RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Weissman writes: "Poor Hillary. She just doesn't get it. Neither do the Very Important People who back her. Call it arrogance, willful blindness, or rotten judgment, their collective failure to understand Bernie Sanders and those of us who support him could cost Clinton the presidency - not to Bernie, but to Donald Trump."

Sen. Bernie Sanders. (photo: Getty)
Sen. Bernie Sanders. (photo: Getty)


What Is Bernie's Price for Playing Nice?

By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News

01 May 16

 

oor Hillary. She just doesn’t get it. Neither do the Very Important People who back her. Call it arrogance, willful blindness, or rotten judgment, their collective failure to understand Bernie Sanders and those of us who support him could cost Clinton the presidency – not to Bernie, but to Donald Trump.

To understate the case, a victory for bully-boy Trump would not be good news. Not for the planet. Not for women. Not for Mexicans, other Latinos, and blacks. Not for Muslim-Americans. Not for Jewish-Americans. Not for immigrants facing deportation. Not for disaffected white working-class men, whom he would inevitably betray. Not for the poor, whom he despises as losers. Not for the different or disabled. Not for the Supreme Court. And, not for those of us committed to continue our fight for a democratic socialist revolution.

On foreign policy, he will run well to Hillary’s left. His open support for improved relations with Russia and China, his skepticism toward NATO, which I share, his iffy opposition to the no-win war in Iraq and French-led intervention in Libya make him appear far more realistic than the hawkish Hillary. But he favors torture whether it works or not. He revels in targeted assassinations far more than do Obama and Clinton. He speaks too easily about using nuclear weapons. And he’s too xenophobic, simplistic, reckless, and unpredictable to be allowed anywhere near the CIA, the Pentagon, or the nuclear button.

Hillary is bad enough. Look at her history as an imperial warmonger long before the neo-cons backed her. Listen to her self-righteous avowal of “American exceptionalism,” which is just another form of too much nationalism. But, like her or not, she has shown herself more cautious, circumspect, and open to dissuasion by allies than Trump would ever be. She is indeed the lesser evil.

Trump has already sharpened his tongue against her, calling her “Crooked Hillary” and promising a devastating campaign against her supposed foreign policy strengths as well as her personal unpopularity, which easily rivals his own. I still don’t think he can win, but she would be a fool to underestimate him. This is especially true because he poses a threat that takes us into a very dark realm. By spouting his off-the-cuff racist, religious, and nationalist bigotry, Trump has opened wide the door to America’s venomous Ku Kluxers and other white supremacists, violent skin-heads, and Christian nationalists with all their armed militias. He has even begun to extend his hand to Europe’s neo-fascists, welcoming a visit and endorsement from Matteo Salvini, leader of Italy’s racist and anti-immigrant Northern League. Trump is still showing caution about getting too close to other of Europe’s neo-Fascists, many of whom have shown caution about getting too close to him. But, stay tuned.

In the meantime, Sanders understands that Hillary will almost certainly win the nomination and has once again promised that he would vote for her against Trump or any other Republican. He is playing nice, but he will not play dead. Asked on the Today show about Trump calling Clinton crooked, he condemned it as “an ugly statement.” But pressed on whether his own attacks on Hillary for taking money from Wall Street did not imply that she was crooked, he simply smiled. “In that case,” he said, “the entire United States government is crooked.”

He has also refused to call on his supporters to back Hillary, explaining – quite correctly – that he did not have the power to demand that they fall in line behind her. She would have to win them over, he said. How? He has told her quite clearly.

“We are in this campaign to win,” he told a crowd of students at Purdue. “But if we do not win, we intend to win every delegate that we can so that when we go to Philadelphia in July, we are going to have the votes to put together the strongest progressive agenda that any political party has ever seen.”

This is Bernie’s price. If Hillary refuses to pay it – as she is now doing by using her party apparatchiks to stand in the way of a truly progressive platform – she will lose many who voted and worked so enthusiastically for him. Some of us may put clothespins on our noses and vote for her, even as we build a movement to oppose much of what she or Trump would do as president. Others will vote for the Greens. A few will vote for Trump, damned fools they. And no one knows how many will write in Bernie’s name or just stay home. The choice is now Hillary Clinton’s, and she appears to be making the wrong one.



A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is researching a new book, Big Money and the Corporate State: How Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently Break Their Hold.

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   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+56 # John Whiting 2016-05-01 09:25
The poor don't vote, partly because they're not allowed or can't afford to, and partly because they don't think it will matter. A lot of Bernie supporters won't vote, out of disgust or deep depression. Me? I'm 85 - it's Noam Chomsky write-in.
 
 
+21 # REDPILLED 2016-05-01 09:47
Vote for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate.

Here is her plan: http://www.jill2016.com/plan
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-05-01 12:38
It seem safe to assume that Dr. Stein will be the Green Party nominee, but their convention isn't until August.
 
 
+19 # lorenbliss 2016-05-01 13:58
The problem I have with the Greens -- as I have said before -- is that every Green I've ever met, all in Washington state and each associated with the Ecology Movement, has been more vehemently anti-union, and more outspokenly anti-Working Class, than any Ayn Rand Republican.

Yes, I know the Green platform is strongly pro-labor and pro-Working Class. But it also contains the following disclaimer: "This platform is not binding for candidates on any level." (See https://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php )

And this is surely true here in Washington state, where the Greens -- like the Ecology Movement with which they are invariably associated -- are the most arrogantly elitist and hatefully anti-Working Class people I've yet encountered.

Indeed, the Green slogan here in the so-called "Evergreen State" might as well be "the stupid workers have to learn to live with less" -- word-for-word the statement of every Washingtonian Green with whom I have attempted to discuss politics.

Other typical Washingtonian Green-isms include "If you belong to a union, you're part of the problem," and the ultimate winner for implicit hatefulness, "all gun-owners are Nazis at heart."

Not surprisingly, Washingtonian Greens are also as lilly-white as any Ku Klux Klan Klavern.

Obviously I don't know about Greens elsewhere, but here their sole mission seems to be not just fostering divisiveness within the 99 Percent, but doing so with maximum malice.
 
 
+11 # RLF 2016-05-02 05:43
Good to know. If it were any one else saying it I would think you were a troll but you have a great, long, thoughtful history here so I'm going to look closer.
 
 
+2 # Caliban 2016-05-04 00:42
I must agree with RLF. I have never met any Green Party member in my part of the Southeast, but your description here is quite unsettling. Thanks for prompting further study.
 
 
+60 # tigerlillie 2016-05-01 10:23
I think that the worst decision Bernie's supporters can make is to not vote. Me, I refuse to vote for Hillary or Trump, but I will vote to make a statement, if only to write in Bernie, and serve notice to HRC; next time around, may this super predator be brought to heel.
 
 
+22 # lorenbliss 2016-05-01 14:05
Agreed. Voting preserves the franchise. Not voting helps kill it.
 
 
-33 # VMWH 2016-05-01 15:47
And if you write in Bernie, you are a Trump supporter. That is all there is to that.
 
 
+13 # maverita 2016-05-01 16:00
no way my state is going blue -- so if Bernie does not get it, and unless Hillary makes some changes and releases the transcripts of the banking speeches, my vote for the green party will NOT make a bit of difference.
 
 
+4 # RLF 2016-05-02 05:45
Hillary will never get it. She has been in the Washington bubble for years...totally out of contact with reality!
 
 
+1 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-05-02 01:31
Bettr to have Trump than settle for Hillary.

I doubt he'd make it through2 years
 
 
-7 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-05-02 01:31
Not voting is the best statement you can make.

The number crunchers will very quickly show that Hillary kept people home, and made Trump win.

Peopleoperate under the presumption thatTrump will actually be able to do any of hos proposals.
 
 
0 # dsepeczi 2016-05-04 07:28
Quoting tigerlillie:
I think that the worst decision Bernie's supporters can make is to not vote. Me, I refuse to vote for Hillary or Trump, but I will vote to make a statement, if only to write in Bernie, and serve notice to HRC; next time around, may this super predator be brought to heel.


I agree 100%. To not vote at all doesn't send any message at all and keeps the establishment comfy that what they're doing will continue to work for them. By voting 3rd party or writing in Sanders, we actually do send a message to the establishment that we haven't given up this privilege ... we still have a vote to be earned ... but they simply didn't earn it. As those numbers rise, it could eventually force the establishment to recognize that there is a growing threat on the horizon that could cost them their jobs in the political class.
 
 
-37 # rocback 2016-05-01 12:49
A move more to the left would lose independents and moderates in the middle. This country is more moderate than this board.
 
 
+38 # warrior woman 2016-05-01 12:58
Who do you think is supporting Bernie?
 
 
+33 # maverita 2016-05-01 16:00
and this country is more progressive than our politicians. OVERALL.
 
 
+22 # Ken Halt 2016-05-01 19:13
roc: Untrue, as is most of the drivel you post here. The US populace supports socialist/liber al programs, such as single payer healthcare, expanded Social Security, campaign finance reform, repeal of Citizens United, by large margins. Independents have been energized by the Sanders campaign and if most primaries weren't closed would have won him many more delegates. These same independents will probably not vote for Repub-lite HRC.
 
