turn the tide on the Republican takeover of Congress that began in 2010.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-07-16 09:17
I agree that Trump was probably a plant -- and more successful than they even hoped for. I also think there's a chance he's changed his mind and really wants it now, so it may not be such a cakewalk as the DNC had planned.

We need to think about both these candidates. What do we do to protect people while they're in office? They pose different challenges but both need to be contained. I agree with your longterm plans, but how do we keep people safe day-to-day?

With Trump, whether he's elected or not, we find that unapologetic racists are even more rampant than we thought. I don't think all Trump supporters are racist but maybe even most are, and now they feel empowered.

I agree we must vote for, support and run progressives, but until they have meaningful power we have to prevent more violence and pain.

re Mako That was a shock-and-awe first day :-D. I started writing a taunting post but realized I have been guilty of the same exact thing, so it was easier to be less confrontational . We've had some decent conversations and I like him/her. Brings up many good points I hadn't thought of and demands evidence, which is good. It makes us lazy dealing with empty insults from the likes of rocback and rain. I hope we'll learn from each other.

I still feel the bern, and I feel sorry for Bernie, being shuffled around on the humiliation tour like a smaller, nicer Chris Christie ;-)

Kindest regards.
 
 
+32 # jdd 2016-07-14 09:30
You are on target. The threat incurable warmonger Hillary Clinton in control of this nation's military can not be overestimated. She has proven over and over to have zero respect for international law and national sovereignty. The focus on Trump, Trump, Trump is giving her a free ride, allowing her never the need to repudiate her commitment to Wall Street or to the neo-con agenda of confrontation with Russia and China, as the economy flounders, Wall Street becomes more bloated, and peace overtures are ignored.
 
 
+15 # lorenbliss 2016-07-14 12:07
@Anonymot, Observer 47 and jdd: There is no doubt Hillary intends to attack Russia, and the Russian General Staff is making plans accordingly.

This will not be like 22 June 1941. Then, Soviet intelligence knew the German attack was coming but had been intimidated to silence by Stalin's reign of terror. Its operatives were thus unable to alert the Red Army.

But today's Russian military is in full readiness -- and Russian history proves the nation cannot be conquered. As a 2500-year succession of would-be conquerors have learned, to invade Rodina, the Motherland, is to fight nearly every one of its women, men and children, for an example of which Google Zina Portnova.

Hillary meanwhile remains blinded to this history by her Goldwater Girl belief in USian military superiority and her imperialist belief might makes right. And when Russian resistance defeats or at least halts the initial USian attack, there is no doubt she will resort to thermonuclear weapons -- thereby beginning the escalation that will exterminate all sentient life on this planet.

Indeed, given Hillary's most critical problems -- incipient revolution at home and imperial collapse abroad -- from her morally imbecilic perspective she has every reason to start World War III. It will facilitate the arrest of all her opponents and fulfill the apocalyptic, final-days yearnings of her fanatically Christian supporters -- yearnings originally expressed in the 1950s slogan "better dead than Red."
 
 
+11 # fuzzbuzz 2016-07-14 12:42
Maybe she intends to attack Russia, maybe not. And if/when she does, she really doesn't care who "wins". Win or lose, war is profitable, and that's the only thing that matters.

Keeps the weapon sales, commissions, Draconian laws, etc. going. Who cares who wins or loses, as long as the tanks and planes are being sold and the lobbyist and CEOs are getting their paychecks?

It might be Russia, or Iran, or a few more countries in Africa or the Middle East. Even without an attack on Russia - simply MAINTAINING the status quo is sufficiently destructive.

We don't actually need to floor the gas pedal to fly off the cliff - simply continuing as we are will do it, and HRC is the quintessential status-quo nominee.
 
 
-9 # rocback 2016-07-14 20:48
If anyone ever had any doubt about how far out you are lorenbliss they only have to read just that one sentence from you:

"There is no doubt Hillary intends to attack Russia".

I can only assume you mean when she and Bill are playing the game "risk".
 
 
+2 # CL38 2016-07-15 00:14
I 'doubt' few care what you think here. You consistently reveal disdain and disrespect for progressives. What's to care about that?
 
 
+2 # lorenbliss 2016-07-15 00:55
FYI: "Putin: US/NATO is irreversibly pushing the world toward nuclear war" -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PgSX-WD96Q
 
 
-2 # rocback 2016-07-15 16:20
You are the perfect mouthpiece for Putin.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-07-15 18:19
Isn't it a sad state of affairs when the former KGB Colonel is the great statesman of our day, while our President is a snake oil salesman?

Putin saved Russia from the vultures that Friedman brought in and Yeltsin sold out to. I find much about him quite distasteful, but he's saved us from a major war at least twice in the past few years (Syria and Ukraine), and he's far more accurate in his description of world affairs.

Last week, Obama said to all the NATO leaders that Russia was one of the top three threats to the world.

Then, every national leader except Estonia's got up and said, "NO!" Russia is NOT a threat. Stop fomenting war!
 
 
-2 # librarian1984 2016-07-15 20:55
That can't be .. I haven't seen it on the MSM at all!
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-07-16 01:46
Shocking! ;-)
 
 
# Guest 2016-07-15 23:55
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
0 # Caliban 2016-07-15 23:34
Lorenbliss -- Why must Hillary antagonists indulge in the such bizarre fantasies to try to grapple with the fact of a Clinton candidacy in November?

Frankly, if the above is how the majority of voters view Clinton in November, neither lorenbliss nor anyone else will have to worry themselves silly about a Clinton Presidency, for she will lose the election in a Trump landslide.

But most voters will in fact see her as she is -- a tough but fair-minded legislator and leader with a remarkable range of high level experience at home and abroad.

And her supposed "fanatically Christian supporters"? I have been watching both Clintons for 20 years, and this is the first I've heard of such folks. From what I have read, Clinton is a believing Methodist, and her general humanity and concern for others express a richly spiritual approach to life and people.

But I have rarely heard her bring the Bible or explicitly theological material into her expression of her political views. To me such reticence seems perfectly proper.
 
 
0 # lights 2016-07-14 10:30
Seriously. Anonymot

You think Bernie Sanders was mislead after gaining the wisdom of his age and working IN THE SYSTEM for over 25 years? You don't think he knows what he is doing? You don't think after all this he doesn't see that the only possibility AT THIS TIME for progress is to work within the Democratic Party for short and long term results?

Call it psychobabble if you want but it is so irrational that it has to be something else, something very personal driving you.

I'd like to see a serious study and documentary made about where in the hell so many of you here are coming from? Can't even call you Bernie supporters any more.

What experiences did you have to bring you to this place of near complete delusion?

What is your overall status in society that is so awful that others have not also had to endure and transcend?

What has caused you to be such faithless, blinded cynics?

What possible grudges do you have that you don't seem to think others have experienced and knew they had to rise above and MOVE ON?

What personal fears cause you to be so locked in to your belief's - so close minded?

What is so terribly difficult for you to understand that progress is key and perfection is unattainable. That one only strives for ideals.

What is it that makes you think others don't want much of what you want in government and society but somehow you think that you are the only ones who have all the answers?

Who are you people?
 
 
-10 # Mako 2016-07-14 10:49
I don't know who they are either, but they've completely inoculated themselves against facts, reason and basic common sense.

"Irrational" is beyond an understatement at this point. They'd rather believe Trump is somehow less dangerous for the world than to admit that for all the flaws and crap Hillary has, at least she's not a warmongering Republican that has stated unequivocally he'd bomb Iraq, put boots on the ground in Iraq, and would kill children belonging to suspected terrorists because "something something we gotta be tough!"

It's sick over here. This place has lost its mind.
 
 
+6 # CL38 2016-07-14 13:02
always the same propaganda.
 
 
-5 # Aurelia 2016-07-14 14:10
lights These people who say they will never vote for Hillary are traitors to Bernie who worked long and hard to move the Democratic platform as far right as it can be made and still win the election. The Bernie traitors would leave a scorched earth rather than make even a slight concession. Doesn't that sound exactly what the obstructionist in the House and Senate have been doing for 8 years? They openly said their goal was to "make Obama fail". In so doing they threw America and Americans under the bus - all to make this 8 yrs look as bad as possible to try to get back into the White House. This group of blinded Bernie traitors are making it oh so easy for the GOP to accomplish their ultimate goal to make sure the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer.
 
 
-5 # lights 2016-07-14 16:52
Absolutely, Aurelia! Very similar... and it is a relief to know that 80% plus Bernie supporters GET IT, have turned their attention to getting Hillary elected and in doing so also supporting his direction in a meaningful way!
 
 
+8 # Majikman 2016-07-14 18:36
Poor Aurelia calls us "blinded Bernie traitors". Oh, the shame! the horror! for not following Bernie in lockstep, unquestioning obedience like the good little $hillbots. What's a poor progressive to do? We "could" support $hiilree, but then we'd be in the company of Buttcrack, lights out, the shark and the other low information lovelies whose favorite mode of travel is with both nostrils firmly attached to the mother ship of the Goldwater Girl's back side, lest they forget their mantra.
What I find mind boggling is their pitiful claim that the failure of the Goldwater Girl to win the presidency would be the sole fault of us renegade Berners. Brings a tear to the eye.
 
 
+1 # CL38 2016-07-15 00:18
traitors?? Bernie', and supporters, are the true patriots. Voting for Clinton is something Bernie chooses to do. I respect that. But Sander's supporters are independents, not sheep or cattle. He understands that.

We all make our own choice.

Trashing Sanders' supporters? You'll never 'persuade' people to vote for Clinton. Give it a rest.
 
 
+2 # AshamedAmerican 2016-07-16 13:46
I'd like to see that documentary too. And more importantly, and unlikely, I would like to see it on the MSM, so that the entire population might run across information normally obscured. And being seen on the MSM, those that retain their conditioning to America being exceptional world police delivering democracy and freedom and all the other traditional lies, would perceive it as legitimate information that people who are "coming from" where we are would be providing them.

Our "experiences" include going out of our way to learn truths unavailable in the MSM.

Our "status"es vary greatly, and are not relevant.

Having sought the truth and found much more of it that the average American, and HRC trolls, many of us have removed the blinders, and know better than to have "faith" that someone with a destructive record is going to reverse here ambitions.

"Grudges" are not relevant.

Unlike so much of the population, we awoke and have tried to reeducate ourselves.

We understand that the status quo is not about progress for the 99%. We can see by her record, that HRC does not strive for anything we would consider beneficial.

We do want what others do. We also know that the powers that be are not providing answers.

We are The People who protest our government for all the damage it is causing, who seek answers and representatives who will implement them, and who wish to disempower crooked politicians who are destructive, like your employer, HRC.
 
 
-6 # Mako 2016-07-14 10:47
It must be hard living in a world so bleak.

And you're clearly not even factual. You seemingly WANT to give a free pass to Trump and Republicans when he has said NUMEROUS TIMES he would re-negotiate the landmark nuclear deal with Iran and if they didn't go with it, he'd go to war with them. The man said he'd put boots on the ground in Iraq to fight ISIS, would bomb Iraq to fight ISIS, and would be willing to target and kill the RELATIVES of terrorists as a means to show he's "tough."

What world do you LIVE in? You'd rather let your hate boner for Hillary fly on high than look at what Trump has said consistently because you believe somehow Democratic Presidents are the party of endless war. Okay.
 
 
+17 # Anonymot 2016-07-14 12:26
You must live in an isolation box. Hillary's newspaper, the NYT, has an article today saying that despite the nuclear agreement with Iran, the possibilities of conflict remain.

Those of you enamored by the hillbillies fail to look behind the curtains to see who's really running her. It's a combination of the security/intell igence forces and the MIC.

Essentially, since Bill was a compliant past-President, they became a gear in the Deep State machine. You may refer to it as the Establishment, but it's much more sinister than that.

I do not want the CIA in my living room. I saw what that means when I traveled in communist Eastern European countries. You don't even see where you're being led. Neither did most Germans in the Thirties.
 
 
-4 # Mako 2016-07-14 14:49
Quoting Anonymot:
You must live in an isolation box. Hillary's newspaper, the NYT, has an article today saying that despite the nuclear agreement with Iran, the possibilities of conflict remain.

Those of you enamored by the hillbillies fail to look behind the curtains to see who's really running her. It's a combination of the security/intelligence forces and the MIC.

Essentially, since Bill was a compliant past-President, they became a gear in the Deep State machine. You may refer to it as the Establishment, but it's much more sinister than that.

I do not want the CIA in my living room. I saw what that means when I traveled in communist Eastern European countries. You don't even see where you're being led. Neither did most Germans in the Thirties.


What's the article? And yes, conflict always has the POSSIBILITY of happening. If Iran backs out of the treaty, or does something to aggressively destabilize the region, yes. But how does that equal her wanting to go to war with Iran? Explain that one.

And again, show me the proof of these men in black that are REALLY behind the scenes. I want to know. I really wanna know what you're referring to, and how this somehow DOESN'T happen with President Trump.
 
 
-8 # lights 2016-07-14 16:54
you might not have to worry about the CIA in your living room. TRUMP might have you deported or shoved across the border with a gun at your head and for any reason HE decides.
 
 
+9 # Radscal 2016-07-14 15:51
When HRC says she will "obliterate" Iran when SHE and Netanyahu decide they "broke" the deal, I actually believe her.

Especially when her team actually got that put into the Party Platform, I think we can assume she intends to follow through on what she's been threatening for many years.

I don't trust Drumpf, and no one knows what he'd really try to do, but I won't fall for the DNC plan from February, 2015. He's a Reality TV Star playing a role.
 
 
+9 # Majikman 2016-07-14 16:47
Indeed, Radscal. HRC's plan to "bring the US and Israel to the next level" (paraphrasing her words) is the most frightening promise she's made yet. Two dangerous psychopaths in cahoots does not make for a safe, peaceful world. Idiot Trump is far less threatening and if I were to vote for the LOTE, I'd vote for the asshole. Fortunately, I'll vote for a progressive--Ji ll Stein
 
 
+11 # economagic 2016-07-14 20:25
"It must be hard living in a world so bleak.

And you're clearly not even factual."

Funny, I was about to say essentially the same thing about you.

"look at what Trump has said"

We look at what Clinton has DONE.

But that is not the point, and you do yourself and us a disservice by failing to recognize and understand reasoned argument and confusing them with hatred. Very few people here hate Clinton, and NOBODY here thinks T-Rump would be anything but a disaster as president. Our disagreement with you is that you seem to think Clinton would be a relatively GOOD president. She has a long record in politics and in public life in general, and in that time she has often made common cause with the worst of the neocons (W's handlers).

It is absolutely untrue that there is no difference between Clinton and Trump, but it is equally untrue to insist that a Clinton presidency would definitely not have grave consequences for the US. I am less concerned about a war with Russia (which cannot be ruled out on a reasonable reading of her history) than with her nebulous and contradictory statements on threats that are very real and absolutely certain, such as global warming and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Fair warning: If you tell me that either of those is a hoax, or nothing to worry about, I will write you off as an ignorant crackpot, as I have my hands full with those serious matters.
 
 
0 # AshamedAmerican 2016-07-16 13:55
There is no reason to think HRC is less likely to start a war on Iran.

Obama is bombing Iraq and now has some boots on the ground there, allegedly to fight ISIS. Obama targets and kills alleged terrorists, and then targets and kills first-responder s who are often relatives. Do you think that HRC would not be doing the same, if not worse?

They are both parties for endless war.
 
 
-2 # tedrey 2016-07-14 12:08
I've often agreed with you in the past, Anonymot, but now I wonder WHY do you try to stop Sanders from a floor fight at the convention on opening up the political process? From working to get progressives elected down-ballot to Congressional and Senate and state offices? From continuing working for his (our) total goals through new organizations? Surely all this will help the progressive AND the Green cause. Sorry, but it's no wonder many of us are wondering WHY you're giving up all the gains we've logged up with Bernie, even who you're really backing. Think about it.
 
 
0 # economagic 2016-07-14 20:27
Boy, the trolls are out in farce tonight.
 
 
+4 # tedrey 2016-07-15 05:33
First time I've ever been called a troll.
 
 
+5 # lfeuille 2016-07-14 20:43
It's not a matter of stopping him. It's that he would have been more effective doing all that if he hadn't endorsed her. An undefined public option was not worth damaging his credibility with progressives and his reasons for endorsing her are just not very convincing. And without TPP the platform, even if it were binding, could be overthrown by foreign corporations. He didn't get nearly enough for his endorsement.
 
 
+6 # CL38 2016-07-14 12:56
Racketeering Lawsuit Exposing Nationwide Vote Rigging in DNC Primaries Could Derail Clinton

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/election-fraud-rico-lawsuit-alleging-widespread-e-vote-rigging-dnc-primaries-derail-clinton-nomination/#J11uKYCgrBbAdGCG.99
 
 
+3 # lorenbliss 2016-07-14 23:46
This may be extremely important. Here's a link to the organization filing suit and an updated report: http://trustvote.org/
 
 
+5 # hipocampelo 2016-07-14 14:55
The Clintons and their controllers offer us much deeper threats than the Republican renegade.
Anonymot: I fully agree with your opinion.
Another 8 years of "same old", and that's
all she wrote for the US of A.
 