 
-7 # rocback 2016-05-02 11:18
agree about campaign finance reform and repeal of Citizens United but those are part of the Democratic platform as well as expanded Social security (though they don't' want to raise the SS tax so go figure). As for single payer, I am in favor but not sure the majority is.

The majority does not support socialism. And do you really think in a race against the Republicans, Democrats would do better moving more to the left?
 
 
-4 # rocback 2016-05-02 11:22
Actually I just looked it up and you are right. A 55% majority does support single payer so I stand corrected.

Also in looking it up I found a discussion that Hillary herself would prefer single payer but with this congress doesn't think its realistic.

See that's what aI like about her. She is pragmatic. I know that's not sexy and will make you a rick star but it's boringly responsible.
 
 
+9 # Ken Halt 2016-05-02 20:28
roc: Yes, I do believe that Dems would garner more votes by moving left rather than being Repub lite. Bernie has been attracting masses of indie voters and if the primaries were open Bernie would have won many more states. 27,00 in Prospect Park! As to the Dem party advocacy of expanded SS and repeal of Citizens U, talk is cheap and I don't see the walk, the chosen party candidate is benefitting form undisclosed PAC money. Regarding single payer, it's not going to happen unless people, and our leaders, fight for it. Because US "leaders" have been bought by corporate money, they aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them. HRC's "pragmatism" is defeatist status quo and isn't going to ruffle any feathers in the health insurance industry. As to incremental progress and its boring responsibility, the Revolutionary War, the (abolitionist) Civil War, the Haymarket massacre, the New Deal, the Prague Spring, the Polish Uprising, the fall of the Berlin Wall, Tianamen Square, were not incremental advances. There comes a time when conditions are so dire that resolute action is needed. We are there now, the future of life on earth is a stake. HRC is an advocate for continued fracking and you support her?
 
 
0 # dsepeczi 2016-05-04 07:35
Quoting rocback:
Actually I just looked it up and you are right. A 55% majority does support single payer so I stand corrected.

Also in looking it up I found a discussion that Hillary herself would prefer single payer but with this congress doesn't think its realistic.

See that's what aI like about her. She is pragmatic. I know that's not sexy and will make you a rick star but it's boringly responsible.


I would use different words than pragmatic to describe Hillary. Her argument is "defeatist". She intends to lose the fight before it even begins. If the majority of people want this, it seems to me that is a great place to start. If you can't even start a fight that the majority of the public supports, how can you hope to win any fights at all ?
 
 
0 # dsepeczi 2016-05-04 07:32
Quoting rocback:
agree about campaign finance reform and repeal of Citizens United but those are part of the Democratic platform as well as expanded Social security (though they don't' want to raise the SS tax so go figure). As for single payer, I am in favor but not sure the majority is.

The majority does not support socialism. And do you really think in a race against the Republicans, Democrats would do better moving more to the left?


Absolutely !!!
 
 
0 # dsepeczi 2016-05-04 07:46
Quoting rocback:
agree about campaign finance reform and repeal of Citizens United but those are part of the Democratic platform as well as expanded Social security (though they don't' want to raise the SS tax so go figure). As for single payer, I am in favor but not sure the majority is.

The majority does not support socialism. And do you really think in a race against the Republicans, Democrats would do better moving more to the left?


The Dems support expanded Social Security ? Did Obama get the memo ? As I recall, he reduced Social Security payments. Of course, he sold it to the public as a necessary measure to preserve Social Security. But anybody with the IQ of a grapefruit knows that Social Security could easily be preserved, even expanded, by simply removing the cap for the wealthy. Geez, rocbac, why don't you quit blindly buying what the politicians are saying and pay more attention to what they're actually doing. Actions speak louder than words. Haven't you ever heard that before ?
 
 
+12 # sdraymond 2016-05-01 20:46
Dems who call themselves moderates today were right wingnuts in 1950.
 
 
-1 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-05-02 01:32
You can't define "left."
 
 
0 # dsepeczi 2016-05-04 07:31
Quoting rocback:
A move more to the left would lose independents and moderates in the middle. This country is more moderate than this board.


I fully disagree with that statement. While it may be true of loyal democrats, it definitely DOES NOT apply to independents, who long ago stopped proclaiming themselves as loyal democrats because of the democrats' unwillingness to represent them. Why do you think Bernie wins every state in which independents are allowed to vote in the primary ?
 
 
-15 # Cassandra2012 2016-05-01 14:06
But Noam C. is an old sexist too. (Ask his female students....)
So it is Bernie, but if Hillary wins the primary, even with some of its rigged problems, she will get my 75 year old vote! No Tealiban for me.
 
 
# Guest 2016-05-02 01:33
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+70 # dipierro4 2016-05-01 09:44
1. The obsession with Trump bothers me. It's everywhere. And it will have the effect of helping the public to feel more comfortable with Cruz, who scares me a lot more.

2. While Cruz scares me more as a governing President, the effects of Trump's candidacy will be with us for a long time. He has given voice to a lot that is ugly, and it won't go away, no matter who is elected. Trump himself, if he is elected, may turn out to be fairly moderate, but he will not easily control what he set loose. Clinton sure won't either -- she has the worst possible personality and communication skills for bringing the nation together.

3. I've seen America elect Nixon and Bush because progressives wouldn't turn out for Humphrey and Gore, and I don't want to repeat that, but I still cannot bring myself to say for sure that I'll pull the lever for Neocon Hillary. God help us all.
 
 
+35 # Sweet Pea 2016-05-01 10:36
Quoting dipierro4:
1. The obsession with Trump bothers me. It's everywhere. And it will have the effect of helping the public to feel more comfortable with Cruz, who scares me a lot more.

2. While Cruz scares me more as a governing President, the effects of Trump's candidacy will be with us for a long time. He has given voice to a lot that is ugly, and it won't go away, no matter who is elected. Trump himself, if he is elected, may turn out to be fairly moderate, but he will not easily control what he set loose. Clinton sure won't either -- she has the worst possible personality and communication skills for bringing the nation together.

3. I've seen America elect Nixon and Bush because progressives wouldn't turn out for Humphrey and Gore, and I don't want to repeat that, but I still cannot bring myself to say for sure that I'll pull the lever for Neocon Hillary. God help us all.

What a scary choice, "Trump or Hillary".
 
 
+31 # RGV.REG 2016-05-01 10:59
DON'T MAKE A TRUMP OR HILLARY CHOICE,
WRITE IN BERNIE !!!
 
 
-10 # ericlipps 2016-05-01 11:48
Quoting RGV.REG:
DON'T MAKE A TRUMP OR HILLARY CHOICE,
WRITE IN BERNIE !!!

And help usher Trump into the White House. No thanks.
 
 
+36 # Billy Bob 2016-05-01 12:11
You'd rather we stay home?

Hillary lost our vote. She won't gain it back. If Trump wins, it will be Hillary's fault, not ours.
 
 
# Guest 2016-05-01 12:52
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
# Guest 2016-05-01 15:55
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
-16 # lights 2016-05-01 19:00
You don't call the shots Nominae!
 
 
+6 # Nominae 2016-05-01 22:49
Quoting lights:
You don't call the shots Nominae!


lights ! "Thou dost pierce my heart to the very quick !"

I had a *clear* understanding from RSN that ALL the shots here were to be called *exclusively* by ME and my Twin Brother, Napoleon Bonaparte ! (You know, in case my brother Billy Bob is out on vacation or something ! ;-D)

Do you mean to tell me that RSN *reneged* on my contract ? SAY it isn't *SO*, lights buddy - gasp - heaven *FORFEND* !

Actually, "lead, follow, or get out of the way" is a military saying familiar to anyone from the jungles
of South Vietnam, Slick.

I didn't *expect* the youngsters here to "get" the reference, and you - with your typical knee-jerk
reaction - predictably did not disappoint.

So, take a tranquilizer, "Sparky", and remember to say your prayers before bed. ;-D
____________________________________________
 
 
+10 # Billy Bob 2016-05-01 23:04
No. Debbie Wasserman Schultz calls the shots. Voters don't call shots. The people who COUNT the votes do.
 
 
+15 # Billy Bob 2016-05-01 17:46
I'm with Nominae. You're incapable of thought.
 
 
+1 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-05-02 01:35
That is correct,

You questioning someone's intelligence is dumber than a Trump supporter.

You've never posted anything vaguely intelligent
 
 
-8 # lights 2016-05-01 18:59
billy bob: "Moronic" is an understatement.
 
 
+2 # Nominae 2016-05-01 22:59
Quoting lights:
billy bob: "Moronic" is an understatement.


I hate to bust yer balloon, Sparky, but "moronic" is actually an *adjective*. ;-D

You can thank me later .... just doing my part to educate the youth of this fine Country ! ;-D
____________________________________________
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2016-05-01 23:05
This must be more of that "respectful tone" your side keeps lecturing us about, right?
 
 
0 # Nominae 2016-05-02 01:52
Quoting Billy Bob:
This must be more of that "respectful tone" your side keeps lecturing us about, right?


They said they *wanted* "respectful tone", their side predictably never made a *peep* about *extending* "respectful tone" ! ;-D

So, all that is left for me to say on the subject, is simply: "Wantin' ain't GITTIN'" ;-D
 
 
-5 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-05-02 01:34
Don't vote at all.