 
+11 # jdd 2016-07-14 09:20
"It is not about the nomination, it never really was." Is that so? Please, Scott. tell the millions of activists, young and old, including yours truly, who worked their butts off to prevent this presidency from coming down to Trump or Hillary. You should be ashamed.
 
 
+16 # Scott Galindez 2016-07-14 09:24
Bernie was telling you that from the beginning...
 
 
+8 # jdd 2016-07-14 09:53
Not in my recollection, certainly not when he truthfully stated that she is "unqualified to be president."
 
 
-19 # lights 2016-07-14 10:36
I agree. It was not a good move to say that about Hillary Rodham Clinton when it is UNTRUE and would come back to bite him in the.... HE KNOWS it is untrue. He worked with her for years knowing otherwise but it got people riled up!

NOW that part is history - over. Let's not stay stuck like so many of you think is the problem with this country. It was POLITICS as usual! Now we MUST move on and defeat TRUMP! And the idea that you and the like don't have that as a clear understanding is more frightening than any other development.
 
 
+6 # Ken Halt 2016-07-14 16:40
Sorry, lights, but your program is not the same as my program. I don't feel that the primary challenge for US democracy is to defeat TRUMP! To me the primary challenge is to defeat the deep state oligarchy, the status quo. You candidate, HRC, is an agent of the deep state oligarchy. You come on this thread and insult us with claims of misogyny, mendacity, and venality, and then expect us to flip and vote for your disaster of a candidate? Ain't happenin'!
 
 
-5 # lights 2016-07-14 16:58
What is your plan? How exactly do you see your plan happening and in what time frame?

P.S. I'll add "controlling."
 
 
+1 # CL38 2016-07-15 00:27
His 'plan' (as though this race is all up to progressives) is really none of your business. My guess is you're all about asking leading questions to lure others into revealing what they think to give you the opportunity to trash and criticize.

Yep, IMO you're very controlling, too.
 
 
+3 # Ken Halt 2016-07-15 02:43
I'm going to support Bernie, as I have for the past 20 years, one of the few politicians with integrity, compassion, and a clear vision to improve the US for the 99%. Support for Bernie does not include voting for HRC, in spite of all the vitriol and bullying from the ignorant Hillbots who have invaded this site since the primaries began.
 
 
+5 # DaveEwoldt 2016-07-14 14:32
I disagree Scott, but from a slightly different perspective. Bernie said from the beginning he would back the nominee, but at heart the campaign was about the nomination--oth erwise the campaign would be an empty, issue oriented campaign like U.S. Greens tend to run. (Been there, done that.)

You can't build a movement without a goal. Opening up the national conversation and putting progressive values back front and center were grounded in the campaign for the nomination.

I think the smartest thing to do would be to take that momentum into the progressive races that remain--Jill Stein and down ballot progressives.

Keep building and let the world know how many of us there are. No more lessor of two evils.
 
 
+32 # LionMousePudding 2016-07-14 10:02
You want it to end now? Progressives lost; let's go home with our tails between our legs? NO! Bernie says we won and I agree. Look at the discourse he created!! Look at the changes he made! Do you really want to throw it all away because ONE very high goal was not achieved? Were you just working to elect a personality? When Bernie started running no one thought he had a chance. He was foiled by the dishonest tactics of the Democratic-Repu blican corporate machine. THIS TIME.

Bernie always said it was not about him; it was about a revolution. So the bourgeoisie won the first battle. We serfs are awake, angry, and ready. Don't giveup. FEEL THE BERN!
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-07-14 15:57
Yes. We must carry on.

Yes, the Democratic-Repu blican corporate machine undermined and stole the nomination.

So, we must carry that BERNing feeling to the Green Party, where our values are shared, and not ridiculed and undermined.
 
 
+31 # jimmyjames 2016-07-14 09:21
I am sure that Bernie knows more about politics than I or most readers do on RSN. The man has spent most of his adult life in politics supporting progressive values. I hope, against hope, that his strategy of endorsing Hillary Clinton will truly change the Democratic Party. I am not convinced from what I know about Clinton, and what Democrats in general have become, but I have to assume that he knows more than I. That said, I do not know if I will be able to vote for Hillary Clinton. Just the thought of that makes me want to throw up.
 
 
-8 # lights 2016-07-14 10:38
PROGRESS - NOT PERFECTION is the message of the DAY and this time in history!
 
 
+4 # CL38 2016-07-14 13:32
this makes me want to gag. pretending to actually be part of the progressive movement now? think this strategy may work better than constant attacks on Bernie supporters' integrity? guess again! nothing you say will change anyone's mind on this site.

your goal is to harass and irritate? one of Hillary's $1 Million Club to Harass-Bernie's team?
 
 
+6 # Ken Halt 2016-07-14 16:32
CL38: I second that emotion! The Hiillbots are tiresome, repetitive, idiotic, and irritating!
 
 
-10 # lights 2016-07-14 17:02
Well many here already know that you two are a part of the "problem," and surely not the solution.

I've never heard either of you come up with a vision as to what your plan would be, how it could happen and in what time period? Jill Stein? You know she is not going to win. Then what? 8 more years? 16? HOW!? By when?

"Tiresome, repetitive, idiotic and irritating? Both of you projecting. Seriously.
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-07-14 23:41
No originality, just copy what other's say about your words. There's no point in discussions with you, crock, etc. As I said, you're here likely on HC's behalf to bully, harass and irritate Sander's supporters. Why would anyone want to subject themselves to that??

Get lost.
 
 
0 # Ken Halt 2016-07-15 02:45
I second that comment also and let me add: Get lost!
 
 
+1 # economagic 2016-07-14 20:31
Then by all means get it out of your system and recognize that the next 4 years are going to have a major component of evil regardless of who you vote for, and plan accordingly.
 
 
+19 # nice2bgreat 2016-07-14 09:42
.
I don't agree that the timing of Bernie Sanders' endorsement of Hillary Clinton is a mistake.

However, concessions from Hillary Clinton are entirely inadequate and they reveal her intentions on TPP and other trade agreements.

It is not, when Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton, but why, that implies timidity and impotence; such weakness vindicates the far left's criticism that progressive candidates within the Democratic Party only act to herd progressive voters into the D-Party -- where they are marginalized, ignored, or berated for not going along and playing along.

It's too bad that the far left (until it was too late) viewed Bernie Sanders (solicited) pledge -- to support the eventual D-Party nominee for President -- rather than as a challenge (to not let it happen by not putting Sanders in that position), but as an indication that Sanders was merely playing the role of bringing progressives into the Democratic Party (away from their 3rd-Party kinship) doing the bidding of corporatist and establishment Democrats.

Now is the time that Bernie-Sanders supporters will be separated from Bernie Sanders' supporters.

The best lesson for the Democratic Party will be for Hillary Clinton to lose, preferably badly.

Otherwise it is politics as usual -- with the argument still in play, that a true leftist cannot win a General Election.

Worse than Donald Trump as President is the corporatist D-Party establishment political strategy to be vindicated, again.
.
 
 
-10 # lights 2016-07-14 10:39
Oh, ye of little faith spreading your highly limited message of cynicism at the risk of so many!

We MUST DUMP TRUMP!
 
 
+6 # CL38 2016-07-14 13:35
Hillary's cheerleader does his/her daily routine.
 
 
-9 # ojg 2016-07-14 14:51
Trumps's little lackey does his/her daily routine, ch8.
 
 
+1 # CL38 2016-07-15 00:30
I've never been a trump supporter. think that if you say this to try to discredit someone's opinionn, that will make it true?? you perform magic, too?
 
 
+9 # DaveEwoldt 2016-07-14 14:39
Trouble is, lights, is that's all you've got. Dump Trump. That's got to be the worst rallying cry for a candidate ever. I can't imagine it motivating any but the most fearful.

Is that really what you want, a president supported mainly by paranoids?
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-07-15 00:32
yep, my bet? Hillary has proved that she will do 'whatever it takes', including using the fear card to get votes.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-07-15 08:11
Woman card, fear card, war card, tears card .. the whole deck is in play.
 
 
-12 # Mako 2016-07-14 10:53
Only in your delusional and bitter primary based mindset is she worst than Donald Trump.

The woman has stated numerous times that she's AGAINST TPP, doesn't think Obama should try to shove it on through, and is NOT for what it does for workers, but you're determined to ignore that and state the opposite.

And as it's been explained numerous damn times, the reason anti-TPP language isn't being included in the platform is because it's a policy done by the current sitting President, i.e. the current head of the party. As much as we and many others may disagree with it, platforms don't fucking go against where the sitting head/president is in terms of his agenda. It shows discord, causes drama and Obama is kinda needed in terms of campaigning with her.

But ffs, let's whine about it and not pay attention to what the NEW possible president says about it and her positions.
 
 
+9 # nice2bgreat 2016-07-14 11:39
.
Quoting Mako:
The woman [known and repeated liar, Hillary Clinton, whose positions during election season have changed many, many times] has stated numerous times that she's AGAINST TPP ["in its present form"]...

[Clinton's ambiguous opposition to TPP contain virtually no specifics; Clinton in no way addresses the most concerning aspects of TPP or other trade agreements, the Investor State Dispute Settlements (ISDS), and Clinton has not confronted, nor even disputed President Obama's false arguments regarding environmental protections within TPP and other proposed trade agreements.]

And as it's been explained numerous damn times [for any stupid sucker incapable of intelligent thought, naive beyond reason, and operatives and surrogates for propaganda dissemination], the reason anti-TPP language isn't being included in the platform is because it's a policy done by the current sitting President, i.e. the current head of the [corrupt Democratic] party.


Quoting Mako:
As much as we and many others may disagree with it, platforms don't fucking go against where the sitting head/president is in terms of his agenda.


Which fascist assholes believe this crock of sh!t?
.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-07-14 12:55
"What fascist assholes believe this crock of sh!t?"

The not-very-bright ones.
 
 
-3 # Mako 2016-07-14 13:40
Again. Back up your words. If it's such a "crock of shit" refute it and give me more than anecdotal butthurt from fellow BoBs like yourself. Just because you're brand new to politics and how platforms and parties work doesn't mean everyone else is. Get your fucking facts straight.

People are tired of this place being a butthurt BoB echo chamber of cynicism and advocacy for political suicide and disenfranchisem ent.
 
 
+4 # nice2bgreat 2016-07-14 15:57
.
Quoting nice2bgreat:
Quoting Mako:
As much as we and many others may disagree with it, platforms don't fucking go against where the sitting head/president is in terms of his agenda.


Which fascist assholes believe this crock of sh!t?


Quoting Mako:
Again. Back up your words. If it's such a "crock of shit" refute it and give me more than anecdotal butthurt from fellow BoBs like yourself.


I don't see my pithy critique of your false assertion, that, "platforms don't fucking go against where the sitting head/president is in terms of his agenda", needs backing up.

It is absurd on its face.

You seem to have some bastardized sense of democracy, where under the guise of diplomacy (faux decency?), that Party platforms should cater to the sensitivities of a shitty, I mean, sitting President, by neutering/dumbing down Party ideals. It is just sophistry.

Where's the "progress" there?


Second:

Quoting Mako:
Just because you're brand new to politics and how platforms and parties work doesn't mean everyone else is. Get your fucking facts straight.


Much like Hillary Clinton, you are a bit vague on specifics.

Help me out, old wise one. Which of my "fucking" facts are not straight?
.
 
 
-5 # Mako 2016-07-14 16:20
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/29/obama-and-sanders-battle-over-tpp-and-the-democratic-platform/

Educate yourself. The head of the Democratic Party is, that "shitty," President Obama. You know, the first Black President and one who's gotten us 8 fucking years of real progress. Yeah, he wants it. I disagree and so do many others but guess what? It doesn't matter since BOTH candidates are against it anyways. We just don't want to disrespect our President in the same way Repubs have done for two terms. Respect for him and the office night mean nothing to you but for the majority of us, it's important too.

Glad to have taught you something.
 
 
+5 # lorenbliss 2016-07-14 23:53
@Mako: "fucking years of real progress."

"(F)ucking years" indeed: that's why at age 76 I'm struggling to get by on $155 per month less than I had last year. Why? Mostly because of Obama's "fucking years" of cuts in food stamps and Medicare subsidies, also his malicious manipulation of the Social Security cost-of-living formula to ensure ever more retirees and disability recipients are thrust into potentially deadly poverty.

Just as you say, that's "real progress," albeit like everything else in today's USian Empire, only for the One Percent -- weaponizing poverty into a mechanism of genocide, a process begun by Clinton's so-called "welfare reform."

From the Ruling Class perspective, the best solution yet -- that and trigger-happy cops -- to the "problem" death camps have become unfashionable.
 
 
-2 # rocback 2016-07-15 16:22
So now you blame Obama for cuts in food stamps and medicare and the SS cost of living formula. I guess if anything bad happened while he was alive, it's his fault, right?
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-07-15 18:24
Nice example of Hillary-style empathy.
 
 
+4 # CL38 2016-07-14 13:37
Mako, you have the right to think for yourself. But haven't done your homework. Look at her record. It's NOT what you say it is. Start with facts or no one will listen.

Others have the same right to think for ourselves. Stop 'whining' about THAT!

Clinton WILL never be 'my president'. She stole the election.
 
 
-7 # Mako 2016-07-14 14:52
Quoting CL38:
Mako, you have the right to think for yourself. But haven't done your homework. Look at her record. It's NOT what you say it is. Start with facts or no one will listen.

Others have the same right to think for ourselves. Stop 'whining' about THAT!

Clinton WILL never be 'my president'. She stole the election.


I am looking at her record, and I'm failing to see this evil you claim exists.

And how about you quit whining about me calling out your irrational hatred and misinformation. I'm fucking tired of this site being your Hillary Hate Echo Chamber where you profess conspiracy theory as fact and espouse cynicism and political nihilism as worthy alternatives than fucking making progress that HELPS PEOPLE. You don't give a fuck about people of color losing their voting rights, people losing their health care, women losing autonomy over their own body, or people dying in war.

Because if you did, you wouldn't even CONSIDER giving Trump a margin of victory in this election, just to inflict pain on Hillary Clinton. She didn't fucking steal anything except maybe your sanity.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-07-14 16:14
Isn't it cute? I think it just learned the f-word! Can't you almost see it stomping its little feet?

C'mon, little troll, you can do it! Try to put a coherent thought together!
 
 
+5 # economagic 2016-07-14 20:36
"I am looking at her record, and I'm failing to see this evil you claim exists."

Got it. As I stated above, that is the specific dogma that labels you as a troll, also called a "true believer" (Eric Hoffer) basing your opinions on faith rather than reason.
 
 
0 # Mako 2016-07-15 10:41
Quoting economagic:
"I am looking at her record, and I'm failing to see this evil you claim exists."

Got it. As I stated above, that is the specific dogma that labels you as a troll, also called a "true believer" (Eric Hoffer) basing your opinions on faith rather than reason.


No, it's called fucking looking at facts, not hyperbolic, anecdotal evidence or buying into the rightwing noise machine. Again, cite your sources, as apparently you expect ME to take YOUR opinions on faith alone. The BS conspiracy theories you espouse about her are fucking old and tiring.
 
 
+4 # CL38 2016-07-15 01:14
Where are Parts I and III of this post???

Mako:

Part II:

Cinton did steal the election. She benefited from every state where vote tampering existed. Your denial doesn't change the reality:

Racketeering Lawsuit Exposing Nationwide Vote Rigging in DNC Primaries Could Derail Clinton

@ http://thefreethoughtproject.com/election-fraud-rico-lawsuit-alleging-widespread-e-vote-rigging-dnc-primaries-derail-clinton-nomination/#7iG7Vjwzpx8t8ik2.99
 
 
# Guest 2016-07-15 07:20
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
0 # Mako 2016-07-15 10:45
Quoting CL38:
Where are Parts I and III of this post???

Mako:

Part II:

Cinton did steal the election. She benefited from every state where vote tampering existed. Your denial doesn't change the reality:

Racketeering Lawsuit Exposing Nationwide Vote Rigging in DNC Primaries Could Derail Clinton

@ http://thefreethoughtproject.com/election-fraud-rico-lawsuit-alleging-widespread-e-vote-rigging-dnc-primaries-derail-clinton-nomination/#7iG7Vjwzpx8t8ik2.99


Again, it's the mistaken, ignorant, and wrongheaded belief that somehow exit polls are a foolproof, 100% accurate measure of voting choice. The reason they were more weighted towards Bernie, is because more young people are likely to fill them out, and it heavily leaned in his favor.

But that wasn't the result. The lawsuit's not going anywhere, and the disingenuous argument about how "if it varies more than 2%, its fraud and thats how the US even measures it" is BS because it ignores the fact that OTHER means of observation are used to ensure proper vote tabulation. Not to mention these are in countries where known voter intimidation, threats and violence occur. like Zimbabwe. The primary here in the US is not a fucking election in Sudan. Get over yourself, please.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-07-15 18:42
The funny thing is that Hillary Clinton's State Department used exit polls to determine if foreign elections were rigged.

Anything over a 2% variation from exit polls was considered an unreliable result. HRC "won" by more than that in at least 11 states.

But, this situational validity/morali ty is typical of HRC and her minions.
 
 
# Guest 2016-07-15 01:15
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
-9 # Mako 2016-07-14 14:54
Quoting Anonymot:
" And we can organize against Hillary’s war-making tendencies."

Sure, like we did with Vietnam.
Like we did with Afghanistan.
Like we did with Iraq.
Like we did with Libya.
Like we did with Syria.
Like we did with Yemen.
Like we did with the Ukraine.
Sure, Maniac.


I love how all the examples you use to discredit voting for the Democratic nominee are fucking examples of Republican right wing manufactured wars and conflicts. The fucking irony here is hilarious.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-07-15 00:03
Vietnam was turned into a war by LBJ

The escalation of the war in Afghanistan was under Obama/Hillary.

The entirety of the "regime change" and destruction of Libya was Obama/Hillary.

Syria was turned into a "civil war" (actually mostly foreign mercenaries) during the Obama Administration.

Yemen has been under bombardment by Saudi Arabia under the Obama Administration. Saudi jets are refueled by US air tankers since they don't have the range.

Oh, and Yemen's first drone bombing was also Obama's first drone murder.

Ukraine's fomented coup and attacks against the civilian population was under Obama, executed by Victoria Nuland who was first brought into the State Department by the first President Clinton.

See, here on RSN, you'll find a rather well-informed readership. Perhaps you need to pick up your game, or find more HRC low-information sites to post your drivel.
 
 
-1 # Mako 2016-07-15 11:51
...I can't believe you've somehow now turned this all into Obama's fault. No. You are NOT well informed. You've twisted facts AND context.

Syria wasn't fucking Obama's fault. If it were Romney or ANY other Repub, like McCain? We'd be at WAR with them. THAT'S the facts.

Again. Libya ASKED for NATO/US involvement. It was a mistake, I will agree. But don't try to paint it as if we just unilaterally decided to bomb them, like GWB did with Iraq. That's a boldfaced LIE.

Obama is pulling us OUT of Afghanistan, and we're no longer the primary force in fighting the Taliban now. We're trying to clean up the fucking mess BUSH left it, and hopefully train the military so they're competent, and able to defend themselves when we leave. Should we just fucking pull out and let their incompetent military get overrun by Taliban forces? They WANT our assistance in not having their country become a failed state.

Ukraine's formented coup? You mean because Ukraine made the CHOICE to join NATO? That's a fucking crime now? Are you now backing fuckin PUTIN?!

What the fuck are you on? I'll gladly admit the US has NOT been the best superpower for the world.. But you hanging all this shit on Obama is a lie. And I want you to tell me what YOU would rather have been done. Tell me YOUR idea, instead of just hurling bombs and twisted facts.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-07-15 18:43
Ignorance can be fixed. Your willful ignorance cannot.
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-07-15 04:17
@ Mako

What *I* think is hilarious, but also sort of sad, is how very LOUDLY you insist on declaring your ignorance.

Is this the way you walk into someone's home? Do you lack social skills in the 'real' world too or is this just where you vent?

Not one person here was rude to you or mean to you when you first showed up but as far as I remember your first post was filled with insult and invective. Why?

It's apparent you're very angry. Fine. We've all been there .. though I don't know if I've ever felt the kind of pain I hear crying out from you.

You seem to have some knowledge but a little humility in a new room seems justified, don't you think -- two ears, one mouth? There are a lot of really intelligent and decent people here. I've learned a lot and I want to learn more but you're not helping. Or is that the point?

There are two kinds of posters here -- the ones with insults and the ones with ideas. There are people here I disagree with utterly but I sure appreciate their ideas and their willingness to talk to an ignorant fool like me.

You got off to a monumentally horrifically stupendously bad start!! But if you want to post ideas rather than insults, why don't you try again tomorrow and come back here with some respect. Teach something. Learn something.

I don't even know you but I think you've already called me an idiot a few times and I have to protest. Only my closest friends and family know me well enough to call me that.
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-07-15 04:33
BTW all of us already know the word f^ck, and your use of it isn't particularly impressive or creative. It just makes you seem like a 'petulant child'.

At least that's what rocback said. (I don't remember which thread.) He said you seemed 'perpetually aggrieved'. And seriously? Do NOT let him read you his poetry! I don't hold it against him. Only a very few people write really good poetry. I think everybody should write it but nobody should share.

I am willing to shun you totally, not even read your posts, but I thought I got banned from this site for a while because I was being so obnoxious -- TWICE -- so who am I to judge? Plus you like Star Trek so you can't be ALL bad. What did you think of BSG?

We could battle but that just detracts from the real discussion -- and there are too many important things to talk about. (Just ask e-magic :-) For instance, why do lefties like poetry so much but disdain tv? And what are we going to do about this election?

Personally I'm giving you one more chance but if you come back like you did yesterday I'm done with you.

Just like the Democrat Party.
 
 
0 # Mako 2016-07-15 11:06
Quoting librarian1984:

I am willing to shun you totally, not even read your posts, but I thought I got banned from this site for a while because I was being so obnoxious -- TWICE -- so who am I to judge? Plus you like Star Trek so you can't be ALL bad. What did you think of BSG?


Well you got me there...I think you mean Battlestar Galactica, right? If so, I definitely enjoyed it.

And as I replied below, if I come off as angry, it's out of frustration and angst over what's slowly coming with this election. Very soon, it's gonna come down to brass tacks and a choice is gonna have to be made. As much as Hillary has her flaws, she's not a dead end, nor is the progressive message Bernie fought for going to die with her.

If Trump wins, it's a setback that's going to have serious consequences not just to policy, but people too. It really is that serious.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-07-15 11:17
Yes, definitely Battlestar Galactica. So awesome. I don't think there were ANY bad episodes, were there? Did you watch Firefly? Walking Dead? Bad science fiction is oh so bad, but good science fiction is THE BEST.

Thank you very much for just talking to me. I really appreciate it. You seem intelligent and knowledgable, but we all have things to learn. I know I sure do.

Remember I said I almost got kicked off twice? I know from frustration and acting out :-)

This election is crazy -- and it was supposed to be so boring!

I think you'll find the people here totally agree with you that this is serious sh!t. NOBODY is happy about what's going on.

And there's no consensus here about what to do. We're trying to figure it out. Please be part of the discussion.

We can disagree but we don't have to be enemies.

Thank you again, Mako.

(cool name BTW)
 
 
+2 # Mako 2016-07-15 11:30
Quoting librarian1984:

Thank you very much for just talking to me. I really appreciate it. You seem intelligent and knowledgable, but we all have things to learn.

Remember I said I almost got kicked off twice? I know from frustration and acting out :-)

...

I think you'll find the people here totally agree with you that this is serious sh!t. NOBODY is happy about what's going on.

And there's no consensus here about what to do. We're trying to figure it out. Please be part of the discussion.

Thank you again, Mako.

(cool name BTW)


Good SciFi is awesome, yes. And yeah, I have watched Firefly, I enjoyed it very much. I can't argue you have pretty good taste, lol

The election is crazy. It's crazy because we now are finally seeing progressive positions now in the mainstream and the veneer of reputability that Republicans had, has been ripped off, and the racist, screaming Id is now unleashed and in control.

I understand there's no consensus, and while I hear a lot of people deride incrementalism and how we need less 'status quo,' we can't get ANYTHING done if we get under Trump and people suffer. Progress can happen, and it will. But we HAVE to win and keep SOMEONE on the left in office.

Thanks for talking with me and the good discussion. Yeah, I'll be part of it, and I will cease attacking your intelligence. I may be hotheaded but I like to think of myself as reasonable too, lol
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-07-15 12:44
Quoting Mako:
Good SciFi is awesome, yes. And yeah, I have watched Firefly, I enjoyed it very much. I can't argue you have pretty good taste, lol

Hey nobody's a TOTAL a-hole! Watchmen? Movie AND graphic novel?

Quoting Mako:
The election is crazy. It's crazy because we now are finally seeing progressive positions now in the mainstream and the veneer of reputability that Republicans had, has been ripped off.. I understand there's no consensus, ... But we HAVE to win and keep SOMEONE on the left in office.

Who EVER thought the progressive movement would burst onto the scene, right? I will always be grateful to Senator Sanders for that. I think we've all gotten so used to being marginalized and ignored.

And it is a treat to watch the GOP implode. They have been fostering that id for decades and they got Donald Trump and they deserve him. But we don't. And Mike Pence doesn't sound good either -- Tea Party and Koch shill. Scylla and Charybdis.

Quoting Mako:
Thanks for talking with me and the good discussion. Yeah, I'll be part of it, and I will cease attacking your intelligence. I may be hotheaded but I like to think of myself as reasonable too, lol
lol and I won't call you Wacko anymore! I've really enjoyed this, Mako. Thanks a lot.

(Let's talk about consensus later? I am starving and need to scrounge.)
 
 
+3 # Mako 2016-07-15 11:00
First off, if showing proof to back up my position is "ignorance" then apparently the world's changed wildly while I slept.

And you're right. I am angry. I am angry because it's July in 2016, Trump is gaining ground, everywhere I look around me..I see racists and bigots cheering this madman on, talking about how they can't wait for him to build his wall, kill "political correctness," fuck up "dem gays," and finally ban all the "sand n****rs" and "make America Great Again."

I'm angry because the collective left is hemming and hawing, fighting itself while people's LIVES, LIVELIHOODS, RIGHTS and futures hang in the balance. All over a primary. You're right. There IS real pain here, and anxiety.

If this shit with Trump happens in November... I PROMISE you it won't be just about platforms, parties or just nebulous discussions on policies and how far and fast left we can take this party and country. It'll be people's lives in jeopardy. This isn't hyperbole or coded political language. This is reality. People are getting fucked up badly on account of Trump. He's legitimized and normalized so much hate that it's NOT gonna be pretty, even if he does somehow lose. The country's fucked up just by him being around.

So yes, I'm frustrated, angry and anxious. I want people to SEE what's coming and to STOP this cannibalization . And belief into these CT that serve only to just make Repubs stronger.
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-07-15 11:41
Now I understand where you're coming from and what the anger and frustration is about. Thanks.

Please allow that I may say something stupid here, ok? I'm apologizing in advance because I have the social skills of a killer bee.

From your pov you're seeing a bunch of white liberals who can afford to be complacent about Trump because we won't have to deal with his sh!t, right?

That seems like a very legitimate source of worry and anger, and that's why we need you here. We have to think about all this stuff and we have to be smart.

I think the frakking parties have put us in an impossible position. A pox on both their houses, really.

So let's see what happens at the conventions -- everything could change. And in the meantime let's try to talk.

I would very much enjoy that (not least because hardly anybody here watches television).
 
 
+4 # Mako 2016-07-15 11:58
Quoting librarian1984:
Now I understand where you're coming from and what the anger and frustration is about. Thanks.

Please allow that I may say something stupid here, ok? I'm apologizing in advance because I have the social skills of a killer bee.

From your pov you're seeing a bunch of white liberals who can afford to be complacent about Trump because we won't have to deal with his sh!t, right?

That seems like a very legitimate source of worry and anger, and that's why we need you here. We have to think about all this stuff and we have to be smart.

I think the frakking parties have put us in an impossible position. A pox on both their houses, really.


I would very much enjoy that (not least because hardly anybody here watches television).


...I seriously appreciate the respect and understanding you've shown me. I really do. Thank you.

Yes, thank you for understanding my POV here and appreciating why I'd feel the way I feel.

I agree that both parties have..Been less than ideal. The Repubs are deplorable beyond hope. And the Democratic party under Debbie Shultz has been a disaster in numerous ways. She's been a terrible chairwoman.

But...I do see hope for now and in the future. It's moving in the right direction and as long as true progressives actually stick with the fight and not give up Bernie's message, the goal can be reached and it won't just be empty words or promises.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-07-15 12:53
"...I seriously appreciate the respect and understanding you've shown me. I really do. Thank you."

I feel exactly the same. Thanks back.

You're being nice. Both parties have been disasters! Though the GOP does add that sh!t-ton of racism as well. DWS -- what a tin-ear!

I have to eat! I didn't thin k I'd be giving you a bunch of up-votes today! But it has really been a pleasure talking to you.
 
 
-9 # Mako 2016-07-14 14:57
I'm just going to point out that Vietnam was a Republican manufactured quagmire, and while it DID have Democratic fellow-traveler s like LBJ behind it, that was the Neo-Con at work.

I cannot believe you're going to say that Hillary is somehow on par of Nixon or potentially Trump who has made it emphatically clear he has no qualms not only killing children belonging to "SUSPECTED" terrorists, but also shaking down fellow allied countries for PROTECTION MONEY and truly profiting, nakedly off of global conflict and insecurity.

Both sides here are NOT the same.
 
 
+7 # Ken Halt 2016-07-14 15:51
Sorry, Mako, we don't need any more of the status quo, more military adventures, more deregulation, more money to the 1%, more off-shoring of jobs. It's what we've had for the past 36 years! You're okay with that? Vote for the establishment candidate it you want, just don't expect thinking persons to do so.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-07-15 00:14
The Vietnam War was a perfect example of bipartisan "working across the aisle."

FDR and Stalin had convinced Churchill to allow "IndoChina" to claim independence once the Japanese were driven out. In fact, Colonel Prouty was still onboard that plan in 1945, when he helped ship arms to Ho Chi Minh to defend a free Vietnam.

But Truman backed out and gave de Gaulle the green light to try to reinstall their colonial rule. FDR had left Truman out of the loop, so he likely didn't even know what he was doing.

Eisenhower cancelled the 1956 election to reunite Vietnam and began sending "advisors." A friend of mine parachuted into Cambodia in 1959 under Ike's orders.

JFK sent even more "advisors," but wrote two Executive Orders to pull them out shortly before his murder.

LBJ turned it into a real war, escalating from about 10,000 US troops to 1/2 million. And again, the troops were supposed to be withdrawn until he became President. No President has more culpability for that war than LBJ.

Nixon continued the war, bombed Cambodia and Laos.
 
 
+5 # lorenbliss 2016-07-15 02:45
Careful now, Radscal, Roachback will be trashing your post by pointing out Stalin was a Communist and claiming FDR's collaboration with the Soviet premier identifies the president as a "fellow traveler" or maybe even a (gasp) "com-symp."
 
 
-3 # rocback 2016-07-15 16:24
Interesting how you consider that a bad thing. :-)
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-07-15 18:52
LOL. And I see that you were correct (again).
 
 
+7 # jimallyn 2016-07-14 23:34
Quoting Mako:
The woman has stated numerous times that she's AGAINST TPP

And why is what she's saying now any more believable than what she said repeatedly in the past, that she is in favor of the TPP?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/45-times-secretary-clinton-pushed-the-trade-bill-she-now-opposes/index.html
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-07-14 16:02
Yes, nice2. I tried to get the Left to give Sanders a chance. Chis Hedges and Noam Chomsky both ridiculed him until it was obvious that HRC was going to take the nomination.

I don't know if any number of Sanders votes would have gotten him the nomination, but the more of us who tried, the harder is would be to cover up the election fraud.
 
 
+10 # tswhiskers 2016-07-14 09:50
I, too, was very disappointed when Bernie couldn't win the nomination. But now we have to be grown-ups and do everything possible to keep the presidency away from Trump. Thanks to Scott and other Bernie supporters we know that Bernie has not gone quietly back to the Senate and disappeared from presidential politics. The program outlined in the article above should be encouraging to all of us. His campaign accomplished several things: his name is now nationally known and he is admired by many, esp. blacks, some of whom said they would have voted for him if they had know about him. He has forced Hillary much farther to the left than she intended to go. He has successfully liberalized the Dem. platform. Now he wants to change primaries and caucuses to include Ind. voters and end party shenanigans re the use of super delegates and party bias. He is not gone; he is still fighting and expecting that WE will fight with him. GO BERNIE!
 
 
-16 # rocback 2016-07-14 10:55
not many "grown-ups" in this room, unfortunately.
 
 
+10 # guomashi 2016-07-14 11:56
Quoting rocback:
not many "grown-ups" in this room, unfortunately.


polish your mirror
 
 
-16 # rocback 2016-07-14 12:18
see, third grade must have let out early today.
 
 
+7 # librarian1984 2016-07-14 12:58
ugh if only I had my handy database with me I could tell you how many times you've used this tired elementary school taunt. Is this what passes for troll-isms today? Pitiful.
 
 
+5 # Ken Halt 2016-07-14 15:57
This comment is one of the reasons I thing "crocback" may be nothing more than a computer algorithm, these tired, trite, and irrelevant posts. If not an algorithm, the HRC troll site is not getting their money's worth.
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-07-14 23:22
Very interesting idea. Software CAN be trained in natural language processing and even early unsophisticated programs were able to fool people ....

I guess I figured he was wrangling a number of threads and used repetitive phrases to keep track of the lies and keep sh!t simple -- but your interpretation does have merit :-)

I thank the universe frequently that I do not live in asscrack's toxic mind.

To quote a great scholar: 'You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.'
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-07-15 00:15
Many of Robbee's posts appear far more like computer algorithms than actual human thought.
 