It's more of a lesson for the Dems.

Writing in Bernie is pointless.

Voting Hillary gets Trump.

Don't vote
 
 
+3 # RLF 2016-05-02 05:50
Write in "None of the above". If enough people did it...
 
 
-12 # OLDGUY 2016-05-01 14:48
That is a Trump or Hillary choice. You just will not be part of it
 
 
+12 # Billy Bob 2016-05-01 17:48
Hillary isn't president until she wins. She's not even the nominee yet.

Can she make it to November without being indicted?

I really don't know. It's clear that they have the evidence, and it's up to them to decide.

That said, some of us, just can't participate in evil. It goes against our nature as human beings with a conscience. So, if the only way to participate is to be evil, so be it. Count me out.
 
 
-18 # lights 2016-05-01 19:02
let the Democratic Party decide...Even Biden over Sanders at this point. I'm betting they don't like the way Bernie is playing like the mafia these days - and just like the MILLIONS of the rest of us!
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2016-05-01 23:08
It won't be Bernie using the FBI's knowledge against Clinton.

It wasn't Bernie flipping votes in Illinois, or New York.

You have an uncanny ability to look in the mirror and then, project every negative thing you see on to others.

Have you ever actually turned on "THE LIGHTS" and taken a hard look at yourself?
 
 
+5 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-05-02 01:38
Bernie hasn't done ANYTHING as much as UNPLEASANT.

You're just a Hillarybot troll quoting the latest meme from the campaign that posted child porn on Bernie FB sites
 
 
-4 # lights 2016-05-02 13:41
and you bettysdad are the one using the word "vagina" as if it is a curse...and you are so typical! Bernie Bros do the same thing on other sites....it is disgusting!
 
 
+14 # harleysch 2016-05-01 12:26
Virtually everyone posting on this site has missed the main problem which has held Bernie back: he has refused to openly break with Obama.

Obama is no progressive, no peace-lover, no FDR Democrat, and never was. He is like Hillary, a Wall Street neo-liberal, supporter of free trade and deregulation (Dodd Frank is NOT re-regulation, but offers a free pass to the swindling banksters), a war hawk, who, like Bush before him, believes the U.S. has the right to engage in regime change against any government which does not bend to the imperial will of Wall Street and the City of London. His threats against Russia and China are extremely dangerous, and he is backing them up with a nuclear "modernization" drive which makes the use of nuclear weapons more likely!

Hillary would continue this Obama-Bush policy direction.

Since Bernie has attacked Wall Street with great effectiveness, why does he turn around and praise Obama for "preventing a depression"? Obama's pro-Wall Street policies have put us on the verge of a new implosion, much worse than 2008.

Is he worried that it would hurt him with the black vote, were he to break with Obama? I think he would get more black votes by breaking with Obama, than by propitiating him. Who has been hurt more by Obama's Wall St. policies than African-Americans?

Bernie made a tragic choice, to compete with Hillary, to see who can be more pro-Obama. It was a highly unfortunate decision!
 
 
+26 # Radscal 2016-05-01 13:03
That's a tough one. For 7 years, Sanders has been quite vocal in criticizing President Obama. But Obama has very high favorable ratings with Democrats, and even Independents. HRC wasted no time in criticizing Sanders for his record of dissent against Obama/Clinton policies.

Sanders has been walking a tight line. I would love to hear a candidate who pulls no punches about US Empire and its truly evil trajectory.

But, would such a candidate have been permitted to run as a Democrat? And would such a candidate have gotten even this close to the Presidency?
 
 
-18 # OLDGUY 2016-05-01 14:51
He /she could have run as a Green Party choice.
 
 
+17 # Radscal 2016-05-01 15:43
And have gotten precisely as much coverage as Dr. Stein.

But thanks for again reminding us what a "big tent" Democratic Party thinks about us.
 
 
-15 # OLDGUY 2016-05-01 17:09
Bernie was not a member of the "big tent" Democratic party by his own choosing. He decided to join after he decided he wanted to run. He knew what the situation was and what rules were when he said let me in. After he joins he wants to change the rules. This not about who is better this about what is fair. I like Bernie and will be happy to vote for him if he gets the nomination I just think that Hillary will be a better President than Bernie. She will get more done because she knows the system and has more working relationships with Congress and YES she is tougher. My big issue is and has been for more than 60 years minority and womans rights and I believe she will advance those issues better than Bernie
 
 
+12 # Radscal 2016-05-01 17:33
Sanders hasn't said he wants to change any of the nominating process rules for this primary. He has said he thinks some of the rules are counterproducti ve and should be changed for later elections.

He has NOT made a big enough issue of the flagrant rule-breaking and enormous evidence of election fraud. A number of investigations and law suits have been filed by voters, but he's remained essentially silent.

I do agree HRC will get more legislation through a Republican and Blue Dog Democratic Congress. In fact, that's part if why I could never support her.

It's WHAT she will do that worries me. Having watched what she has actually done for so many years (again, I went to High School with her), I know she opposes my liberal/progres sive values in all except a handful of domestic social policy issues (and even then, she only recently "evolved" to my views).

Sanders has been on the correct side of most issues for most of his adult life. That's LEADERSHIP.
 
 
-16 # OLDGUY 2016-05-01 18:20
You went to High school with her and she opposes my liberal values. She was a Goldwater baker in High school. She recently evolved to your views. She has been a leader for womans rights around the world even before she was First Lady What are you talking about
 
 
+18 # Radscal 2016-05-01 19:23
What was it again that she did for women's rights in Saudi Arabia before selling them billions of dollars in weaponry, that they're using to bomb women and children in Yemen?

How "liberated" are the women living in the hellhole she created out of Libya? Syria?
 
 
+15 # lfeuille 2016-05-01 17:42
The problem with the Big Tent is that it isn't really that big. Anyone can register as a Democrat, but not everyone can get a fair hearing for their ideas. Bernie hasn't even though that fact that he as always caucused with them has given them the majority at times.

Who cares if she knows the system. He does also. He has chosen to try to improve the system rather then pretend it is good enough. It isn't. That's the reality. And besides, she uses the system that she knows so well to do very unprogressive things. What's the point? What she does are things we don't want done.
 
 
+16 # Billy Bob 2016-05-01 17:49
We don't have a big tent party. Schultz and Clinton have ensured that.

It's clear that Sanders and his voters are not wanted.
 
 
-12 # lights 2016-05-01 19:08
Not ALL Sanders voters are morons, billy bob. Just people like you and YOU and your few buddies don't represent enough of the Sanders supporters to make a difference.
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2016-05-01 23:11
Then stop wasting your time trolling everything I say.

You obviously have bigger fish to fry. Shouldn't you be counting votes somewhere? Aren't there other sites to troll, with supporters who DO make a difference?

You spend a LOT of time and energy on this little trolling project of yours.

I think you're a bit more worried than you let on.

Otherwise, you'd have better things to do - with people who "MAKE A DIFFERENCE".
 
 
-4 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-05-02 01:41
[quote name="Billy Bob"]Then stop wasting your time trolling everything I say.

What would you suggest be done with them?
 
 
-6 # lights 2016-05-02 13:55
...the thing with you and the likes of you billy bob.. is that you really, truly do think and apparently also believe that you and only you are the absolute center of the universe..."cor onated" in your imagination as this glorious center ..

I also suspect that YOU sincerely believe you are the only ONE who truly cares or that you truly are the only one/s doing ANYTHING to "MAKE A DIFFERENCE." These illusions go along with the BS territory.
 
 
+3 # Nominae 2016-05-01 23:12
Quoting lights:
Not ALL Sanders voters are morons, billy bob. Just people like you and YOU and your few buddies don't represent enough of the Sanders supporters to make a difference.


Sparky, you are so cute when you get yourself
into a snit !

But, let the grownups talk now, please.
____________________________________________
 
 
+2 # lights 2016-05-02 19:37
well nominae...at least you've lightened up. Sparky is good..... :-)
 
 
0 # Nominae 2016-05-02 20:44
Quoting lights:
well nominae...at least you've lightened up. Sparky is good..... :-)


Thanks, Sparky, I was kind of fond of it myself ! ;-D
__________________________________________
 
 
+2 # RLF 2016-05-02 06:00
Time will tell if we matter. The Democratic party hopes there aren't enough of us to matter...they might lose their Wall St., Pharma, big biz millions!
 
 
+3 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-05-02 01:39
Hillary has NEVER gotten ANYTHING done for the majority of the American people.

There's no reason to think she'll start now
 
 
+4 # RLF 2016-05-02 05:57
OldGuy...She will get more done because, like Obama, she will be presenting congress with neocon solutions...bus iness friendly solutions...giv ing the right everything they want...like Obama. Look at his supreme court appts...afraid of their own shadows!
 
 
-1 # RLF 2016-05-02 05:55
That is...unless there is a third party candidate on the right. A 4 way race could be interesting!
 
 
+2 # RLF 2016-05-02 05:53
Bernie needs the votes of the minority community who blindly goes with the oppressor they know, unfortunately.
 
 
-2 # pupdude 2016-05-03 11:18
Quoting RLF:
Bernie needs the votes of the minority community who blindly goes with the oppressor they know, unfortunately.



Silly minority voters.
 