 
# Guest 2016-07-15 07:44
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+5 # Majikman 2016-07-14 17:04
@buttcrack:
For all your claims to being a lawyer (guffaw) you have a lot of time on your hands. No clients? What a surprise...perh aps if you spent time preparing for their defense, or whatever you "claim" to do, instead of haranguing and harassing nice people with your endless repetitions of lies and propaganda, you might actually help someone.
 
 
-6 # Mako 2016-07-14 17:29
Quoting Majikman:
@buttcrack:
For all your claims to being a lawyer (guffaw) you have a lot of time on your hands. No clients? What a surprise...perhaps if you spent time preparing for their defense, or whatever you "claim" to do, instead of haranguing and harassing nice people with your endless repetitions of lies and propaganda, you might actually help someone.


Or maybe he's tired of this place being as dead end as you BoBs, and want something else than this being your screaming ground. Get over it. Because people are tired hearing this crap from you guys and if you want to keep spouting it, expect some fucking push back.
 
 
+1 # CL38 2016-07-15 02:01
Leave the site, if you don't like repeatedly being called out for the absurdities you post. No one forces you to stay. You're here to harass and bully. Nothing else. You've failed to fulfill your mission.
 
 
0 # Mako 2016-07-15 07:12
Quoting CL38:
Leave the site, if you don't like repeatedly being called out for the absurdities you post. No one forces you to stay. You're here to harass and bully. Nothing else. You've failed to fulfill your mission.


Nope. I don't have to go anywhere, nor do I intend to. What part of "fucking push back" do you not understand? If having to back up your bullshit is "harassing" then I guess the shoe fits.
 
 
+1 # CL38 2016-07-15 02:54
I agree. this is no lawyer. his posts indicate a lack of clarity, knowledge of the law, or how to behave in public. He has no hesitation when it comes to slander.

i've asked several times where he earned his degree and when. he's never responsed. he has none
 
 
+1 # Ken Halt 2016-07-15 06:26
Yeah, crock can't even spell words correctly, and this in the age of spellcheck!
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-07-15 10:40
But he has a lunchbox that looks like a briefcase! That's where Mommy puts the juice box!

And he does 'pro bono' work -- by which he probably means harassing us.

I wonder what other sites he goes to. Anybody know?
 
 
+1 # rocback 2016-07-15 16:28
You know I DO consider this pro bono work exposing hypocrites so maybe I'll add that to may reporting requirements. :-)
 
 
0 # Radscal 2016-07-15 18:54
No, no. "Pro Bono" means he voted for Sonny Bono.
 
 
+7 # Anonymot 2016-07-14 12:32
Just the invasion of the Clinton trolls who mouth her oft-repeated trash.
 
 
-6 # tclose 2016-07-14 09:57
Keep in mind folks what Bernie said in his address following his endorsement of Hillary:

"All of these progressive policies were at the heart of our campaign. The truth is our movement is responsible for the most progressive Democratic platform in the history of our country. All of that is the direct result of the work that our members of the platform committee did in the meetings and that you have been doing over the last 15 months.

But none of these initiatives will happen if we do not elect a Democratic president in November. None! In fact, we will go backward. We must elect the Democratic nominee in November and progressive Democrats up and down the ballot so that we ensure that these policy commitments can advance."

Yes, we must elect the Democratic nominee - her name is Hillary Clinton. Else, we get Trump - pure and simple. Bernie supporters need heed Bernie's call.
 
 
+6 # CL38 2016-07-14 13:57
Clinton is NOT the "Democratic" nominee. she's the 1%'s bought and paid for lobbyist.

If trump is 'elected' over the one who cheated, it's the responsibility of 40 years of Republican devolution and the responsibility of the DNC and Clinton election rigging.

Bernie supporters will make our own decisions - don't need or want your opinion or advice.

This is the more of the Clinton way--bullying with intimidation and lies.
 
 
-4 # Mako 2016-07-14 15:28
Quoting CL38:
Clinton is NOT the "Democratic" nominee. she's the 1%'s bought and paid for lobbyist.

If trump is 'elected' over the one who cheated, it's the responsibility of 40 years of Republican devolution and the responsibility of the DNC and Clinton election rigging.

Bernie supporters will make our own decisions - don't need or want your opinion or advice.

This is the more of the Clinton way--bullying with intimidation and lies.


Actually. She is. She won by 3 million votes.

If Trump wins, it's because of bigoted, racists, white privileged Americans voting for hatred, and their fellow travelers such as BoB immature babies who'd rather see people of color, women, LGBT, and other groups get screwed over because they want to be "pure" and virtue signal how they're such perfect progressives. I hope you sleep well at night.
 
 
+4 # CL38 2016-07-15 02:27
Mako:

Part I:

She stole this election through vote tampering, vote suppression, closing many of the voting sites to prevent Sander's supporters from voting, deleting Democratic voters from DEM voting lists, etc.

THAT'S the candidate you support and enable. Here are the facts:

"Racketeering Lawsuit Exposing Nationwide Vote Rigging in DNC Primaries Could Derail Clinton
https://electionfraud2016.wordpress.com/2016/06/12/racketeering-lawsuit-exposing-nationwide-vote-rigging-in-dnc-primaries-could-derail-clinton/

"Cliff Arnebeck Open Letter To Bernie Sanders: Election Lawsuit to be Filed by End of Week
Posted on July 12, 2016"

"Another Stanford Study Documents Election Fraud in 2016 Democratic Primary Election
Posted on July 10, 2016 by truthfirst12013
Lee Camp segment from Redacted Tonight – informative and funny:

Press Conference on Lawsuit to Stop Certification of California Primary Certification
Posted on July 7, 2016
Press conference after the hearing at San Diego Hall of Justice with details on the filings and relief sought:
"Posted in California,
 
 
+5 # CL38 2016-07-15 02:30
Part II:

"Ohio, presidential, primary,
"Uncounted: The Story of the California Election
Posted on July 4, 2016 It doesn’t document everything however it gives a strong general overview of some of the problems that went down in California in the Democratic

Primary Election in 2016:
"San Diego Registrar of Voters Faces Lawsuit

Ray Lutz has filed and it is scheduled for the 7th of July. See news story and scroll down to watch Youtube video from Ray detailing the issues with the election and explaining lawsuit in much more detail: Click photo … Continue reading →

"Posted in California, Because the ‘Outcome Has to Be Certain’ – Shredder Truck at San Diego Registry – 3/4 million Provisional Ballots May Have Been SHREDDED
Posted on July 4, 2016
Read the article about how it looks like there were over 3/4 of a MILLION ballots SHREDDED – click the photo of the Shredder Truck parked in front of the San Diego Registrar of Voter’s Office to read about the … Continue reading →"osted in California, on July 2, 2016

Bernie Landslide in CA Humboldt Cty
In California there is just ONE county which uses an Open Source System to audit votes. Could that be why Bernie had 68% of the vote in Humboldt County? It was his highest vote share in ALL 58 counties! The system … Continue reading →"
"Posted in California,
 
 
+5 # CL38 2016-07-15 02:31
Part III:

Election Justice USA Seeks to Stop the Certification of California Primary Results:
Posted on June 30, 2016
Posted in California,
Over 2 Million Ballots had Not Been Counted As of June 12 in California – DEBACLE:

Posted on June 18, 2016
Posted in California,
Complaint for Declaratory Relief Filed Against Michael Vu, San Diego Board of Registar
https://electionfraud2016.wordpress.com/category/california/
 
 
+5 # CL38 2016-07-15 02:33
These are only two states. There are more.

Clinton nor the DNC will tell you about that! Neither will the MSM. What does that say??? Corrupt as they come, even worse.
 
 
-1 # Mako 2016-07-15 07:15
Quoting CL38:
These are only two states. There are more.

Clinton nor the DNC will tell you about that! Neither will the MSM. What does that say??? Corrupt as they come, even worse.


Only in your stupid CT loving mind. You exemplify placing the conclusion before the actual evidence. Occam's fucking Razor, do you even know what that means?
 
 
-2 # Mako 2016-07-15 07:14
Quoting CL38:
Part III:

Election Justice USA Seeks to Stop the Certification of California Primary Results:
Posted on June 30, 2016
Posted in California,
Over 2 Million Ballots had Not Been Counted As of June 12 in California – DEBACLE:

Posted on June 18, 2016
Posted in California,
Complaint for Declaratory Relief Filed Against Michael Vu, San Diego Board of Registar
https://electionfraud2016.wordpress.com/category/california/


You are so fucking stupid. I guess any old wordpress blog on the internet is reputable source, in your eyes. Another loser who has nothing to do but file lawsuits over imaginary crap doesn't mean any real fraud happened.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-07-15 18:58
If you would bother to actually go to that blog, you'd see that it's really just a collection of articles and videos brimming over with evidence and actual proof of election fraud.

Ignorance can be fixed. Are you going to try to fix it?
 
 
+4 # jimallyn 2016-07-14 23:40
Quoting tclose:
Yes, we must elect the Democratic nominee - her name is Hillary Clinton. Else, we get Trump - pure and simple. Bernie supporters need heed Bernie's call.

There is no Democratic nominee. There won't be a Democratic nominee until the Convention.

If you're worried about Trump in the White House, you should have been pushing for the one candidate who can beat him in the general election: Bernie Sanders. The "Democratic" party gave the election to Trump when they rigged the primary for Clinton.
 
 
+15 # djnova50 2016-07-14 10:10
Not even Bernie Sanders can convince me that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for the greater good. He wants to fix the Democratic Party from within. That would be like trying to clean the inside of a pot that was full of boiling oil.

The whole election and debate process is undemocratic at best. A Primary ballot should have the names of all candidates from all political parties on it. Not just the Democrats and Republicans. Better yet, Ranked Choice Voting would give third party candidates an opportunity to win the general election.

No matter what Bernie says, Hillary Clinton is the status quo. She took funding from corporations/bi llionaires. She seems committed to further war and occupations. I do not trust her.

My vote will go to the other woman who does represent the greater good.
 
 
-4 # lights 2016-07-14 10:49
That's right. Bernie also said "winning doesn't count." Great. Vote for Stein who will NOT win and then what do you do with all your angst?

Well, seems like he also took the risk of trying to take Hillary Rodham Clinton down without speaking the truth. In the end you now want it to adversely affect a movement. Cause believe it or not. YOU are not the only people in this country who want change!

At least 80% of Sanders supporters are moving on because they can see the BIG PICTURE and are not stuck in their FEELINGS only.
 
 
# Guest 2016-07-14 10:57
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
-11 # Mako 2016-07-14 10:59
And you just revealed your flaw in critical thinking and maturity.

You'd rather eat your own entrails than dine with your rival and potentially get half of what you wanted, with the clear potential of furthering your goals and enshrining them into TANGIBLE LEGISLATIVE POLICY.

It's the height of hypocrisy and foolishness. You staked your trust in Bernie and his wisdom, honesty and knowledge of the issues but the SECOND, the very g*damn SECOND he said something that challenges your world view, you threw him under the bus and now HE'S the betrayer and it doesn't matter what he says.

You exemplify the height of cognitive dissonance and illogical thinking. You'd rather get nothing, than get most of what you want, and continue the WORK needed and actually engage with people who disagree NOT with the premise of what you believe in. But their implementation.

All out of some vainglorious notion of purity and zero sum nonsense.
 
 
+11 # guomashi 2016-07-14 11:57
Quoting Mako:
And you just revealed your flaw in critical thinking and maturity.

You'd rather eat your own entrails than dine with your rival and potentially get half of what you wanted,


Would you like WW III with your half of the entrails?
 
 
-7 # Mako 2016-07-14 13:30
Quoting guomashi:
Quoting Mako:
And you just revealed your flaw in critical thinking and maturity.

You'd rather eat your own entrails than dine with your rival and potentially get half of what you wanted,


Would you like WW III with your half of the entrails?


You need to back that hyperbolic statement right now. Because you're full of crap.

Show me the hard proof and quotes to back that up and explain your logic for COMPLETELY ignoring Donald Trump.
 
 
+2 # CL38 2016-07-15 02:34
the only people full of HS are you, rockclick, lights, robbee etc.
 
 
-4 # Robbee 2016-07-14 14:21
Quoting djnova50:
Not even Bernie Sanders can convince me that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for the greater good. He wants to fix the Democratic Party from within.

- i hate "hatchet men"! - i hate all those who say you can't do anything! - so you shouldn't even try! - i hate alot of folks here on rsn!

i hate everyone who who gives up! - # crzkat 2016-06-14 14:47
$Hillary ... won't pay the slightest attention to what the people want.

and everyone who says they would say the same!- # Patriot 2016-06-15 00:00
Amen!

i hate everyone who predicts utter failure for bernie's policies! - # markovchhaney 2016-06-14 16:2
spelled L-I-P-S-E-R-V-I-C-E.

and - # Buddha 2016-06-14 16:41
... the Democratic Party will continue to stand for what it has stood for over the last 3 decades ...

i hate those who redefine "Progressive" narrowly! - to mean - as Progressive IN ONE WAY as they say they are! - # REDPILLED 2016-06-14 22:01
Democrats, including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and especially Neocon Hillary ... are not Progressive

i hate undemocratic petitions to replace one candidate who got more votes with another candidate who got millions fewer! - # Patriot 2016-06-15 00:03
If you haven't already done so, please consider signing my petition to the DNC to replace Clinton with Sanders.

above all, i hate "hatchet men"! - all those here, whom i hear come across, as saying, that bernie shouldn't even try!
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-07-15 00:21
Hateful little "family trust" sucking squatter aren't you?

Those of us who don't get to live rent-free for 5 years like you (and then whine about it) can't afford a HRC Presidency.

Those of us who think brown-skinned lives matter too cannot vote for your warmonger in chief.
 
 
-5 # Robbee 2016-07-14 14:42
Quoting djnova50:
No matter what Bernie says, Hillary Clinton is the status quo.

- # us bernie progressive here! - specifically including bernie! reich! warren! scott! and marc! - are closer to taking over the dem party than at any time in my life!

singling-out! comments to: Democrats Will Learn All the Wrong Lessons From Brush With Bernie, By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone, 11 June 16! - matt, # elizabethblock, # reiverpacific, # wrknight, # grandlakeguy, # MD426, # REDPILLED, # jdd, # futhark, # Jim Rocket, # DesertProgressi ve, # harleysch, # Karlus58, # djnova50, # dquandle, # Old Uncle Dave, # markovchhaney, # tomwalker8, # Dale, # cymricmorty, # danireland46, # Blackjack, # Buddha and # Vardoz!

we have no less than 24 regular commenters here EAGER TO QUIT ON TURNING OUR DEM PARTY PROGRESSIVE! - EAGER TO STOP LISTENING TO BERNIE! REICH! WARREN! SCOTT! AND MARC!

ARE ANY HERE DESPERATE TO MAKE DEMS SEEM A HOPELESS CAUSE? - WELL, CERTAINLY! RUMP TROJANS! - AND RSN IS THICK WITH THEM!
 
 
+11 # Mainiac 2016-07-14 10:27
djnova50: No one is asking you to trust Hillary Clinton. If we stay with Bernie’s program we can pass a lot of legislation that the Dems do not really support. But we can make some of them pay if they don’t. And we can organize against Hillary’s war-making tendencies. We can sit back and do nothing because that is surely what Hillary is hoping we will do.
 
 
+4 # Anonymot 2016-07-14 12:37
If you think my choice is between eating my own entrails and eating Hillary's that sounds like an SS camp warden. Huma can have both hers and mine, thanks. I'll pass.
 
 
+5 # Anonymot 2016-07-14 12:41
" And we can organize against Hillary’s war-making tendencies."

Sure, like we did with Vietnam.
Like we did with Afghanistan.
Like we did with Iraq.
Like we did with Libya.
Like we did with Syria.
Like we did with Yemen.
Like we did with the Ukraine.
Sure, Maniac.
 
 
+2 # CL38 2016-07-14 14:40
the 60's generation DID eventually stop the Vietnam War, participated in helping bring the civil rights movements, the women's movement and gay rights movement.

I'd say that's a lot of gains and accomplishments due to organizing and political engagement.
 
 
-7 # rocback 2016-07-14 20:57
yep and Hillary was at the forefront of that while Trump was learning how to screw people by his papa Drump.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-07-15 00:25
OMG! The Goldwater Girl who even admits she was never an anti-Vietnam War activist, promoted "welfare reform" that specifically targeted women and children, and opposed marriage equality until 2013 was at the forefront!

Hahahahaha...

I have to admit, you can bring a chuckle now and again.
 
 
-1 # rocback 2016-07-15 16:31
She did not promote welfare reform. She was first lady. but Bill DID save welfare from the GOP congress with "mend it don't end it".
 
 
+4 # CL38 2016-07-15 02:37
OMG. Hillary was a GOP 'Goldwater girl' from the start! That's the only forefront she participated in! Once again, Hilbots, READ your history!
 
 
+10 # lorenbliss 2016-07-14 12:50
@Mainiac: Do you really believe we "can organize against Hillary's war-making tendencies" with sufficient success to save our species and our planet from Hillary's suicidal dreams of conquering Russia?

Are you old enough, as I am, to remember the failure of the Anti-Vietnam War Movement? Or the fact its failure was proven by Nixon's defiant invasions of Cambodia (1970) and Laos (1971) -- and most of all by the regime's reign of anti-movement terror exemplified by the murder of Fred Hampton in Chicago and the murders at Kent State University and Jackson State College?

Historical truth: the anti-war movement had nothing whatsoever to do with the USian retreat from Vietnam. The USian Empire withdrew its military from Vietnam because the Vietcong (VC) and the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) drove it out.

Then of course there is that endlessly ongoing litany of USian military defeats in the Middle East -- unless of course the clandestine USian purpose is to turn the entire region over to Muslim jihadist fanatics, a hypothesis that makes no sense at all unless it is intended as a permanent guarantee of ever-skyrocketi ng profits for the military-indust rial complex. (Has capitalism become war? Is war now a capitalist product?)

In any case, so much for the alleged USian military "superiority" Hillary believes is sufficient to defeat the combined forces of the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China. Conventional war, they win; nuclear war, we're all dead.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-07-14 16:22
I agree, but would add that the US actually achieved its military goals in Vietnam.

The Pentagon Papers showed that US leadership knew they could not "win" that war in the conventional sense by at least 1965. And really the fact that Eisenhower halted the 1956 Vietnamese election that was required by the French peace treaty because they knew that more than 80% of the Vietnamese would vote for a unified, socialist country suggests they knew that they couldn't win from the start.

The goal really was to stop the "Domino Effect." They knew that a successful socialist war for independence from colonialism would serve as a good example for other exploited peoples.

So, they chose to "bomb Vietnam back into the stone age" and terrify others so they would not attempt to claim independence. They turned the good example into a horrifying example.

And that worked. Cambodia wasn't really a popular socialist/commu nist uprising, and no other nearby country declared their independence.

Now, I do agree that had the Vietnamese not continued to fight, the US would have installed a puppet regime over the whole country, so their brave struggle did win the war in the conventional sense.
 
 
+5 # lorenbliss 2016-07-14 17:53
@Radscal: Yes, with its terror-bombing and its other anti-99-Percent campaigns -- as for example the violent overthrow of Chile's democratically elected Allende Administration and the imposition of Pinochet's torture-regime -- the USian Empire has always behaved abroad like the Fourth Reich it is.

But now it's bringing its Nazi malevolence home...
 
 
-1 # rocback 2016-07-15 16:32
lorenbliss, you should be getting paid by Putin for this.
 
 
+2 # economagic 2016-07-14 20:40
" unless of course the clandestine USian purpose is to turn the entire region over to Muslim jihadist fanatics, a hypothesis that makes no sense at all unless it is intended as a permanent guarantee of ever-skyrocketi ng profits for the military-indust rial complex. (Has capitalism become war? Is war now a capitalist product?) "

Hey lorenbliss, knowing your economics background I can only assume that is a rhetorical question!
 
 
+3 # lorenbliss 2016-07-15 00:03
:-)
 
 
+13 # Blackjack 2016-07-14 10:33
For all of you Bernie naysayers who are turning against him after his endorsement of Clinton, get over it and grow the hell up! Where do you think progressives in this country would be now were it not for Bernie's courageous stand? This man has spent more than a year of his life moving the progressive agenda forward in a sane and respectful, yet determined way. He could have been just as immoral as Clinton during this process, lying and cheating all the way, but he chose not to. He knew that her entire campaign centers around being the first woman president, so had he done anything to make him appear to disrespect her, he would have forever been tarnished as a positive political influence. He promised from the beginning to "endorse" the eventual nominee if the Dems would agree to let him run as a Dem. Bernie keeps his word and so should the rest of us who have supported him so fervently. He did not betray us. He used his very considerable negotiating skills to get progressives all they were ever going to get in this election. It's up to the rest of us, to push those progressive ideas forward at every level of the political game. So stop complaining and get busy!
 
 
+5 # Anonymot 2016-07-14 12:49
We are not turning against Bernie Sanders. We think he got duped by Clintonian false promises when he was discouraged by her rigging of the election system (helped by the media, the Democrat Establishment, and her slick tongue.) God knows what she promised.

If he leaves her after the convention, we're with him again. He could still join Stein. Bernard Sanders is not going to move the corrupt behemoth of the Party. I've been in politics far too long to believe that.
 
 
-4 # Robbee 2016-07-14 15:16
Quoting Anonymot:
We are not turning against Bernie Sanders. We think he got duped by Clinton

- for us who are not adept at your psychic? - please detail exactly how hill mislead bernie? - what hill told bernie? - and how what hill told bernie? deceived bernie? thanks!

then please explain how you are not turning against bernie? okay? - from your prior wishy-washy comments this is all so expected? but complex?
 
 
-7 # Mako 2016-07-14 15:20
Quoting Anonymot:
We are not turning against Bernie Sanders. We think he got duped by Clintonian false promises when he was discouraged by her rigging of the election system (helped by the media, the Democrat Establishment, and her slick tongue.) God knows what she promised.

If he leaves her after the convention, we're with him again. He could still join Stein. Bernard Sanders is not going to move the corrupt behemoth of the Party. I've been in politics far too long to believe that.


Spoilers: You are turning against him.

Apparently, he's so foolish and gullible that he's been bamboozled into thinking he's an actual experienced politician and bargainer, that what he believes are policy concessions are really just smoke up his ass.

Yeah, real respectful. And rooted in reality. And again. Nothing was rigged. God, facts just don't mean shit here, do they?

And get over your Jill Stein fixation. He'll never be the Green Party candidate you fantasize him to be. He has more sense than that. He knows where the real work and possible achievements lie.
 
 
+2 # CL38 2016-07-14 13:14
Blackjack:

I have the greatest respect for Sanders and agree with most of what you've said. He's changed the conversation to persistently include our issues at the forefront, despite the MSM & DNC rdetermination to ignore them.

I also appreciate that Sanders is a 21st century patriot (in the true sense of the word) for taking this fight on, and for his right to keep his word to endorse her. Personally, I wish he'd gone a step further to call both Clinton and the DNC out for rigging and stealing the election. NO ONE should be handed the Presidency after the shenanigans they've pulled. They've been bought by the oligarchs who are running this country now.

I will always support Bernie be part of the progressive movement. That said, for me, I'll vote my conscience and write in Bernie's name in November, if possible. After watching Clinton and the DNC this election, there is no way this life-time Democrat would..could ever vote for her.
 
 
-6 # Robbee 2016-07-14 15:19
Quoting CL38:
I have the greatest respect for Sanders and agree with most of what you've said. He's changed the conversation to persistently include our issues at the forefront, despite the MSM & DNC rdetermination to ignore them.

I also appreciate that Sanders is a 21st century patriot (in the true sense of the word) for taking this fight on, and for his right to keep his word to endorse her. Personally, I wish he'd gone a step further to call both Clinton and the DNC out for rigging and stealing the election. NO ONE should be handed the Presidency after the shenanigans they've pulled. They've been bought by the oligarchs who are running this country now.

I will always support Bernie be part of the progressive movement. That said, for me, I'll vote my conscience and write in Bernie's name in November, if possible. After watching Clinton and the DNC this election, there is no way this life-time Democrat would..could ever vote for her.

- sunshine patriot!
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-07-14 16:37
Unless Bernie does end up with the Democratic nomination, he's out of the running.

If you're refusing to vote for HRC, then please vote for Jill Stein. She's on enough state ballots to win. If she's not on your ballot, then please write in her name instead of Bernie's.
 
 
+17 # pernsey 2016-07-14 10:41
Its to bad Hillary got the nomination, Bernie would have been so much better to beat Trump, Im not sure she can. She has so much dirty laundry that the thought of voting for her makes me want to do my wash.

Bernie would have been so much better to rally the country. Right now I feel like my choices are NO and HELL NO!!!
 
 
-8 # lights 2016-07-14 11:13
It does not feel good to be STUCK in NO and HELL NO!! We need continued momentum both personally and for this country as a whole!

"Life is like riding a bicycle, to keep it balanced you must keep moving"
- Albert Einstein
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-07-14 13:19
oh pulleeezzze. it's clear from all your 'posts' what you care about more than anything is getting 1% Clinton into the WH.
 
 
+4 # Ken Halt 2016-07-14 16:47
CL38: Yeah, now the Hillbots are trying to "make nice", after tagging Bernie supporters with names such as misogynists, fools, idealists, and communists! Now they want us to vote for their preferred candidate? Pulleeze!
 
 
+5 # economagic 2016-07-14 20:42
And "haters."
 
 
-7 # rocback 2016-07-14 21:03
Don't flatter yourself. Vote for who the hell you want. Join us if you want. You can lead, follow or get the hell out of the way. Cut off your nose to spite your face. Act like a petulant child.
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-07-15 02:43
yeahyeahyeah blather, nonsense, hypocrisy, progaganda, trash-talk, asking a woman when she last 'got laid'.

You're quite a piece of work (not).
 
 
+1 # Ken Halt 2016-07-15 03:00
I'll vote my conscience and it will not be for HRC! The status quo is not working for the 99%. "...petulant child."? Sorry, your mojo is not working.
 
 
+2 # jimallyn 2016-07-14 23:43
Quoting pernsey:
Its to bad Hillary got the nomination

Hillary didn't get the nomination. There will be no nomination until the convention.
 
 
+12 # guomashi 2016-07-14 10:49
Of all options open to Sanders, he chose the one that left him in the strongest position.
Having endorsed Hillary, he can't be marginalized.
Since they can't marginalize him, he has the power to continue leading and organizing a movement, which he is choosing to exercise.

I will never vote for Hillary, but I don't believe Sanders should in any way be demonized for what he has done. In the end it serves the movement more than any other choice he could have made. He is still a force inside the party rather than someone who can be summarily ignored.

I expect the best way to ensure Bernie's continued influence is to get a democratic senate and make sure Hillary loses.
 
 
-10 # Mako 2016-07-14 11:12
Quoting guomashi:
Of all options open to Sanders, he chose the one that left him in the strongest position.
Having endorsed Hillary, he can't be marginalized.
Since they can't marginalize him, he has the power to continue leading and organizing a movement, which he is choosing to exercise.

I will never vote for Hillary, but I don't believe Sanders should in any way be demonized for what he has done. In the end it serves the movement more than any other choice he could have made. He is still a force inside the party rather than someone who can be summarily ignored.

I expect the best way to ensure Bernie's continued influence is to get a democratic senate and make sure Hillary loses.


....Do you realize how schizophrenic that sounds?

You just admitted that what he did was sound political judgment, and the best way for Bernie's policies to be implemented is for the party he campaigned with (The Democratic Party) regain control of the Senate.

...But they shouldn't have the White House? Cognitive Dissonance is a helluva drug, I guess.
 
 
+9 # guomashi 2016-07-14 11:58
Quoting Mako:
Quoting guomashi:
Of all options open to Sanders, he chose the one that left him in the strongest position.
Having endorsed Hillary, he can't be marginalized.
Since they can't marginalize him, he has the power to continue leading and organizing a movement, which he is choosing to exercise.

I will never vote for Hillary, but I don't believe Sanders should in any way be demonized for what he has done. In the end it serves the movement more than any other choice he could have made. He is still a force inside the party rather than someone who can be summarily ignored.

I expect the best way to ensure Bernie's continued influence is to get a democratic senate and make sure Hillary loses.


....Do you realize how schizophrenic that sounds?

You just admitted that what he did was sound political judgment, and the best way for Bernie's policies to be implemented is for the party he campaigned with (The Democratic Party) regain control of the Senate.

...But they shouldn't have the White House? Cognitive Dissonance is a helluva drug, I guess.


I realize exactly what i said.
We have a three part government for the express purpose of balancing powers against each other.

I guess you didn't learn that in elementary school?
 
 
-7 # rocback 2016-07-14 12:22
If Trump wins, all three of your "three part govts" will be controlled by one party.

Maybe you didn't make it to 7th grade civics class.
 
 
+9 # librarian1984 2016-07-14 13:02
Or maybe it'll be like when the Dems had the executive and both houses. Remember that? No minimum wage increase, no end to war, no sensible gun reform, no Wall Street regulation, no end to mass surveillance, no ending the drug war, no protecting young people from student debt, no end to mass incarceration, no end to Citizens United or corporations=pe ople etc.

Maybe they'll be like that?

Hey, you've been partially persuasive. I DO believe HRC will "get things done". I just don't like what she wants to do -- hand social security to Wall Street and start more wars in the Middle East and Asia.
 
 
-9 # rocback 2016-07-14 14:44
Unless you got 60 Senators, especially when the head of the Republican Senate says their number one priority is to defeat everything you propose, you can't even get a vote. Read a civics book in your library. It's under the letter "c".
 
 
# Guest 2016-07-16 11:11
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
-7 # Robbee 2016-07-14 15:32
Quoting CL38:
oh pulleeezzze. it's clear from all your 'posts' what you care about more than anything is getting 1% Clinton into the WH.

- so what is clear from all your ;osts?Quoting librarian1984:
Maybe they'll be like when the Dems had the executive and both houses. Remember that? No minimum wage increase, no end to war, no sensible gun reform, no Wall Street regulation, no end to mass surveillance, no ending the drug war, no protecting young people from student debt, no end to mass incarceration, no end to Citizens United or corporations=people etc.

Maybe they'll be like that?

Hey, you've been partially persuasive. I DO believe HRC will "get things done". I just don't like what she wants to do -- hand social security to Wall Street and start more wars in the Middle East and Asia.

- i recall 1992 where bubba blew all his election capital on ACA?

and i recall 2008 where obama blew all his election capital on ACA?

what did i miss?
 
 
+8 # Radscal 2016-07-14 18:37
Well, I'm glad to see you admit that both Clinton and Obama pushed the same mandatory purchase of defective products from corporations.

It's amazing the kind of fantasies the Hil-Bots have bought into about her "Healthcare Reform."

There is some reason why record numbers of voters turned out to elect a Democratic President and huge majorities in Congress.

And for some reason, forcing HeritageCare down our throats, bailing out Wall Street while allowing some 10 million families to lose their homes and escalating the wars didn't motivate those voters to reward them in 2010 and beyond.

Wonder why?
 
 
+8 # guomashi 2016-07-14 13:39
Quoting rocback:
If Trump wins, all three of your "three part govts" will be controlled by one party.

Maybe you didn't make it to 7th grade civics class.


how stupid are you?
for the reading challenged, get a friend to read this to you

"I expect the best way to ensure Bernie's continued influence is to get a democratic senate and make sure Hillary loses.'"
 
 
+5 # fuzzbuzz 2016-07-14 14:23
> If Trump wins, all three of your "three part govts" will be controlled by one party.

Both parties are the same party. They're both owned by the same group of people, so they're really one party.

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....” - Noam Chomsky

You're NOT going to learn that in ANY class - you'll have to think for yourself. Can you do that?
 
 
+6 # librarian1984 2016-07-14 16:39
@ rocback

Quoting rocback:
If Trump wins, all three of your "three part govts" will be controlled by one party....Maybe you didn't make it to 7th grade civics class.

Would one of those parts be the judiciary, perhaps? The one that's not controlled by a party?

Better dig out that civics book!
 
 
-6 # rocback 2016-07-14 21:11
Actually, the Supreme Court was ALSO controlled by the Republicans until Scalia died. Now its 4-4 and if Trump wins it will AGAIN be controlled by the Republicans. Look it up in your library. :-)
 
 
+4 # DaveEwoldt 2016-07-14 14:50
I see what you're saying, guomashi, and I agree. Should Trump win in a scenario where there is high downballot progressive turnout, I can imagine Trump, a former Democrat whose job seems to be to make it perfectly obvious to everyone other than die-hard Republicans how abhorrent Republicans have become, signing off on Democratic legislation that has a populist bent rather than vetoing it.
 
 
# Guest 2016-07-14 15:17
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
-7 # rocback 2016-07-14 21:16
Mako, the bernouts are already setting up their excuse if Trump wins ala Ralph Nader voters who have the death of 3000 American soldiers on their hands and the 5-4 Citizens United decision because of Alito and Roberts.

When Trump's thin skin gets insulted by some two bit ruler no telling what he will do. What will that immoral greedy hateful vindictive man do with control of the CIA or the FBI or the FDA, the IRS or the courts?
 
 
+3 # DaveEwoldt 2016-07-15 17:00
I take it you're trying to make a point here of some type, Mako?
 
 
+6 # CL38 2016-07-14 13:22
Perhaps guomashi is advocating for a much more progressive Senate and House, instead of the same gop/dem's who were 'installed'.

But I'm sure you already know that....pretend ing to misunderstand to justify trashing?
 
 
+2 # Anonymot 2016-07-14 12:55
Guomashi,
Hillary with a Democrat Congress!? Not on your life. We would be in an atomic war in a week, because idiots like General Breedlove and John Brennan and Clapper, etc. are convinced we'd win in no time flat - like we did in Iraq, Libya, etc. They are Hillary's ventriloquists.
 