 
+1 # dfnslblty 2016-05-02 06:48
Harley...
Excellent point - break with potus and dem.party favourites.
Sanders has it inside himself to do it, and can't let the anger and protest out, though passion is beginning to peak through.
 
 
+23 # Radscal 2016-05-01 12:51
In 1968, the Democrats lost the progressive vote because of their mad escalation of the Vietnam War. Humphrey was the Establishment choice who paid lip service to opposing the war only at the last minute, to try to persuade the anti-war electorate to vote for him.

We believed him no more than we believe Hillary will stop TPP.

Gore was a "blue dog" Democrat at best. Have you forgotten that Bill Clinton put Gore in charge of "reinventing government," and that reinvention was "the end of the era of big government?"

Have you forgotten that Gore supported and represented the slashing of the safety net, deregulation of financial and corporate power, the racist "war on drugs" and mass incarceration and a foreign policy that included considering the deaths of 1/2 million Iraqi children as "worth it?"

Hillary Clinton represents that same neoliberal/neoc on ideology. If she is allowed to claim the nomination, there's a very good chance she will lose the election.

And if she does, it will be the Democratic Party Establishment that's at fault, not those of us who place moral values ahead of petty partisanship and the same old "lesser of two evils" which is hardly less, but certainly evil.
 
 
+2 # OLDGUY 2016-05-01 17:27
Humphrey was the most progressive member of the Demo. Party .In 1948 he gave the second most important speech of the Civil rights movement , behind MLK "I have a dream". The speech was at the convention that chose Truman. That was why Strom Thermond and the "States Right Party was formed when they walked out. In that epeech he stayed in no uncertain terms that the Demo. party was going to be the means for equality for the blacks in this country. Anyone who knows anything would know this. He was the mentor for all the leading liberals Mondale McGovern Paul Welstone Russ Fiengold and others. He was not part of the Establishment. He more any other fought the old order
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-05-01 19:34
Humphrey was LBJ's VP. He'd been a professional Democrat since 1945, and was in the Senate until LBJ brought him on. One can't get much more establishment than that.

Yeah, he was of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party on domestic social policy. He did help pass the Limited Nuclear Test Ban, too.

But the fact remains that he was LBJ's spokesperson for the War against Vietnam, and less than 2 months before the election (after he'd been nominated) he said he'd stop bombing North Vietnam. That was TOO LITTLE and TOO LATE.
 
 
+1 # tigerlillie 2016-05-01 22:44
I liked Humphrey too, Old Guy.
 
 
# Guest 2016-05-01 21:00
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
0 # pupdude 2016-05-03 11:21
Quoting Radscal:
In 1968, the Democrats lost the progressive vote because of their mad escalation of the Vietnam War. Humphrey was the Establishment choice who paid lip service to opposing the war only at the last minute, to try to persuade the anti-war electorate to vote for him.

We believed him no more than we believe Hillary will stop TPP.

Gore was a "blue dog" Democrat at best. Have you forgotten that Bill Clinton put Gore in charge of "reinventing government," and that reinvention was "the end of the era of big government?"

Have you forgotten that Gore supported and represented the slashing of the safety net, deregulation of financial and corporate power, the racist "war on drugs" and mass incarceration and a foreign policy that included considering the deaths of 1/2 million Iraqi children as "worth it?"

Hillary Clinton represents that same neoliberal/neocon ideology. If she is allowed to claim the nomination, there's a very good chance she will lose the election.

And if she does, it will be the Democratic Party Establishment that's at fault, not those of us who place moral values ahead of petty partisanship and the same old "lesser of two evils" which is hardly less, but certainly evil.



Yeah Al Gore is horrible. If only he would have done something anything on the issue of climate change!!!

If W & SCOTUS hadn't stolen 2000 election. I'm sure nothing would be different at all. Not a thing.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-05-03 13:49
Yeah, Gore made a nice movie once.

Ralph was Instrumental in the passing of the following legislation:

◦ Clean Air Act
◦ Clean Water Act
◦ Consumer credit disclosure law
◦ Consumer Product Safety Act
◦ Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act
◦ Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
◦ Freedom of Information Act
◦ Law establishing Environmental Protection Agency
◦ Medical Devices safety
◦ Mine Health and Safety Act
◦ National Automobile and Highway Traffic Safety Act
◦ National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
◦ Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act
◦ Nuclear power safety
◦ Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
◦ Pension protection law
◦ Safe Water Drinking Act
◦ Tire safety & grading disclosure law
◦ Whistleblower Protection Act
◦ Wholesome Meat Act
◦ Wholesome Poultry Product Act

I'm a LONG way from forgiving corporate partisans for stealing the 1996 and 2000 elections from Ralph - a truly great and effective progressive.
 
 
-1 # Gooshlem 2016-05-02 15:18
HOLD YR NOSE & PULL!!! I too lived through the Humphry, & Gore and also the votes of my friends for John Anderson & Nader (or are those the same elections?) It's misguided to think the Dems & Republicans are all the "same". Democrats may be corrupt, but their philosophy is less bad than Republicans. You'd have to be a nihilist or an anarchist to let Trump win!!
 
 
+52 # savetheplanet 2016-05-01 09:44
Let's urge Bernie to negotiate with the Greens. Jill Stein wants to talk to him.
She's indicated running as his VP if he chooses to run as a Green. Greens are already on the ballots of 25 states representing enough electoral votes to win.
 
 
+4 # lorenbliss 2016-05-01 14:10
Please see my comment, above, on the insufferably arrogant, venomously anti-Working Class elitism of the Washington state Greens.
 
 
+5 # Saberoff 2016-05-01 15:02
Sorry Loren. I don't dismiss your comments out of hand but I'm going to have to see this for myself. Do they have a mission statement to that effect?
 
 
+3 # lorenbliss 2016-05-01 16:48
The anti-Working Class hatefulness I described is characteristic of the entire Ecology Movement (aka the Environmental Movement) in Washington state.

This movement seems centered around three schools, the Huxley College of Environmental Studies at Western Washington University in Bellingham; Fairhaven College (of which I am a 1976 alumnus, and which is the liberal arts/independen t study branch of WWU); and Evergreen State College in Olympia.

The movement is thus the nearly exclusive possession of young, mostly male whites whose families are wealthy enough to buy them college; who themselves thus have abundant free time to devote to off-campus causes; and who therefore have the venomously anti-Working Class attitudes typical of the bourgeoisie.

I cannot cite any particular passage from the state Green Party website to support these comments because the party's website (significantly) has no search engine.

But I can tell you from what I have witnessed during my years in journalism here, the Green/Environme ntalist hatred of unions and contempt for Working Class folks in general is expressed in decades of often violent struggles that repeatedly try to deny workers in extractive industries the right to earn a living.

For example, rather than picket a timber-company' s headquarters, they assault its loggers by potentially deadly tree-spiking.

Moreover, they refuse to support ameliorative programs to provide displaced workers with equal or better incomes.
 
 
+1 # lorenbliss 2016-05-01 17:30
For a real-world account of tree-spiking and the environmental movement's anti-Working Class contempt for its victim, see http://www.iww.org/history/library/Bari/TreeSpiking1

While this does not specifically link the Green Party to tree-spiking, what I as a reporter have observed amongst Washington Greens most assuredly puts them in the same smash-the-Worki ng Class camp.
 
 
+4 # tigerlillie 2016-05-01 21:05
[quote name="lorenblis s"]The anti-Working Class hatefulness I described is characteristic of the entire Ecology Movement (aka the Environmental Movement) in Washington state.

The movement is thus the nearly exclusive possession of young, mostly male whites whose families are wealthy enough to buy them college; who themselves thus have abundant free time to devote to off-campus causes; and who therefore have the venomously anti-Working Class attitudes typical of the bourgeoisie.

I know exactly what you are talking about, Loren, because I have seem the same phenomenon at work in Tibetan Buddhist circles. A lot of new recruits from a white, uper middle-class background, who become petty, rigid, judgemental, and self-righteous about "the way" and the best manner in which to traverse it, and completely miss the core, and heart, of the teachings.

Or have you ever noticed how the New Age teachers cater to their wealthy, white adherents, building their centers in beautiful, exclusive locations, and holding their retreats in exotic, elite locales?

Ugh. Not all converts and spiritual teachers are like this, of course, but enough are to make this a readily observable phenomenon.
 
 
+1 # lorenbliss 2016-05-02 00:16
@tigerlillie: same thing happens in Goddess-centere d paganism. Some Groovy Guru, in this realm usually a woman, shows up from some far-away place and immediately begins dictating thealogy as if she were the Ariadne reincarnate. Thus what was formerly a joyously open-minded, open-hearted individual spirit quest is reduced to just another exercise in stultifying orthodoxy.

Indeed it is as if -- and it pains me to say this because it is probably true -- all non-Abrahamic spiritual explorers are beset by legions of trained infiltrators whose sole mission is to slam shut and forever lock tight the doors of our consciousness.

Quoth Lev Bronstein c. 1905: "In every gathering of three revolutionaries , there is at least one agent of the Okhrana."

And Marxist though I am, I also recognize there is nothing on this planet more revolutionary than the overthrow of patriarchy, which is what -- at its essence -- the resurrection of the Goddess is all about.