 
+3 # guomashi 2016-07-14 13:41
Quoting Anonymot:
Guomashi,
Hillary with a Democrat Congress!? Not on your life. We would be in an atomic war in a week, because idiots like General Breedlove and John Brennan and Clapper, etc. are convinced we'd win in no time flat - like we did in Iraq, Libya, etc. They are Hillary's ventriloquists.


You must be talking about some other guomashi unknown to me.
To whit:

"I expect the best way to ensure Bernie's continued influence is to get a democratic senate and make sure Hillary loses.'"
 
 
-4 # Aurelia 2016-07-14 14:25
Re: guomashi

I will never vote for Hillary, but I don't believe Sanders should in any way be demonized for what he has done.

And yet guomashi, it is you who are in fact "demonizing" Bernie by not trusting he knows exaactly what he is doing. This is the sure way all his work will pay off. Backing Bernie's decision backs everything he has worked so hard to accomplish. You are not only "demonizing" his decision, you are throwing him under the bus and trying to make sure his progressive policies never get implemented. You do know the alternative is Trump do you not? Do you think Bernie's progressive policies will move forward in a Trump administration?
 
 
-8 # lights 2016-07-14 11:15
guomashi: Would that be a Democratic Senate and House with TRUMP as President? Just think that one through......
 
 
+4 # guomashi 2016-07-14 11:59
Quoting lights:
guomashi: Would that be a Democratic Senate and House with TRUMP as President? Just think that one through......


Yeah, i've thought it through.
Trump would be a much better president than Hillary. Trump wouldn't be pushing "free trade" deals to rape the american taxpayers.
Trump wouldn't be pushing WW III.

End of discussion.
 
 
-4 # Mako 2016-07-14 15:04
Quoting guomashi:

Yeah, i've thought it through.
Trump would be a much better president than Hillary. Trump wouldn't be pushing "free trade" deals to rape the american taxpayers.
Trump wouldn't be pushing WW III.

End of discussion.


Yes, end of discussion. Because you've shown yourself to be wholly ignorant, unqualified, and a bold-faced liar based on what you just said.

Trump doesn't want WWIII?

"America's primary goal with Iran must be to destroy its nuclear ambitions. Let me put them as plainly as I know how: Iran's nuclear program must be stopped--by any and all means necessary. Period. We cannot allow this radical regime to acquire a nuclear weapon that they will either use or hand off to terrorists. Better now than later!" -Trump

"North Korea would suddenly discover that its worthless promises of civilized behavior would cut no ice. I would let Pyongyang know in no uncertain terms that it can either get out of the nuclear arms race or expect a rebuke similar to the one Ronald Reagan delivered to Ghadhafi in 1986. I don’t think anybody is going to accuse me of tiptoeing through the issues or tap-dancing around them either. Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?" -Trump

...But Trump would be a better President. He wouldn't go for war with nuclear armed countries Right. You're loony toons.
 
 
+7 # Ken Halt 2016-07-14 16:12
Mako: Get a grip, dude, you're on a thread where people deal in fact and verifiable record, not snark and innuendo. HRC's long public record is there for all to see, that you Hillbots choose to ignore it is a problem for us. Her vote as senator for Iraqi war powers is my sticking point. No person who supported that vote should be considered for highest office. There was plenty of evidence available to disprove the lies of the Bush admin yet HRC voted to give GWB unlimited war powers? NO! Not qualified for highest office! Another example of bad judgement. We dont want a person with a proven record of poor judgement to be in the oval office!
 
 
-7 # Mako 2016-07-14 17:23
Quoting Ken Halt:
Mako: Get a grip, dude, you're on a thread where people deal in fact and verifiable record, not snark and innuendo. HRC's long public record is there for all to see, that you Hillbots choose to ignore it is a problem for us. Her vote as senator for Iraqi war powers is my sticking point. No person who supported that vote should be considered for highest office. There was plenty of evidence available to disprove the lies of the Bush admin yet HRC voted to give GWB unlimited war powers? NO! Not qualified for highest office! Another example of bad judgement. We dont want a person with a proven record of poor judgement to be in the oval office!


Tell that to all your fellow travelers who spew lies and misinformation.

What thread are *you* talking about? Very few here are dealing in "fact and verifiable record, not snark and innuendo." You've got people saying CT as fact and false equivalences to perpetuate butthurt from the primary. Just like yourself.

Hillary falling for Bush's lie, while unfortunate doesn't mean Iraq is her fault, and as a senator she was a vocal critic of it and stated she regretted it. Your sham litmus test is a BS zero sum metric that ignores nuance in favor of rigid ideological purity. Are we the tea party now? You get a grip and tell your friends to try it

And everyone please keep down voting me. I love to know I'm bothering so many by refusing to toe your echo chamber script you had here.
 
 
+3 # Ken Halt 2016-07-15 03:11
We've got too many Hillbots on this thread already, we don't need another know-nothing like you. Hillary falling for Bush admin lies is a sign of incredible gullibility and massive poor judgement. No, she didn't start the war, but I don't want a person with her proven and very public record of bad judgement in the oval office. Contrast her vote with Bernie's impassioned speech, which you can find on Youtube, against the war powers vote. He got it right, and was almost prescient in his evaluation of the consequences. It amazes me that people like you can gloss over her many problems, her flips, her poor judgement calls, and think she will be a good nominee! There are real reasons for her negatives, people know her record. And make no mistake, people on this thread are looking at her record and not the spurious Repub talking points (Benghazi, emails, Whitewater, Foster suicide, etc). So you Hillbots come on here and expect to counter her long and factual public record with what? Bluster, explanations that ring hollow, puerile name calling, disrespect, empty arguments. Sorry, ain't working!
 
 
-2 # Mako 2016-07-15 07:19
No, it's called countering with logic and actual, cited evidence within reality. Not your bullshit CT crap. And guess what? Bernie didn't fucking win. He already endorsed the winner, and her judgment.

People like you in this thread are cognitively numb to facts and HAVE cited Repub talking points to smear her SEVERAL DAMN TIMES. READ. "Hillbots" is a pretty piss poor attempt to deflect at your own lacking arguments beyond "BLUH BLUH IT WAS RIGGED!!!!11"
 
 
-3 # lights 2016-07-14 18:11
"Actually Putin never gave such high praise, (of trump) said Ivan Zubkov in Izvestia (Russia). "What Putin said was that Trump is "yarkiy" which means colorful or flamboyant, but the U.S. press mistranslated the word as "bright," meaning intelligent.

"It's unlikely, in fact that the two men would ever get along. Trump has said he would prevent Russian warplanes from conducting maneuvers near U.S. assets in the Baltic Sea by simply phoning Putin and 'ORDERING HIM TO STOP,' and if that didn't work by opening fire on the jets."
 
 
+2 # Anonymot 2016-07-14 12:56
THAT might be interesting. They could cancel each other out for 4 years as the Republicans have for 6.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-07-15 10:54
Are you still talking about anybody-but-HRC as president and a Democratic Senate?

That might be EXACTLY what we want.

Are there progressives running for the Senate? In PA Republican incumbent Pat Toomey, 95% tool, is running against establishment-E mily's List candidate Katie McGinty, who beat wild card Joe Sestak in the primary. He was considered better suited to beat Toomey but was also perceived as less controllable by the establishment.

THAT sounds familiar.
 
 
+4 # CL38 2016-07-14 13:28
You use constant harassment and hounding repeating the same nonsense to convince progressives to see this as you do. It's clear to most, there's a small group of you, for whatever reasons, perhaps paid to attack Sander's supporters? and to convince progressives?

Not one person converted. That's an epic fail, on your and rockcrack's part.
 
 
-9 # Mako 2016-07-14 15:06
Quoting CL38:
You use constant harassment and hounding repeating the same nonsense to convince progressives to see this as you do. It's clear to most, there's a small group of you, for whatever reasons, perhaps paid to attack Sander's supporters? and to convince progressives?

Not one person converted. That's an epic fail, on your and rockcrack's part.


No, I'm just fucking tired of the venom and vitriol here, and I frankly am not going to just read these thick ass comments here anymore and leave them unchallenged. I don't give a fuck if I change your mind or convert you.

But I am going to call you out on your lies, incoherent logic, and conspiracy theory. People here that aren't drinking the venom that YOU are, are tired of constantly seeing this shit every time an article about this election is posted.

You don't get to have this place be your echo chamber anymore. Get used to having an opposing voice here.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-07-14 16:26
hahaha. It's like a little baby rattlesnake.

Hi CL38 -- enjoying your posts. This new one's a bit of a w@nker, eh? Another summer intern perhaps?
 
 
-9 # Mako 2016-07-14 17:25
Pretty ironic coming from the hypocrite who calls everyone who disagrees with them a troll. Lacking in such self awareness is sad.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-07-14 17:45
You keep trying, Max. We can't expect too much from your first day on the job. We'll just chalk it up as a learning day.

Lots of f-words, though. I guess that's something.
 
 
-5 # Mako 2016-07-14 18:24
Who the hell is Max? lol
 
 
+5 # djnova50 2016-07-14 11:21
I have been a Bernie Sanders supporter and I do believe that he would be the best Democrat to defeat Donald Trump in the General Election. I do not want to support Hillary Clinton just because Bernie Sanders endorsed her and plans on voting for her. My vote is mine to make. I don't like Hillary Clinton. That does not mean that I hate her. I do not like some of the things that she has done to get to where she is now. She has high-powered friends. My prediction is that she will win simply because she is not Donald Trump. And she will do it without my vote. The Democrats have done an outstanding job with demonizing Donald Trump. Of course, Donald Trump has not helped his cause by sounding like a racist or bigot.
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-07-14 16:43
Donald Trump is playing the role he was brought in to play.

The corporate media has been playing the role they've been told to play.

HRC will play the role she's been paid to play if we allow her back into the White House.
 
 
-8 # lights 2016-07-14 11:38
In high powered TIMES, one needs HIGH POWERED friends to GET THINGS DONE! In the end, it seems Bernie knows this truth too!
 
 
+5 # Ken Halt 2016-07-14 16:20
lights: I quote Confucius: "To be a leader in a time of corruption is not an honor." Your candidate accepted huge amounts of money for speeches to the financial industry, the same industry that bankrupted the global economy in 2008. High-powered friends do get things done, but their allegiance is to the donation base, not We The People.
 
 
+9 # ssseeman@outlook.com 2016-07-14 11:41
Scott - thank you for this candid article. I agree that Bernie's movement is not over - the work continues.
 
 
-4 # lights 2016-07-14 11:51
"Life is like riding a bicycle, to keep it balanced you must keep moving"
- Albert Einstein
 
 
+8 # nancyromer 2016-07-14 12:03
Agreed: Bernie moved the progressive agenda front and center in American politics. Now for the next stage. We need a coalition or alliance of all the social movements plus any progressive Dems or Green Party people who want to organize around issues, not just candidates. That coalition or alliance needs to become a Left Flank that will hold Hilary's and the Democratic Party's feet to the fire around all the issues we care about. It could also create more solidarity and shared work between the social movements. It would be great if Bernie could endorse such an effort in his July 24 and then the convention speeches. I am hoping all the meetings and marches in Philly will yield this.
 
 
+13 # The_Freak 2016-07-14 12:05
The old saying "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" comes to mind when talking about pushing HRC to the left. I'm with Bernie in everything he has endorsed except for endorsing HRC. He has his reasons and no one is perfect. Also there is still a glimmer of hope at the convention. After all FDR didn't go the convention as the presumptive nominee but won the the presidential nominee at the convention. So there's hope. Although if Hillary gets the nomination she won't get my vote, her views on foreign affairs are too volatile for me in fact I don't agree with her view on pretty much everything. She is part of the 1% and does not look at the 99% as equals. She looks down on us as if we were her subjects to do with what she wants.
 
 
+10 # countrygirlagain 2016-07-14 12:33
Thank you, thank you, Bernie Sanders. Count me in.
 
 
+13 # cokacoa2 2016-07-14 12:43
I think that we have to form a strong enough organization of groups to have the power to , with Bernie still our leader, to be too powerful to be ignored. And I'm starting to really believe the time ripe for this. Move-on.org has a track record of sticking together power. Move-on, 350.0rg, Black lives matter, Bernie-ites, Occupy, Greenpeace, etc. as one united giant movement would be a coalition no politician could ignore, even Hillary. We've been moving in that direction anyway...let's actively pursue forming this! What shall we call ourselves?
 
 
+3 # DaveEwoldt 2016-07-14 14:57
How about the Green Party?

Or let's waste the next six months arguing over what our shared values and common goal are, finally come to agreement, and discover they sound identical to the Ten Key Values with a slightly different sentence structure.

Yes, I've been through this before in building local progressive coalitions over the past few decades.
 
 
0 # lorenbliss 2016-07-15 03:05
@cokacoa2: How about "the United Front"?
 
 
+4 # Robbee 2016-07-14 13:49
bernie! - you are my personal savior! - please! don't ever! suspend our campaign!
 
 
-3 # Robbee 2016-07-14 13:55
says! # djnova50 2016-07-14 11:21
I have been a Bernie Sanders supporter

lie! - you have been a djnova50 supporter!

stop! riding! bernie's coattails!
 
 
+7 # Blackjack 2016-07-14 14:23
Some of you Hillarybots might want to stop with the smug gloating because there's a very good chance she could lose. . .and it won't be Bernie's fault! It will be on your heads for supporting such a flawed candidate and being sucked into the "first woman president" trap. And it will be HRC's fault for speaking out of both sides of her mouth just about all the time. And it will be the DNC's fault, aka DWS, for plotting ways to undermine Bernie. And it will be the Dem Party's fault for being so hooked into the money pit that they refused to see that the better candidate is Bernie. Trump has not yet begun to unleash his "crooked Hillary" manifesto. That will start in earnest after the conventions. When it does, he will peel away every shred of the cover that HRC has been provided by those who support her. Her reputation of untrustworthine ss keeps dragging her down. She's done nothing since becoming a candidate to unravel the noose that she's put around her own neck. She clearly does not know how to be genuine. Trump is a first class fraud, but he knows how to connect with voters in a way that gives them confidence in his ability to lead.
 
 
-9 # carytucker 2016-07-14 14:49
[quote name="Blackjack "]And it will be the Dem Party's fault for being so hooked into the money pit that they refused to see that the better candidate is Bernie. /quote]

I recognize there's no entrance to the fool's paradise constructed here on RSN by those so unhinged with hatred of Sec'y Clinton, you can see the venom drooling from the comments, but please explain how the Democratic Party is supposed to 'see that the better candidate is (Sen Sanders)' when HRC attracted 3.5+ million more votes than he did?
 
 
+7 # Blackjack 2016-07-14 17:37
Who brings independents into the party? Who brings in young people as new voters? Who recognizes the bottomless pit of money that has turned our democracy into a joke? Who does not drag around baggage from his past political career? Who recognizes that the mood of the country is populist in nature? I could go on, cary, but this should get you started on looking at reality. This is not venom, my dear, it is truth that you and the Dem Party seem intent on either ignoring or dissing. Neither strategy is likely to win the presidency.
 
 
-7 # Mako 2016-07-14 18:03
Quoting Blackjack:
Who brings independents into the party? Who brings in young people as new voters? Who recognizes the bottomless pit of money that has turned our democracy into a joke? Who does not drag around baggage from his past political career? Who recognizes that the mood of the country is populist in nature? I could go on, cary, but this should get you started on looking at reality. This is not venom, my dear, it is truth that you and the Dem Party seem intent on either ignoring or dissing. Neither strategy is likely to win the presidency.


Who fucking won the primary? Who won the most women voters? Who won the most Hispanic voters? Who won the most black voters?


Get fucking real.
 
 
-6 # carytucker 2016-07-14 18:07
Notwithstanding that there's merit in your statements, you've not answered my question. You may think the Democratic Party is ignoring you--it's not, but that's a matter for another conversation--b ut it is not disposed to ignore a plurality of 3.5 million votes.
Certainly I don't disagree that you and your friends can join the children of darkness in the Trump camp. My hope is that in the event he becomes President, you experience a healthy sample of the devastation he will visit upon those you purport to care about.
 
 
+8 # Radscal 2016-07-14 18:50
As sure as I am that HRC will continue her long record of screwing over the 99% and bringing death and destruction around the world, I would never wish the results of her horrendous actions on anyone.

The fact that you do wish harm to those who refuse to bow before Her Majesty is a perfect example of why we'll not vote for your candidate. Cut from the same vengeful cloth.
 
 
-8 # Mako 2016-07-14 19:08
Quoting Radscal:
As sure as I am that HRC will continue her long record of screwing over the 99% and bringing death and destruction around the world, I would never wish the results of her horrendous actions on anyone.

The fact that you do wish harm to those who refuse to bow before Her Majesty is a perfect example of why we'll not vote for your candidate. Cut from the same vengeful cloth.


I don't care who you vote for, but it's DEFINITELY understandable and human for people to want those who promote suffering by hiding behind their privilege and hypocritical self righteousness to experience the ill effects of the immaturity they'd wantonly thrust upon others.

I don't give a damn what you say to try to claim your moral high horse. You're nothing but a virtue-signalin g sunshine liberal hypocrite. You'd rather more black people be disenfranchised and women get fucked over via the SC than actually exert real effort with your vote and go beyond your bullshit comfort zone. Please tell the next person who can't afford health care that you would've voted for it to save them, if you just could've had your perfectly pure candidate.
 