(I find it most interesting in this context how the Soviet government was absolutely tolerant, even encouraging, of the widespread resurrection of Slavic paganism that occurred spontaneously after the revolution stripped the Russian Orthodox Church of its ability to persecute so-called "heretics." Hence the profound tragedy signaled by the Pussy Riot persecutions -- the formal end of the Russian climate of tolerance.)
 
 
-1 # lights 2016-05-02 13:59
It's the history of ana-suramai lorenbliss. Fierce fighters those women and they also did so much for fertility.

Loren said: Some Groovy Guru, in this realm usually a woman, shows up from some far-away place and immediately begins dictating thealogy as if she were the Ariadne reincarnate.
 
 
+2 # tigerlillie 2016-05-02 20:16
Your observations made me laugh. Actually, I have waked the path of the Goddess all my life, but in an introverted sort of way.
 
 
+1 # lorenbliss 2016-05-03 18:16
@tigerlillie: Apropos "have walked the path," finest compliment ever paid me was by the late Helen Farias: "you have given me the vocabulary to describe what I always knew to be true but never had the words to express."

That was in 1971. Helen, friend and colleague, went on to found the now-legendary women's spirituality journal "Beltane Papers" and its monthly supplement "Octava." Its high standard of scholarship was unique in its field and prevailed as long as she remained editor and publisher. Alas, after she died in 1994, the publications declined and eventually died too.

The vehicle by which that vocabulary was conveyed was the first draft of a book of text and photographs titled "Glimpses of a Pale Dancer," which argued from semiotic evidence the old Counterculture was the first wave of a revolution to overthrow patriarchy.

Completed in 1983 and seemingly bound for mainstream publication, it and all its research notes (literally a 100-page bibliography) were destroyed that same year by a mysterious fire that was initially adjudged to be arson.

The loss included not just "Dancer" but 99.9 percent of my photography, personal journals, clipping and tear-sheet files, award certificates, unpublished stories and essays and the reference files one acquires through years of newspaper work.

It was emotionally devastating, flinging me into the deep clinical depression that ended forever my ability to obtain full-time staff work on newspapers and magazines.
 
 
+2 # tigerlillie 2016-05-04 11:12
Yes, I certainly remember the Beltane Papers. There were several brilliant feminist scholars and political theorists like Helen Farias at that time, minimized or totally discounted by academia. Was your work destroyed in the same fire? It does sounds like a devastating loss. Who were the suspects in the arson? Do you know Joann Colbert Powell? She is an artist and friend of Helen, lives in your neck of the woods. I admire her work.
 
 
+1 # lorenbliss 2016-05-05 02:34
Yes, I knew Joanna, though I have not seen her for 22 years as she lives near Bellingham and I live in Tacoma. Also I no longer have an automobile -- mine died in 2009 (same year capitalism's economic contraction wiped out nearly 70 percent of my income) -- so I don't leave Tacoma save on rare occasions I am asked to accompany a friend somewhere.

As to the fire, it was Helen's house that was torched. I had stored all my work plus a large personal library and an extensive collection of 33RPM records (mostly traditional folk music and Tim Buckley's astounding Muse-poetry) in her essentially vacant second floor when I returned to NYC in 1983. I planned to send for it as soon as I had a permanent Manhattan address.

There the late Cicely Nichols, a dear friend since 1965 and a former editor-in-chief at Grove Press, volunteered to mother "Dancer" to mainstream publication. (She had known of the project since its infancy during the 1960s.)

Hence on 1 September 1983 we met at 7:30 p.m. EDT at the Lion's Head for drinks and dinner to formalize and celebrate our working relationship. At the same instant 2900 miles westward, 4:30 p.m. PDT, Helen's house was set afire. The exact time is known from a melted electric clock at the fire's point of origin. Obviously someone not only wanted "Dancer" killed but wanted to send a message. As to the perpetrator's identity, note how the fire marshal's initial verdict of arson was quickly changed to "fire of unknown origin."

(more)
 
 
+1 # lorenbliss 2016-05-05 02:59
The loss was total: literally all my life's work, a blow from which, given I was 43 at the time, there was (and is) no possibility of emotional recovery. The loss -- literally the permanent destruction of all hopes and aspirations -- hangs over me like an omnipresent poisonous cloud that will no doubt continue to toxify this lifetime until it finally ends.

Helen's loss was great also, including the house (which had been built by her pioneer grandparents), her father's oil paintings and her cats, but all her own work survived the blaze because she kept it at her office at Western Washington University, where she ran the school's off-campus housing agency.

She and I met in 1971 at Western; Helen was a theater major and I a history and sociology major. She was also, that same year, the first person I let read in toto the initial draft of "Dancer." Then she read its core references: Graves' "White Goddess"; Frazier's "Golden Bough"; also Campbell, Jung, Neumann etc., after which she returned the manuscript to me with her handwritten comment on its first page: "You have given me the vocabulary to describe what I always knew to be true but never had the words to express, and I cannot thank you enough."

Later, c. 1977, Helen and I would spend nearly all our summertime weekends seeking out the Pacific Northwest's many archaeological anomalies -- evidence similar to that on the East Coast indicative of Bronze Age European presence.

I had discovered such a

(more)
 
 
+1 # lorenbliss 2016-05-05 03:34
site in 1972 during a back-country trout fishing trip: a double mound ringed by boulders and one obviously dressed standing stone, the entire structure oriented to the Midsummer Sunrise.

After Helen phoned me late one night in February 1977 to inform me of Fell's work in New England and Appalachia ("America B.C."), it came to me to calculate the relevant solar and lunar azimuths of that back-country site, project them across 1:250,000 topographical maps of Washington and explore everywhere the azimuth lines crossed significant terrain features.

Meanwhile Helen examined Salish vocabularies -- Salish is the language of Pacific Northwest First Nations peoples -- for words of non-indigenous origin. She found many seemingly related to the root-tongues of Gaelic, particularly Old Goidelic.

That summer we explored the back country together, looking where my azimuth lines crossed rivers, lakes, beaches and mountain-tops. We found a half-dozen sites that were obviously anomalous (standing stones, also demonstrably ancient mountain-top trenches aligned to the Midsummer sunrise) and many more probable sites.

After that Helen was in London doing graduate work and I was continuing my journalism career.

Helen was my closest spiritual companion in this lifetime. Though we were never lovers, and though she was a full decade my junior, I was always comfortable sharing my naked soul with her. Her death left a huge hole in my life, and I will miss her forever.

(more)
 
 
+1 # lorenbliss 2016-05-05 04:06
As to how I a heterosexual male got started on this decidedly unconventional path, here is a link to an essay in my blog, "Outside Agitator's Notebook."

http://tinyurl.com/836jw7m

The essay is entitled "Abutments"; the TinyURL will prevent your computer from breaking the standard URL, which is quite long.
 
 
+4 # lfeuille 2016-05-01 17:51
Probably not, but do the Democrats have a mission statement that says they will cater to Wall Street?
 
 
+3 # Nominae 2016-05-01 23:18
Quoting lfeuille:
Probably not, but do the Democrats have a mission statement that says they will cater to Wall Street?


Perish the thought ! Would I require a Mission Statement to the effect that I will cater to my children and family ?

Some things are just a DNA determined "given" ! ;-D
____________________________________________
 
 
+6 # AshamedAmerican 2016-05-01 21:13
The Greens I have known in SW Ohio ARE working class, and don't fit your description in any way. I will continue to assume that your experience has been the exception to the rule.
 
 
-2 # lorenbliss 2016-05-02 04:24
@AshamedAmerica n: For the sake of our country, I very much hope what I have witnessed in Washington state is a local phenomenon, because here it has destroyed all hope of 99 Percent solidarity, probably forever.

The entire problem springs from the insufferable arrogance of the students.

These kids inherited their hatred of the Working Class from their parents, who most likely had been part of the same draft-exempt capitalist elite who damned GI Bill students, myself included, as "baby killers" in the years immediately after Vietnam.

Indeed the Rightists could not have a scripted a more effective tactic for pushing the Working Class into the waiting arms of the fascists.

Anyway, good luck to you and -- if they are as you say they are -- the Ohio Greens. The party's national platform ( https://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php ) is surely compelling.
 
 
+10 # lfeuille 2016-05-01 17:49
Bernie has already said he won't do that. He won't go back on his word after repeating it so many times. He doesn't want to be blamed for Trump or Cruz, but he has left to his supporters to make their own choice.

Mine is to write in Bernie. DC is deep blue so it won't make a difference to the
outcome, but if enough of us do it, it might get through to the party establishment. Or it might not, but I'm doing it anyway.
 
 
-14 # lights 2016-05-01 19:21
Bernie has said he will leave it up to his supporters. How nice of him. But that is not real leadership, eh? Not to mention it is being dangerous and calculating!

BERNIE SANDERS IS NOT A DEMOCRAT!! As a lifelong Independent he has always torn down the Democrats in order to get elected in Vermont! Now he would like just as much to take down this entire country, the Democratic Party and of course Hillary Rodham Clinton - whatever it takes to WIN!

The longer this goes on - the more we learn about who the REAL Bernie Sanders is....he seems to think people won't notice that he has a LOT of dishonest henchmen working on his behalf, (like Weissman) and in this way he can pretend he is a sweet, little sheep... FOR VOTES...

Anyone notice? Months ago Sanders was talking about "Super Delegates" being UN-DEMOCRATIC because it doesn't represent "the people." And even if I/we agree with that need for change...NOW Bernie Sanders is saying he has a new political plan. He's going to steal the Super Delegates from Clinton and suddenly doesn't care that she has NOW over 3 million more "we the people" votes than he does? And he has all his henchmen working on it! What a hypocrite!
 
 
+11 # tigerlillie 2016-05-01 21:10
Just curious, with all the time you have spent ranting your hateful nonsense, have you convinced anyone who was previously for Bernie to vote instead for Hillary? If anything, I suspect your efforts have been co u te r productive.

Or is this just a fun little game for you, that is, trying to bait Bernie supporters? Having fun?
 
 
+7 # Billy Bob 2016-05-01 23:13
She's trying to drum up MORE support for Sanders by playing the Devil's advocate.

NO. JUST KIDDING.

She really has no clue how repulsive her remarks are, and how much they convince people to do the exact opposite of everything she wants.

She's doing a service, but unwittingly.
 
 
-2 # lights 2016-05-02 14:01
No is the answer...tigerl illie. But yes, I have had plenty of other "readers" who may not post often but READ - value my POV. I get plenty of thumbs up, too but often they are diminished by the likes of billy bog and others who just cannot face anything but their own - limited realities.
 
 
0 # tigerlillie 2016-05-02 20:14
Quoting lights:
No is the answer...tigerlillie. But yes, I have had plenty of other "readers" who may not post often...


Actually lights, this comment was not directed towards you, although I can see why you assumed that it was. Not sure why it turned up positioned here. Sorry.
 
 
-4 # Thinking allowed 2016-05-03 14:27
lights---I wish that I had seen your comment about Bernie not being a Democrat much sooner. I totally agree with you. Anyone who refers to himself in the 3rd person has a h-u-g-e ego a la Trump and Bernie. And anyone who keeps campaigning when there is no chance of winning is A 3RD PARTY CANDIDATE! who is dividing the vote and ensuring a totally Republican government. Anyone who thinks that GW Bush was the worst is going to revise his/her opinion after Trump becomes the President. And he will if Bernie doesn't support Hillary. How can he? He would be a hypocrite. The comments about the election on RSN vs. Hillary are deplorable and, I bet, mostly misogynistic. Thanks for your realism.
 
 
+50 # ChrisCurrie 2016-05-01 09:47
Another IMPORTANT example is that whereas Bernie and Trump would KILL Obama's outrageously destructive TPP/TTIP/TiSA "trade agreement" initiatives, but Hillary only says that she "opposes the TPP in its present form" which appears to mean that she will make a few minor changes and then push the TPP through Congress next year with the support of "the best politicians money can buy." If that happens, the US Government (i.e. US taxpayers) will be deluged with newly authorized lawsuits by multinational corporations and investors (in corporately run international tribunals) for hundred-million s or billions of taxpayer dollars for alleged "loses of expected future profits" attributable to laws passed by any of our three levels of government. They will force all three levels of our government to repeal their labor protecting, environment protecting, health protecting, and social safety net laws and regulations, and essentially TRASH the United States Constitution and "We the People" for the financial gain of the already wealthy.

So for very good reasons, if Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee for President, and Obama's Trade Promotion Authority (fast track) legislation isn't REPEALED by this November, MANY MILLIONS of Bernie supporters will vote for the Green Party, Donald Trump, or not vote at all!


Democracy may effectively be extinguished in the United States beginning next year!
 
 
-16 # rocback 2016-05-01 12:54
"Bernie supporters will vote for Trump" Really? Doesn't say much about the Bernie supporters, does it?
 
 
+8 # Bruce Gruber 2016-05-01 15:09
On the contrary, it will stand as a statement to the monied establishment that runs both political parties and literally owns the weak-kneed selectees enhanced with media promoted sycophants to money and power that "enough" truly is ENOUGH ... and we are unwilling to accept the crumbs and dribble being trickled down on us.
 
 
+6 # Nominae 2016-05-01 16:03
Quoting rocback:
"Bernie supporters will vote for Trump" Really? Doesn't say much about the Bernie supporters, does it?


I note that you have nothing sane to say about the Sanders Supporters either, so just consider yourself to be in good company with the Trump-inators.
____________________________________________
 
 
+11 # Billy Bob 2016-05-01 17:52
It doesn't say much about Clinton that she's now resorted to BEGGING people who can't stand her for support.

Clinton was only interested in getting us out of the way for the past 6 months.

If she wants to beat Trump (for personal reasons, since the 2 are very good friends), she can do it without me.
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2016-05-01 17:59
Bernie has attracted a lot of working class whites that have been Red since Reagan. The ones he attracts are the non-racist ones, but if they can't vote for Bernie they may turn to Trump in desperation.
 
 
+43 # Mainiac 2016-05-01 09:48
Since Bernie has been an independent and not a Democrat, perhaps he does not understand what so many of us know about platforms drawn up at Democratic conventions.

They are an incredible waste of time. They go into the wastebasket before the conventions are over. The nominees don’t like them because they usually set out an entirely different agenda from the one they campaigned on.

Once you get below the Democrats that people the infrastructure you will find a lot of very progressive members. For this reason it makes more sense to take over the Party, topple the leadership, and unite those independents with Party members to move forward with an agenda like Bernie’s. Much easier than splitting the progressives by going to the arduous task of forming a third party.
 
 
+29 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-05-01 12:03
I don’t think Mainiac’s point is being given enough play.

BY FAR THE EASIEST WAY to form a party or organization is to commandeer an already existing one. On Wall Street, it’s a well known tactic. A company with no creds wants fast recognition on the street. Do they go through the long process of building a reputation? No. They “merge” with another company that is already listed but is sinking into oblivion and has no more than a year or so before it ceases to exist.

Stop talking third party and for God’s sake, don’t fall victim to the delusion that you can “work within the party” to effect progressive change. JUST TAKE OVER THE DNC, top to bottom. Outvote them, outmaneuver them, outgun them!

The Democratic Party belongs to the future. It is the present "owners" who are the usurpers.
 
 
+16 # librarian1984 2016-05-01 13:05
I agree with this completely. We need to take over the DNC. An added bonus is then we don't have to fight them, because we will BE them.

Regarding the party platform? I think putting in a plank or two is absolutely meaningless, but if we force the Democratic Party to accept the WHOLE platform of Sanders, THAT's more difficult to run away from.

They CANNOT win in November without young, Independent voters, and that constituency wants Sanders. Clinton has stated she doesn't intend to give Sanders or his people ANYTHING.

And thus begins yet ANOTHER Hillary Clinton dragged out, wearisome, tedious process of denial, snark and lies -- until at some point, say November 4th, when she capitulates. It's the Clinton way.
 
 
+6 # lorenbliss 2016-05-01 14:44
Actually I think "the future" -- if indeed the present does not render our species extinct -- belongs to some openly Marxist party.

I say this because ultimately what we are doing ideologically is re-fighting World War II, which proved decisively that only Marxism has the ideological and operational discipline necessary to effectively resist fascism.

On one side are those of us who want a world that operates on the principle of "from each according to ability; to each according to need." On the other side are those whose most cherished principle is that of Ayn Rand and Adolf Hitler: "winner take all...and death to all the rest."

Could the Democratic Party become a vessel of Marxism?

Or do We the People require the formation of a new party for us to gain our rightful economic and political power?

I don't know.

But I damn well do know our species is doomed to extinction unless we overthrow the capitalists before they turn our entire planet into a replica of Berlin c. 6 May 1945.
 
 
+9 # tigerlillie 2016-05-01 19:47
The future, pretty clearly, is socialist democracy.
 
 
+7 # tigerlillie 2016-05-01 21:13
[quote name="lorenblis s"]Actually I think "the future" -- if indeed the present does not render our species extinct -- belongs to some openly Marxist party.


The future is no doubt socialist democracy, as in Europe.
 
 
+3 # lorenbliss 2016-05-02 00:32
@tigerlillie: The great flaw in Western European style socialist democracy is its vulnerability to capitalist cooptation, as by Thatcher in England or Merkel in Germany.

This is even more problematical -- infinitely so, in fact -- in a reflexively anti-intellectu al nation like the United States.

Nevertheless, I believe the union of our constitutional principles with Marxian economic principles would save both our species and our planet.

Indeed I think that's why the One Percent is so terrified of Marxism: imagine total economic democracy -- i.e., Working Class ownership of all the means of production -- protected by our Bill of Rights.

A closer approximation of humanitarian utopia -- from each according to ability; to each according to need -- I cannot imagine.
 
 
+1 # lorenbliss 2016-05-02 02:34
Addendum whilst taking a brief break from packing books:

The one oath I have taken in this lifetime is my Oath of Enlistment in the old Regular Army c. 1959. I pledged, with about 30 others, half of us enlistees, the others draftees, "...to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic..."

And I firmly believe my commitment to economic and political liberation via Marxism fulfills that oath.

For it is now indisputable we are being methodically subjugated and enslaved by the capitalists.

And unless we defend our Constitution against these now seemingly innumerable capitalist enemies, we are all truly lost.