 
+4 # Ken Halt 2016-07-14 16:25
Blkjk: Thanks, great comment! She is a very flawed candidate and Bernie supporters will bear no responsibility if she loses, the problem is with the DNC, which did not field the best candidate. Sorry, it was the DNC's doing! Own it!
 
 
-8 # Mako 2016-07-14 18:01
Quoting Ken Halt:
Blkjk: Thanks, great comment! She is a very flawed candidate and Bernie supporters will bear no responsibility if she loses, the problem is with the DNC, which did not field the best candidate. Sorry, it was the DNC's doing! Own it!


So you want the DNC to pick the candidate not the actual people which Hillary won by over 3 million votes. That hypocrisy looks classy on you.

No, if she loses then white privileged, supremacists racists who give no fucks at all to the plights of people of color, immigrants, and other oppressed groups will bear responsibility. And if you were one of those that enabled it by voting for him, or enabling him by pissing your vote away, then no matter how much you say otherwise you'll be just like them. You can mask it all you want with your self-righteous hypocritical talk and inaction but the truth will remain.
 
 
+5 # Blackjack 2016-07-14 19:04
You and cary must be quite young. You have no sense of history, no tolerance for differences of opinion. And BTW, you are waaaay off base about my supporting Trump. I know what a disaster he is, but that does not mean I will vote for Hillary who has given me zero reasons to vote for her. Your venom for anyone who might disagree with you is phenomenal. You have your candidate, so be happy with your choice. . .unless she loses. Then I guess you will blame the Berners. I am making my choice based upon my ethical convictions. For that reason I cannot vote for HRC. Why should that be a concern for you?
 
 
-6 # Mako 2016-07-14 19:20
Quoting Blackjack:
You and cary must be quite young. You have no sense of history, no tolerance for differences of opinion. And BTW, you are waaaay off base about my supporting Trump. I know what a disaster he is, but that does not mean I will vote for Hillary who has given me zero reasons to vote for her. Your venom for anyone who might disagree with you is phenomenal. You have your candidate, so be happy with your choice. . .unless she loses. Then I guess you will blame the Berners. I am making my choice based upon my ethical convictions. For that reason I cannot vote for HRC. Why should that be a concern for you?


It's a concern for me because you make me sick with your hypocrisy. You claim to be moved by such morals and ethical convictions yet you give NOT A SINGLE FUCK for the woman who's life will be ruined because some religious right wing ideologue chose to take away her right for self determination. You don't fucking care if MORE black people get shot or disenfranchised thanks to Trump and Republicans enacting FEDERAL voter ID laws. You care not ONE FUCKING BIT if Mexicans get deported or more Muslims get demonized, attacked here thanks to his HATEFUL rhetoric. You don't care who might DIE if the ACA is killed.

All you care about is your purity. YOUR "feelings" of who you support. You ooze naive, ignorant privilege and give no fucks about how OTHERS will live if Trump really wins. It's a selfishness common here that fills me with venom and disgust.
 
 
-8 # Mako 2016-07-14 19:26
Quoting Blackjack:
Sorry, Indigo, but Dems have not been "progressive" for 40 years. That's exactly why Bernie has gained so much support. He has tried to work within the Dem Party to move it leftward, as it once was. He knew a 3rd party candidacy would not cut it; the two-party system is too entrenched. He did all he could within the Dem establishment to make the case for progressivism. I've been a Dem for 50 years, but they have lost me because they have, over several election cycles, betrayed my trust. Bernie could have restored it. Stein has been a Green for years; she's not trying to defeat the Dems. They are doing a good job of that all by themselves. Stein, for me, simply represents someone that I can vote FOR. It's either that or not vote and I'm not yet that cynical.


So I guess all those poor people who are alive thanks to affordable health care, women who are thankfully able to not be told what to do with their body, and the millions of Americans getting Federal aid that Repubs wanted to slash away think there's no "progressive" party here.

You need to get out of your 50+ year old shell and look around you. If youre that jaded after seeing the people who are doing well and are at risk if Republicans get their way, then you're blind and no better than Republicans. They still exist no matter how hard you try to ignore them.
 
 
+3 # Ken Halt 2016-07-15 03:27
Mako: So many words, particularly the F words, and so little substance!
 
 
-3 # Mako 2016-07-15 07:22
Quoting Ken Halt:
Mako: So many words, particularly the F words, and so little substance!


>>Said in reply to the post that has not a single use of the "f" word

lolol
 
 
+8 # Radscal 2016-07-14 15:33
"He does not have any delusional plan to steal the nomination from Hillary Clinton.”

The theft already occurred, and the bandit is the “presumptive nominee.”

“…he praised her for agreeing to the most progressive platform ever.”

And even though we all know the Platform is a toothless document, merely intended to motivate the base, the HRC/DNC insisted on vetoing many of the most progressive planks. If they so deliberately crush us when it doesn’t even matter, the delusion is believing they’ll fight for us once in power.

“…people saying that Bernie was a traitor.”

Bernie did promise us to carry the fight to the Convention, but he has always said he’d support the Democratic nominee. Those on the Left tell me I’m a fool for believing Sanders really was trying to win the nomination. They insist he was always a “sheep dog” permitted to run as a Democrat only to draw progressives into ultimately voting for HRC. Maybe. But I still think he’s a good and honest man.

I do have two substantial concerns. 1) he took “the damned emails” off the table from the start. 2) he did not pursue the evidence of election fraud.

“Bernie has moved the progressive cause forward”

Yes, he has. He energized an enormous movement, and gave them hope for the political process.

Now, it’s time to take that energy to the Green Party’s Jill Stein wherever and however possible, and to truly progressive candidates down ticket.
 
 
-5 # Robbee 2016-07-14 18:30
whistling in the dark! says - # Radscal 2016-07-14 15:33
Now, it’s time to take that energy to the Green Party’s Jill Stein

- is stein gonna be on ballots? in every state? - stein is running as a spoiler! for personal glory of defeating a dem! and winning prez for rump! - just as nader did! - his small! but critical part! - for bush2cheney! in florida!

there are woeful differences between our 2 major parties! dems are serious progressive! gops are serious conservative! we are a 2-party system! members of any 3rd ostrich party ignore serious political differences at peril to america!

stein is no serious candidate! almost nobody knows her name or has ever heard of her! - indeed stein is abysmally lazy! has never run for office other than as prez! has never done a job in public office! in 2012 she won almost 1% of the vote! about statistical variance? of accidental? mismarked ballots?

greens are like a guy who goes to the frig, takes out the milk, opens the top, smells it's yeck! spoilt! puts it back, and every four years takes it out again, just to see? if it got fresh again?

- there is only a room for a 2nd progressive party that is disciplined enough NOT to run a candidate for prez!

after 16 years of post-nader hangover in american policy - stein is so full of herself that she still insists on running as 2nd progressive! - proving she is too lazy to run for prez as dem!

- go bernie! and go dem!
 
 
+2 # economagic 2016-07-14 20:46
Damn -- good post!
 
 
-7 # Robbee 2016-07-14 18:39
rad, part 2

rad's is false-flag support for stein! - to, as rad sees it, protect loved ones in iran from hill! primarily! rad works to defeat hill! - rad would gladly have us endure a rump presidency!

if bernie's movement ever had anything to do with hating hill? then bernie's movement never was all about the issues? was it? - too many here are caught up in hating hill? - who spent decades and decades marching! sweating! litigating! voting! and fighting! for our civil rights!

bernie's movement never had anything to do with hating hill! - if bernie's movement loses every single self-styled "supporter"? whose primary objective is hating hill? - then bernie's movement has lost nothing! but dead weight!

all you rump trojans can go straight to rump HQ! - go kiss rump!
 
 
+2 # indigo16 2016-07-14 18:45
[quote name="Robbee"]w histling in the dark! says - # Radscal 2016-07-14 15:33
Now, it’s time to take that energy to the Green Party’s Jill Stein

- is stein gonna be on ballots? in every state? - stein is running as a spoiler! for personal glory of defeating a dem! and winning prez for rump! - just as nader did! - his small! but critical part! - for bush2cheney! in florida!

there are woeful differences between our 2 major parties! dems are serious progressive! gops are serious conservative! we are a 2-party system! members of any 3rd ostrich party ignore serious political differences at peril to america!

/quote]
Ross Perot was a serious third party candidate in 1992 and garnered 19% of the national vote. Nader is not responsible for the Bush situation, Gore is; he did not run a smart campaign, did not carry his home state of Tennessee, nor home state of sitting popular President Arkansas, which would have made Florida irrelevant, picked a fickle running mate Lieberman, wrongly asked for a partial recount in Florida.
 
 
-6 # Mako 2016-07-14 19:09
No, actually Nader is. He said it himself that he ran knowing he wouldn't win, and that it'd be a spoiler but gave no fucks.

So you're wrong.
 
 
+5 # Ken Halt 2016-07-15 03:28
Oh, give us a break, what a tired old meme and untrue!
 
 
-6 # Robbee 2016-07-14 19:16
Quoting indigo16:
Ross Perot was a serious third party candidate in 1992 and garnered 19% of the national vote. Nader is not responsible for the Bush situation, Gore is; he did not run a smart campaign, did not carry his home state of Tennessee, nor home state of sitting popular President Arkansas, which would have made Florida irrelevant, picked a fickle running mate Lieberman, wrongly asked for a partial recount in Florida.


1) greens can't turn unknown stein into well-known perot
2) perot never won anything
3) stein never won anything

nader deniers cannot bring themselves to admit that, no matter how "crappy" a candidate gore was, if nader had not drawn a couple thousand progressive votes from gore's florida tally, we would all have been spared the horrors of bush2cheney - huge tax cuts for the rich, frozen wages, iraq war, occupation, civil war, religious genocide, refugee crises, loss of world trade center and new orleans, never-ending war on terror, worldwide homeland insecurity, the great recession, 18 gop candidates vying to rain war on unstable syria and iraq - you name it!

man-up you effing nader apologists!
 
 
+5 # indigo16 2016-07-14 18:59
Quoting lorenbliss:
@Mainiac: . (Has capitalism become war? Is war now a capitalist product?) .


Absolutely. I refer to the excellent documentary "Why We Fight". War and the products of war have been 50% of the U.S. economy for decades. Many believe that the only reason the U.S. came out of the Great Depression was WWII.
 
 
+5 # Blackjack 2016-07-14 19:13
Sorry, Indigo, but Dems have not been "progressive" for 40 years. That's exactly why Bernie has gained so much support. He has tried to work within the Dem Party to move it leftward, as it once was. He knew a 3rd party candidacy would not cut it; the two-party system is too entrenched. He did all he could within the Dem establishment to make the case for progressivism. I've been a Dem for 50 years, but they have lost me because they have, over several election cycles, betrayed my trust. Bernie could have restored it. Stein has been a Green for years; she's not trying to defeat the Dems. They are doing a good job of that all by themselves. Stein, for me, simply represents someone that I can vote FOR. It's either that or not vote and I'm not yet that cynical.
 
 
+4 # economagic 2016-07-14 20:50
Not that anybody cares: When I see long sub-threads with repeated comments from rockferbrains, Darks, the Shark, et al, I know I'm looking at distractions driven by ignorant trolls flouting faith-based opinions and dogmatic ideologies, and I know I don't need to stop and read much of any of it, regardless of who is attempting to disillusion them.
 
 
+4 # Majikman 2016-07-14 22:35
Right you are, econo. Knowing they spew the SOS, I just red thumb and move on
 
 
-4 # Mako 2016-07-15 07:22
Quoting Majikman:
Right you are, econo. Knowing they spew the SOS, I just red thumb and move on


Because you're too chickenshit to actually back up your bullshit. That's cool!
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-07-14 22:54
I/We care.

I am relatively new to this forum, and I've really enjoyed getting to know the people here -- some are funny, some are wise, some have single issues they really care about, others are generalists etc.

I love to read your posts re economics. I've learned a lot from you and the other economists here. And when I see long tapering threads of troll battles I know you don't like it at all!

But I've also seen you jump in there a few times :-) Personally I have trouble ignoring lies and slander but I agree it is, ultimately, pointless. We gain little or nothing from it. If ignoring them would make them go away I would do it (and I'm willing to try if we coordinate such an effort) but I would rather figure out what they want and mess them up.

That said it was awfully pleasant last week when they were on holiday.
 
 
+2 # Majikman 2016-07-14 23:45
You are an asset to this forum, librarian. If I slip and call you Lib or Libby, that's not an insult as it's the name of my beloved and super smart German Shepherd.

In fact I tell my neocon brother that "Libby" is short for Liberal just to watch him sputter and fly around the room.
 
 
+4 # lorenbliss 2016-07-15 00:11
Indeed she is!
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-07-15 06:37
Next round is on me!
 
 
+3 # Ken Halt 2016-07-15 03:32
Yes, I second Majik and loren, great to have you on this thread, librarian. Your comments are germane, witty, and often amusing, which is a bonus!
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-07-15 06:41
@ Ken Halt

I am extremely lucky to have found you all is what I am. I think I'd have gone insane without rsn.

The truth is I am the least witty of my family. To be honest I am pretty slow, so this format works well for me :-)

Thanks for your kindness.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-07-15 06:36
@ Majikman

That is very kind of you but I know I am a mixed bag. Just remember my safe word: winnebago.

lol. I have relatives who listen to Rush, to my utter shame, but I think they are equally embarrassed of me so it evens out.

"If I slip and call you Lib or Libby, that's not an insult as it's the name of my beloved and super smart German Shepherd."

Spoken like a true dog person :-)
 
 
+3 # Majikman 2016-07-15 12:37
@ Lib quote:
"Just remember my safe word: winnebago."

LOVE IT!!! I live on the NW peninsula directly across the strait from British Columbia. My safe word has been "rowboat"
 
 
+3 # economagic 2016-07-15 08:33
# librarian1984

Ha! Thank you, and guilty as charged!

Leave it to the librarians. Just this morning I heard of a book titled "The Bad-Ass Librarians of Timbuktu, And Their Race to Save the World’s Most Precious Manuscripts." And we will never forget the organized and effective resistance of librarians to certain provisions of the (not) Patriot Act.

And yes, some of the trolls actually have part of it right, and may be primed for an epiphany. Mako is new, but may be one of those despite the bluster and bile.

It seems to me that there are increasing numbers of very sharp people with significant knowledge and experience commenting in these pages. That creates a space for serious discussion of significant issues, which I compared to the Committees of Correspondence in the comments on Marc Ash's article this morning. I also see such forums as an aspect of new modes for education outside the academy, which is rapidly being assimilated into Global Megacorp (aka RAMJAC Corporation). That is one of about three major focuses of my retirement. Electoral politics is not one of them!
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-07-15 13:01
I was very proud of the librarians for standing against the Patriot Act, and for fighting censorship for many years.

Also, when the internet became accessible to the public (remember Mosaic? the Louvre, one of the first good web sites?) -- believe it or not it was librarians who taught kids how to surf the web!

The MLS was listed by Forbes Magazine as the single most worthless degree you could get, and I have found indeed it is not lucrative, but I am proud to be a librarian and I've had jobs where I was paid to buy books -- THAT was pretty sweet!

Thank you for the kudos for librarians ... an odd bunch but relatively harmless -- and well organized.

I have got to get that book!
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-07-15 19:19
A librarian introduced me to the internet (well, not counting my dear nerd friend who was online in the 1980s). She helped me create my first email account, and thusly my first password.

ps. I third (or fourth, or wherever we are now) that motion that you're a sparkling joy to have around.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-07-15 20:20
haha

Nothing more truly captures the surreal alternate reality of the net like saying *I* am a 'sparkling joy' !! Nobody in the real world has ever said that about me lol

Regards, everybody.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-07-15 20:43
I talk funny in person, too.

Sometimes my wife finds it enchanting. And sometimes.... not so much.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-07-16 19:44
haha

If she's as smart as you you must have awesome discussions!

Hey, why haven't you two solved all the world's problems yet?
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-07-18 15:48
My first memorable experience with a librarian was at the bookmobile that used to come to our neighborhood on Wednesdays. I was around 11 or 12 and typed up a list of horrific R-rated books I wanted to read. I told her it was a list from my teacher for 'research'. haha

My typing was atrocious but she gave me a bunch of the books anyway.

I was NOT ready for them!
 
 
+1 # economagic 2016-07-16 18:40
"The MLS was listed by Forbes Magazine as the single most worthless degree you could get, and I have found indeed it is not lucrative, but I am proud to be a librarian and I've had jobs where I was paid to buy books -- THAT was pretty sweet!"

Yeah, for Steve Forbes even more than his father, money is holy above all else. The authors of most introductory economics textbooks tell the same story without comment; a few tell it with adulation.

Adam Smith spelled out three distinct theories of value current in his time (1776), acknowledging the virtues and shortcomings of each and pointing out the importance of judgment. In 1890 an Englishman named Alfred Marshall declared that more than two centuries of serious academic debate as to the nature and origin of value -- what it means and where it comes from -- had ended: Since only "exchange value" ("How much [money] will you gimme for it?") was quantifiable, it was the ONLY acceptable measure of value in the new "science" (NOT!) of "Economics." In effect (ripping off Protagoras), "Money is the measure of all things."

And if you believe that, I have some beautiful oceanfront property in NW Georgia I'll sell you cheap. It isn't oceanfront yet, but it will be soon.

The proposition is absurdly easy to debunk, even to quasi-literate college freshmen. I would ask them how many would sell their firstborn for $100, then up the ante. Some would cave at $100, others at a million, but by that time the point has been made.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-07-17 09:32
"And if you believe that, I have some beautiful oceanfront property in NW Georgia I'll sell you cheap. It isn't oceanfront yet, but it will be soon."

"The proposition is absurdly easy to debunk, even to quasi-literate college freshmen."

Hahaha Do all economists have a good sense of humor?

Truly, to define value only as market value is an impoverished view of things.

To me, that's always where the interesting questions lie -- in the difficult and nebulous concepts that defy easy answers -- but those are also the rabbit holes that can ruin a career! I really enjoyed social psychology in graduate school but they were not respected like the other disciplines because most thought their subject was too 'fuzzy'. If it can't be quantified it's worthless, seemed to be the thinking.

Thanks, e!
 
 
+1 # economagic 2016-07-17 12:56
A lot of economists seem to THINK they have a great sense of humor! My concern is that so many of them seem to have so little sense at all. IMNSHO, it is a dishonest discipline, a Belief System that is internally inconsistent and that flies in the face of much of the advice from the sages through the ages.

There are, however, growing numbers of "heterodox" economists who reject the classical paradigm (which I often call "classical claptrap") in whole or in part. At a conference a few years ago Jamie Galbraith (youngest son of the great J. K.) was supposed to be sharing a session with another presenter who was unable to appear because of weather. While Jamie could probably have covered the entire two hours by himself, the facilitator, an economist from Middlebury College, was filling some time talking about teaching the introductory courses ("Principles"). At one point he proclaimed, "The first five chapters are the Kool Aid: Get them to swallow that and they will believe anything."

Both of these guys have acid wits.

Quantification has its place, but as a math geek I say it's dreadfully overrated, or at least often inserted where it is not appropriate. Since you're interested in the gray areas, you might enjoy a graphic narrative titled "Logicomix." It's the story of Russell and Whitehead and their struggle with paradox, told in a very approachable style in 300 gorgeously illustrated glossy pages for a mere $25, now $15.95 at Powell's!
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-07-18 15:57
The book sounds right up my alley. I used to really enjoy Russell's ideas but it's been a while.

Powell's in Portland? One of my favorite places in the world. Much better browsing than NYC's Strand, though both have their charms.

I always enjoyed economics for one reason. I could never decide what I wanted to be 'when I grew up' -- I was interested in everything -- but I knew right away I DIDN'T want to be an economist -- and that was a relief :-D

But as I've gotten older I've found myself more interested but not particularly good at it, so I really enjoy your posts. You explain things very clearly.

I guess my problem with economics is that seems so faith-based. :-)
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-07-18 16:03
I have a theory about paradoxes -- they are false dilemmas that point to the inadequacies of language or concept rather than offering a logical impossibility -- if that makes sense.

I'll have to read the book. Thanks for telling me about it.
 
 
+1 # economagic 2016-07-18 20:15
I think that's dead on with regard to paradoxes, which I think may all be manifestations of a single reality. "Logicomix" helped me to sort that out. As I understand it, Wittgenstein's retort to Russell was along those lines. Dover had his "Tractatus" on sale for three bucks a couple of years ago so I ordered it. VERY dense and abstruse, but having to do with clear and unambiguous representation of ideas in language.

My first real exposure to paradox was in a class on Religions of India. The ancient Hindus had an expression, "Neti, neti," which translates as "Not this, not that," but encompasses the entire spectrum of could be this, could be that, could be both, could be neither, what do WE know? I had little to tie it to at the time (except for a mention of Russell and Whitehead's efforts to get around the problem of self-reference in Scientific American magazine). It was only much later that I recognized the contrast with Aristotle's "Either it is or it ain't, can't be both, can't be neither, just one or the other." It works great for computers, humans not so much.

The foundations of thought and reasoning are interesting, and, I think, important. It appears that there a lot more questions than answers, but some understanding of the process seems to enhance understanding in the wider realm.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-07-19 14:58
"Aristotle's "Either it is or it ain't, can't be both, can't be neither, just one or the other.""

What's the original Greek on that?

***

OMG I have books from college I'm still trying to get through! They sure are rewarding though I usually feel like a complete idiot. It's frightening to face the limits of our understanding, praying it isn't the limit of our ability to understand.

Another weird thing is that, academically, I was taught to mock existentialists so I totally ignored them -- and I have, almost six decades on, found that I ADORE existentialism. It's what I've been searching for for years. People mock me frequently for bringing up just such questions. Well. that and my horrible fashion sense.

Yes I agree SO completely. In the exercise of digitizing everything we necessarily impoverish those things. Gets back to our quantification dilemma, yeah? Heck you don't even need to reference the big questions, just lock two audiophiles in a room, one of whom prefers LPs, and you've got an existential slugfest!

When I first went to grad school, as a cognitive scientist we were required to collaborate with another discipline. Great! I trotted over to history and philosophy and was told by both departments that I should do myself a favor and pick something with a future. What a pity huh?
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-07-19 15:02
Quoting economagic:
The ancient Hindus had an expression, "Neti, neti," which translates as "Not this, not that," but encompasses the entire spectrum of could be this, could be that, could be both, could be neither, what do WE know?
Okay now I'm confused. How does that fit in with a nasal drench? Aren't those called neti pots? Or are they really multi-use pots?
 
 
+1 # economagic 2016-07-18 19:41
Yes, Powell's in Portland -- you cover a lot of territory! I passed through Portland once many years ago, NYC likewise, both before I would have known a bookstore from a Waldenbooks.

"I could never decide what I wanted to be 'when I grew up' -- I was interested in everything"

Yes, all too familiar! I finally figured it out at age 50 (NOT economics), but after 20 years in the classroom I'm exploring other modes. I'm finding that forums such as these are surprisingly good venues for "the teaching-learni ng process" (edubabble). Right now the trolls make it hard to follow a thread, but I suspect they will thin out after the election and perhaps a period of recrimination.

"I guess my problem with economics is that seems so faith-based. :-)"

Have you been reading my mind when I wasn't paying attention? I've been saying exactly that almost since I stumbled into it by accident 25 years ago (long story). More recently I adopted as my mantra, "Don't trust anything any economist tells you, including me."

I kept taking another class and then another, trying to figure out what they were really saying, because it looked so patently bogus. My undergrad was physics, which can also seem opaque at times, and in which the connection between the math and the manifestation is not always clear. But in economics the "reveal" was always another riddle, with an assumed solution that was then touted as gospel.

See "Faith based," above, also Kool Aid."
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-07-19 15:11
Quoting economagic:
but I suspect they will thin out after the election and perhaps a period of recrimination.

But in economics the "reveal" was always another riddle, with an assumed solution that was then touted as gospel.


ha Yeah. We'll have to face the recrimination before they go away -- or the crowing. Either way, obnoxious.

It is delightful to meet an honest economist! I didn't think all the smoke and mirrors could be my imagination. How many agree with you, would you say? If I ever get two spare minutes I'll look into hetero-economic s, which sounds like it could be a step in the right direction -- for all I know!

Very nice talking to you.
 
 
+1 # economagic 2016-07-18 20:48
Economics: For years I have been recommending as the best introduction for the educated layperson to what economics is and how it came to be, Robert Heilbroner's "The Worldly Philosophers: The Lives, Times, and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers."

But a few months ago a colleague in a local anti-TPP group put us onto one that may be even better. It's another graphic narrative (B&W only) that follows Heilbroner pretty closely, but with commentary and brilliantly illustrated by one Dan E. Burr. It is titled "Economix" (another pun, website economixcomix.c om, with links across the top to sections of the book and to current topics), by Michael Goodwin.

If you visit that home page, be sure to scroll down through his comments about N. Gregory Mankiw, a Professor of Economics at Harvard and the author of what may be the worst and most politicized economics textbook ever, and it's a pretty big field. Goodwin is not exaggerating. If anything he is understating the case, and there are plenty of other economists and many of Mankiw's students who say the same. That is the book I taught from for eight years, with colleagues stonewalling and actually lying to avoid even considering a different textbook. I mostly wrote my own material, avoiding or excoriating the textbook. A pair of willfully ignorant administrators objected, but not so hard that I was unable to stave them off until a convenient time to retire.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-07-19 15:17
Thank you very much for the link and book info, though it will be a while before I look at either with any depth.

Academia, eh? Did you run into the same shift to CEO-administrat ors rather than scholars -- with oodles of middle management tossed in? A grievous loss. I don't know if it's the same in other countries.

One of the few glories in the US anymore is our university system but I don't know how long that will hold.
 
 
0 # economagic 2016-07-19 20:41
Yes, all of the above, unfortunately.
 
 
+5 # tm7devils 2016-07-15 01:18
In all my years (77), the Democrats 'dog and pony show', run by HRC and the DNC in their bid to make sure they win the general, is the best I have seen. Their shill - the bought and paid for Trump(1B would do it and cheap considering the prize)- was programmed, with the help of the MSM, to to appear to be the 'Greater of two evils'. They(HRC/DNC) probably fed him his 'talking points' in order to clinch the deal. Also, during the primaries, their cheating and skullduggery(al so with the help of the MSM) made sure that Sanders was a non-entity in the race.
Now, here is the really sad part to this tale: if Sanders had fought(and probably lost) at the Dem convention, he could give the 'actual' greater of two evils and the Dems the finger, and...jumped, along with his delegates, to the Greens convention in August on a Sanders/Stein ticket. So...between the 13m who voted for him in the primaries; plus the few million voters that were disenfranchised in the primaries -that wanted to vote for him but couldn't; plus those voters in the Democratic Party and the Republican Party who couldn't stand the stench of HRC and Trump...I believe, IMHO, that Sanders could have won.
faery tale?...we'll never know...unless Bernie gets his act together.
 
 
+3 # Blackjack 2016-07-15 16:12
Bernie's "act" may not be over yet. He's a principled, but shrewd politician. He's come the closest that any other candidate in my lifetime has (except Bobby Kennedy) to taking a real stand for the little guys/girls who have either been ignored or disenfranchised for their entire lives. Bernie has put it all on the line, but some of the newcomers here don't really know what that means because they have not learned (or been taught) history. Those of you who are so desperately in love with HRC should love Bernie even more because if you're as "screwed over" as you say you are, Bernie's policies are the ones that would benefit you the most. . .not HRC's fake policies that must first have Wall St. approval. Why do you think Bernie got all those small donations, from small people like me? Because he has been working for us. . .not Wall St. But Mako and Cary, I must say, I do love your passion, though I do think it misplaced.
 
 
0 # Annette Saint John Lawrence 2016-07-16 01:55
Hillary did not win the nomination, I was on the hoe w with the Registrars , In California alone the were 100,00 ballots not counted in LA alone. more were lost or dumped. Democrats looking to vote and didn't have a ballot were told there were no democratic ballots. Others were sent to different polling place and when they arrived there were no poll workers. This happened throughout California. There were approximately 6 other states whose votes had not come in. With what we know the bottom line is that
Bernie won by a landslide. Are we going to allow this to happen to us again? If so you fit in the category of the totally insane. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. This monstrous elephant should be brought out i the open and hopefully nullifying HRC status. That would be a demonstration of Democracy and break the chain from the Clinton Machine to the Party of the People.
 
 
+2 # trimegestus 2016-07-16 14:15
The Sanders campaign should have been a learning experience for us.

Afterall, the campaign was about convincing people to vote, and
vote for an unknown senator from another state.


I hope that readers will share their observations of what worked and what didn't work when they urged their family, friends, and neighbors to vote for Bernie.


My observation:

I didn't knock on doors. Instead I delivered 8x11 copies of "Sanders vs Clinton - on the issues".
It was a very informative graphically attractive paper, drafted by a progressive electrical workers union in western Pennsylvania.


I delivered about 400 8x11 fact sheets during the 3-day run-up to the Pennsylvania primary.


Results: Clinton over Sanders by a 3-to-2 ratio in my voting district.

Obviously, the literature drop was ineffective.



Another observation:

The Sanders field organization in Philadelphia was inept. I could not get campaign literature.
I had to make my own photo-copies.



Did any of you RSN readers have similar experiences?

What do you think was an effective way to win votes for Sanders.
 
 
0 # economagic 2016-07-16 18:00
My take is that there are not that many voters who are genuinely undecided (certainly not an original insight), but that by election day if not months before most have made up their mind, some on the basis of rational analysis of reliable information, more on the basis of trigger words, habit, or pure emotion. That has been around forever, but it was not always so prevalent. I'm pretty sure that at least some more people had more genuine information and more ability to reason from it in the not-too-distant past. To that extent, education re-form has been successful in removing those elements from the curriculum. Of course, they have seldom existed in "The Media," especially TV news, although there were still some elements of journalism in TV news as late as the early 1970s (Murrow, Cronkite, and to some extent Huntley/Brinkle y and the Canadian guy on ABC).
 
 
+1 # trimegestus 2016-07-17 12:04
Reply to economagic --- You made a good point about the impact of "trigger words", "habit", and "emotion". Those factors have a major role in determining how people vote. Fact sheets and campaign literature are less effective means of winning votes.

It seems that the Sanders campaign was successful in mobilizing its progressive base during 2015. But from January through June 2016 it failed to expand its success, because the campaign and progressive affinity groups (like RSN) were preaching the choir instead of trying to send a message to other non-progressive constituencies within the Democratic party.

It's important for progressive electoral activists to learn from our mistakes.

Anyone want to share a story about what worked for you on election day?
 
 
+1 # economagic 2016-07-17 12:23
Persuading people to change their preconceived political ideas (which they almost always have) is tough business, and I have no relevant training or experience. It is even more difficult today than in the past because of the echo chambers, as you note. This year as in 2012 many otherwise sensible and intelligent people were locked in early to the fear of a supposed "greater evil." I almost lost some friends and colleagues in 2012 over my refusal to vote for the man who had behaved exactly as I had expected, and as he was apparently recruited by a member of the "one percent" (actually of the 0.0001 percent) to do.

I suspect that if there is any opportunity to persuade people to shift their allegiances it occurs between the elections, perhaps in the second and third years of a presidential term.

Only a couple of diehards are still posting to this thread. You might try re-posting your call for stories on one of today's articles that might draw some people with stories to tell.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-07-19 15:28
Another diehard here!

One of the only effective ways to persuade people from their core beliefs is having someone they trust recommend it.

I find it very interesting that Obama, Sanders and Warren have all endorsed HRC without a lot of movement. It speaks to a calcified distrust and is big problem for Her Worshipfulness*.

*(I'm only saying that because I don't think Mako comes to this thread :-)
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-07-19 15:22
"I didn't knock on doors. Instead I delivered 8x11 copies of "Sanders vs Clinton - on the issues".... It was a very informative graphically attractive paper"

hahaha You are in the right place! We had a subthread a while back where it turned out several of us had created 'informative literature'. Nobody properly appreciates it though do they :-D Fools!

We obviously have the same urge -- if I could just find the right words, tell the right facts, etc. -- but I don't know that it works when so many are unthinkingly entrenched.

I admire your approach and your experimental focus!
 
 
+1 # kasta626 2016-07-17 12:19
It is stupid that this RSN WILL delete postings of Bernie suporters like myself. I may not agree with some of the trash being discussed by some negative people but the alert for readers is in the # of negatives accumulated.
Again, make no mistake, thus ELECTION is about what kind of NATION we THE PEOPLE will be. Bernie is THE PEOPLE best candidate!
 
 
+1 # economagic 2016-07-17 21:41
It's not clear who is deleting these comments, much less why. There are TWO extended exchanges on this subject under one article in the last couple of days, but I can't recall which one.
 
 
+1 # kasta626 2016-07-17 13:11
What the hell is being discussed by the corrupt media?
 
 
+2 # pernsey 2016-07-17 16:10
So many comments here...to much to read.

My thought is do our votes really count anyway? In a cyber world, and voting on computers...I personally think that they can make who they want to win.

This also is only my opinion, but I think Bernie had a lot more votes then where counted. They can dump votes, make votes cast for one side show up for the other candidate. or hack into machines. Im starting to think maybe what we think doesnt matter as much as we think it does.

Go Bernie if there is even the slightest inkling you could be the nominee keep going. I think Hill had some things rigged, thats just my opinion.

No one I know likes Hill where are all these votes coming from?
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-07-19 15:37
I think many people here would agree with you and it could explain why Democrats have been reluctant to correct the election fraud perpetrated by the GOP in recent elections ... oh, 2000 and 2004 come to mind!

I guess Dems have a new motto: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!

Now if you really want your head to explode look into who owns the machines.

Many other industrialized countries have banned electronic voting and rely solely on paper ballots. I wish we would do the same but Dems and GOP seem to disagree. I wonder why ....
 

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.

RSNRSN