Having witnessed the unspeakable consequences of war -- in Korea c. 1961-1962, though the daily battles had ended with the 1953 armistice, there were still about 2 million people left homeless by the fighting -- I dearly hope we can recover our freedom non-violently.

Which is precisely why I support Bernie Sanders.
 
 
+7 # Cassandra2012 2016-05-01 14:10
Quoting tref:
I don’t think Mainiac’s point is being given enough play.

BY FAR THE EASIEST WAY to form a party or organization is to commandeer an already existing one. ...

The Democratic Party belongs to the future. It is the present "owners" who are the usurpers.



Yes, that's what the rightwingnut Tealiban did to the Repugs.
 
 
+7 # Bruce Gruber 2016-05-01 15:18
AND IT SEEMS TO be wORKING to upend the smelly buttholes of Republican oligarchy. The hard work of injecting a prophetic moral compass into capitalism - or establishing a humanist quality to democratic, social responsibility - are the evolutionary qualities needed to avoid bloody revolution against the moderate incrementalists stifling progressive ideology with supercilious, righteous capitulation to wealth.
 
 
+9 # Billy Bob 2016-05-01 17:53
That's also what the "New Democrats" (a.k.a. right-wing Republicans posing as Democrats) have done to our party as well.
 
 
+2 # Bruce Gruber 2016-05-02 07:12
The "New South" Democratic Party of Carter, Bumpers, Sanford, Askew were eaten alive and spat out by the oligarchs of the DNC. The Blue Dogs have always used yellow dog heritage propaganda to conceal their plutocratic inclinations.

The Progressive rebellion has always been more ideological than 'political'. Nevertheless, the confluence of Middle-Class decline into third world labor competition has merged with the awareness of Climate Change projection. A future fraught with known but ignored consequences has begun to focus on the perpetrators. It undermines centuries of $$$promo.

Though still in infancy, awareness may actually HAVE TO FACE the inevitability of the pain that attends "change".
 
 
+2 # Saberoff 2016-05-01 15:07
The Green Party IS an existing party.
 
 
+6 # Nominae 2016-05-01 16:09
Quoting tref:


Stop talking third party and for God’s sake, don’t fall victim to the delusion that you can “work within the party” to effect progressive change. JUST TAKE OVER THE DNC, top to bottom. Outvote them, outmaneuver them, outgun them!

The Democratic Party belongs to the future. It is the present "owners" who are the usurpers.


WoW !

A Wall Street inspired Hostile Takeover - talk about *poetic justice* !

I *L-O-V-E* IT !! ;-D
 
 
+18 # Radscal 2016-05-01 13:27
I'm quite fully onboard with the "Occupy the Democratic Party" movement.

But if they manage to crush the progressive movements that have coalesced around Sanders, I owe them no allegiance. The party establishment has destroyed progressive movements and policies for 1/2 century, and this is one "abused spouse" who will not take another hit.
 
 
+13 # librarian1984 2016-05-01 14:22
It boggles the mind that you have to fight the DNC tooth and nail to do not only the RIGHT thing, but the SMART thing.

It's been said many times: no organization knows better how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory than the Democratic Party.

Sanders is showing us a way out of this economic and social quagmire -- a way to get $ out of politics, a way to attract the most demographically desirable constituency, a way to save the planet.

But instead the brainiacs at HQ have decided it's Hillary's turn, despite consistent evidence that she stands a greater chance of losing to Trump, at the same time arguing that Sanders is the one who can't get elected!

Positively Orwellian.

(You there, puddles? That means NOT good.)
 
 
+2 # Nominae 2016-05-01 16:18
Quoting Radscal:
The party establishment has destroyed progressive movements and policies for 1/2 century, and this is one "abused spouse" who will not take another hit.


But what if the "abused spouse" could actually create an opportunity to DESTROY the bastard from within ?

That sounds just delicious to me, but of course, the devil would BE, as ever it IS, in the details. !

However, the proposal of reforming this pig of a party from within sadly DOES seem to have about all of the war planning promise of blindly beating on a dead horse !
 
 
+7 # Billy Bob 2016-05-01 17:55
They really don't seem interested in anything we stand for or have to say.
 
 
-12 # OLDGUY 2016-05-01 14:56
Your logic is too simple for the Bernie supporters on this site. Will not happen. it takes actions and not words and these people only know how to talk. They do not walk the talk
 
 
+4 # Nominae 2016-05-01 16:27
Quoting OLDGUY:
Your logic is too simple for the Bernie supporters on this site. Will not happen. it takes actions and not words and these people only know how to talk. They do not walk the talk


Geez, OLDGEEZER, you waste your time and your overwhelming intellect participating on a Q among people for whom you cannot muster a modicum of respect ?

I hate to be the one to break it to you, Gramps, but the logic here is not often "simple", the sad truth is that it merely flies over *your* apparently Alzheimer's addled head.

If I were you, I would try a new Q.
yahoo news Q should correspond with your discriminating tastes to a tee !

Cheers !
 
 
0 # OLDGUY 2016-05-01 19:11
Nominae' Thank you for the advice
 
 
+2 # Nominae 2016-05-01 23:27
Quoting OLDGUY:
Nominae' Thank you for the advice


Hey, you are more than welcome !
I am all *about* helping the elderly ! ;-D
____________________________________________
 
 
+6 # tigerlillie 2016-05-01 22:51
Nominate, surely you can argue with Old Guy without ridiculing him because he is old. Show some respect. And by the way, I have a 93 year old mother losing her mind to vascular dementia, and I am not amused by your Alzheimer's humor. Alzheimer's/Dem entia are a gut wrenching tragedy,not a joke.
 
 
-2 # Nominae 2016-05-02 00:08
Quoting tigerlillie:
Nominate, surely you can argue with Old Guy without ridiculing him because he is old. Show some respect. And by the way, I have a 93 year old mother losing her mind to vascular dementia, and I am not amused by your Alzheimer's humor. Alzheimer's/Dementia are a gut wrenching tragedy,not a joke.


PART I

Tiger, my friend, I *greatly* admire and respect your contributions here, but you need to lighten up just a tad.

At 67 years of age, I can give anyone I *care to* "grief" about age, and I could likewise do so if I were still 37 years old ! ;-D

It is called being an American, and I do NOT "cave to" the finger-wagging "tsk-tsk", or "shush-shush" from *ANY* brand of "Political Correctness" in this entire Country.

Additionally, neither you nor any other human being on this planet who *cannot* immediately end my life, is in *any* position to dictate to me WHAT I *can* say, or whom or what I *must* respect ! Those are still my OWN choices to make, and I reserve that right *to* myself.

Perhaps you noticed that Old Guy *himself* had NO problem with my comments ? I was "busting" Old Guy on his choice of ONLINE HANDLE, not his *ACTUAL AGE*, Ms. Nightingale.

Don't you see how incredibly condescending it is for YOU to *assume* that Old Guy is incapable of fighting his *OWN* battles ? That he even NEEDS YOU or any *other* "Nanny" to come flying to his aid ?

Did he *ask* you for your invaluable personal protection ?

Cont'd
 
 
-2 # Nominae 2016-05-02 00:09
PART II

Further, it has no bearing at ALL on MY life to know what you *DO*, or do *NOT* find amusing.

That is your own PERSONAL business, and tho it may SHOCK you, I actually RESPECT your freedom of choice in that arena ! I would never presume to tell YOU what, or HOW to think, and I demand that *same* courtesy in return!

If you venture to tell ME what I CAN and CANNOT say, you had better START by getting the First Amendment Repealed. THEN, you will need to have the NSA monitor my mouth 24/7, bcuz, as an Irishman, I tend to have a "bit" of a "resentment for authority" problem, and you don't even *HAVE* any authority that you did not expropriate to yourself.

I wholeheartedly agree with the comedian Daniel Tosh, who, in his latest special, observes that only humor nazis issue the statement "There is nothing funny about:(fill in the blank). As Tosh notes, if you write a good joke, there is NO subject, in this land of the FREE, that *IS* "off-limits".

The personal tragedies in YOUR life in NO way obligate total strangers to gag, stifle or limit *their* Freedom of Speech and Expression to accommodate *your* delicate sensibilities.

If you need to mourn, do so in *private* like everyone else. Turn the TV OFF. Skip or IGNORE my comments.

Because if you are waiting for the REST of the world to become sensitive and sympathetic to YOUR individual and personal needs, you will get a *LOT OLDER* before THAT state of events *ever* comes to pass !

Cheers !
 
 
+2 # tigerlillie 2016-05-02 12:56
Quit putting words in my mouth. I never told you what you can or cannot say. You can be quite amusing in the right context, but your vitriolic attacks on people who do not deserve it are counterproducti ve, and your sense of self importance is over blown.
 
 
-2 # Nominae 2016-05-02 21:01
Quoting tigerlillie:
You can be quite amusing in the right context....


Thanks, Tiger, you are pretty amazing yourself.
____________________________________________
 
 
-2 # lights 2016-05-02 19:45
Nominae: You've got a lot of friggin nerve making fun of this man OLDGUYS or anyone who COULD have Alzheimer's. A typical Bernie Sanders bully.
 
 
-1 # Nominae 2016-05-02 20:55
Quoting lights:
Nominae: You've got a lot of friggin nerve making fun of this man OLDGUYS or anyone who COULD have Alzheimer's. A typical Bernie Sanders bully.


There's no question that I have nerve, Sparky.

But not enough to do YOUR job. You see, I can read WITHOUT distorting the text that
I see, and I have the nerve to look fact in the face.

If you could muster up a bit more of that sac yourself, you would quit skittering into your room and hiding under the bed every time a shadow from the tree in your yard drifts past your window.

If you don't have the stones to try something as wild as a real campaign, just stay where you are and rock in the safety of Hillary's arms. You know .... like those helpless children in Libya.

In addition, you REALLY need to see a shrink regarding the fact that you find imaginary "oppressors" and "bullies" in every shadow and around every corner.

You are certifiable, Son.
 
 
+11 # Billy Bob 2016-05-01 17:55
Some of us are taking action and standing up to the Democratic Party, once and for all.
 
 
-12 # lights 2016-05-01 19:31
Too bad you didn't have the balls to do it mid-term! But we know you don't!
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2016-05-01 23:15
What the hell are you even talking about? Do you even know?
 
 
+1 # Nominae 2016-05-02 01:20
Quoting Billy Bob:
What the hell are you even talking about? Do you even know?


lights is plumb in the *dark* on that one ! ;-D
____________________________________________
 
 
+2 # Merlin 2016-05-02 02:41
Nominae 2016-05-02 01:20

"lights is plumb in the *dark* on that one ! ;-D"

Hahahaha…Good one! There is much truth in this simplicity!
 
 
+3 # pietheyn07 2016-05-02 04:40
Save the contributors list, Bernie.Bet you would be amazed at the response for monies to fund a progressive movement, similar to the ADA in the '50's, within the Democrat Party. A good first priority would be to financially assist primary candidates who oppose the "Blue Dogs".
 
 
+48 # danireland46 2016-05-01 10:03
When asked if he believed Hillary was crooked for taking money from Wall Street which Bernie has said over and over is corrupt and needs to be broken up Bernie just smiled and said, " In that case, the entire United States government is crooked.”
This is the truth, the amount of corruption in the US government is staggering, and it's all related to the ocean of money washing over it.
Politicians have all bought into the money game, They have been taking money for their campaign war chests so long they can't even see how it's destroyed their credibility. Governmental agencies like the SEC, the EPA, the IRS etc. have all been cut back by lobbyist money to the point of being ineffective, as a result, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, the roads and bridges are crumbling, and nothing is getting done.
The voters have no choices. The obstructionisti c GOP is bought and sold to the Plutocrats and the DFL's best hope for change, Sanders, is losing to HRC. I'd like to say she's GOP lite, but there's nothing light about her. WE"RE IN BIG TROUBLE: and it's all related to big money in politics!
 
 
+9 # lfeuille 2016-05-01 18:15
This is all true, but what Bernie doesn't say and really can't say is that Hillary and her husband had a lot to do with creating the current corruption and seem more at home in the system than some others who put up with it to get along but don't revel in it the way the Clintons do.
 
 
+10 # xenonman 2016-05-01 10:11
A Clinton nomination would virtually guarantee Trump the White House!
 
 
-1 # ericlipps 2016-05-01 11:51
Trump may think so, but he's an egotistical blowhard who certainly feels the same about Bernie Sanders.

The polls say otherwise.
 
 
+13 # librarian1984 2016-05-01 14:30
You want to appear rational, but the same polls say Sanders is a safer bet -- yet you don't seem to think THAT's important.

Which candidate attracts Independents?

Which candidate generates enthusiasm?

Which candidate has likability ratings that aren't negative?

Which candidate is a populist at a time when the electorate is anti-establishment?

I grant you it would be wonderful to have a woman president, but it matters who that woman is, and what she'll do, and who she'll represent.

You're right that she won't be QUITE as bad as Donald Trump. But she will be a LOT worse than Bernie Sanders.

I've held my nose and voted for mediocre candidate after mediocre candidate, but I refuse to do so when there is a viable, appealing, rational alternative.
 
 
+11 # tigerlillie 2016-05-01 10:18
After reading the headline, I thought this article would take a different direction. Hillary's price to Obama was being designated Secretary of State. What is she offering Bernie?
 
 
+31 # tedrey 2016-05-01 10:41
Nothing Bernie would take, bless him. He won't play that crooked game.
 
 
+11 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-05-01 12:24
Quoting tedrey:
Nothing Bernie would take, bless him. He won't play that crooked game.


Which is exactly why Bernie can’t run as a Green or a write-in. If he were to do that, he would be just another politico playing “that crooked game.” Try one way. If it doesn’t work try another. Tell the truth. If that doesn’t work, lie. Be fair and if that doesn’t work, cheat. It’s all about GETTING WHAT I WANT.

But for Bernie, that's not it. He keeps saying, “I see a path to the nomination.” Read between his words. What he REALLY sees is a path back to our Constitution and it’s promise to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, [and] promote the general Welfare.” We can’t do that if all we get is Bernie as President for a paltry 8 years. We have a LONG road to travel and win or lose, Bernie is the catalyst, not the Hand of God. His job is/was to inspire in us a faith in ourselves, in our right to run this country, to reclaim it from the cabal of what? 60 men? 60 men who want to rule the world with the US being the biggest and most wealthy prize. Win or lose, we cannot reclaim our great nation if we either quit or play political games.
 
 
+5 # Saberoff 2016-05-01 13:30
BS. It's now or forever; Bernie's our candidate. No political games by joining Jill Stein on the Green's Party ticket. It's his revolution, our fight, and America's future.
 
 
# Guest 2016-05-01 20:02
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
0 # tigerlillie 2016-05-01 20:43
Wake up. This is called the art of compromise (and compromise is how Bernie has managed to stay in the Senate AND maintain his integrity for so long). He wants a say in who she nominates for the Supreme Court, for instance. And getting that say in no way compromises his integrity. He is not asking for a cabinet post, or to have his debts paid off, but there are things that he and his supporters want and have earned.

If he/we don't get them, I, at least, will have no regrets whatsoever in leaving the party, especially since I have been a party member for decades in name only. Bernie is the first candidate that has been offered that I could actually vote "for" rather than "instead of", and I will not go back.Quoting tedrey:
Nothing Bernie would take, bless him. He won't play that crooked game.
 
 
+8 # Bruce Gruber 2016-05-01 11:29
It was also the DNC and DLC proclaimed Senate Seat in NY as a precursor to her predetermined rerun in this cycle. The half dozen "wink! wink! nod! nod!" years of non-denial denial during preparation for this coronation.

The guarantee of 'limited' intrusion into Wall Street practice, business plan, and political influence was a major part of that preparation.

NY Its coordination with the Cuomo tax giveaway to business to 'suggest' growth in that state suggests her continuation of burdening local citizenry of the $price$ of any possible progress.

If middle-class interests were going to boost growth and security in New York state, a personal income tax holiday or rebate for a couple of years would ease the strain of downsized job rewards rather than entertaining a labor wage race to the bottom for new earners.

Let ALL American workers heed the philosophy the Cuomo/Clinton misdirection/co rporate boosterism represents. I'd like to see what part of THAT admission was 'scheduled' into those opaque quarter million dollar "chats" ... and a correlation of the profit benefits of corporate tax avoidance/exemp tion investment within the 'seed money' investment in a "NON-GOVERNMENT AL SIMPLE CITIZEN'S personal reflections (@ $2000 per minute).
 
 
+13 # Billy Bob 2016-05-01 12:12
Her price was also paying off her debts. Now she's worth $150,000,000
 
 
+17 # Doc Mary 2016-05-01 14:35
There are things he wants. He wants her to say her Supreme Court nominees will support ending Citizens United. He wants rid of the superdelegates in 2020. He wants his people represented proportionately on the DNC, and he wants someone in charge who will not play favorites within the party - that is, he wants a veto over who becomes new DNC chair (because the current one has to go).

He wants a tax on Wall Street transactions. He wants more enforcement of existing regulations. He wants a graduated income tax like we had before Reagan. He wants FICA to be a flat tax (instead of the regressive tax that it is, an he wants investment income included).

He wants a Keynesian program to repair infrastructure and schools. He wants quality day care (something she has to agree with for her own base), and quality education - which means hiring more people - social goods and social programs that hire people who then buy things which then makes the economy improve from the bottom up.

He wants rid of the private prison system. He wants an end to the mandataory sentencing laws. He wants drugs decriminalized, and he wants people who were convicted of felonies, but have served their time, to be afforded all the rights of citizenship, including voting. And he wants an end to the militarization of local police forces.

That's some of it, at least. She has to offer him (and us) some of THAT.
 
 
+9 # tigerlillie 2016-05-01 20:49
You are absolutely right, Mary. And Bernie' s supporters need to stay organized so that there is unrelenting pressure, and hell to pay if Hillary welshes (sp?), which she will very likely do, because that is the kind of politician she is. We need to watch Bernie' s back, because his best interest is ours.
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2016-05-01 18:18
Nothing as far as I know. I don't think he could serve in her administration without being tainted by it. And he would not be able to publicly disagree with her. It would not be good for him or for us.
 
 
+15 # Saberoff 2016-05-01 10:42
Seattle's socialist City Councilmember Kshama Sawant is urging Bernie to run as Independent or head Green Party with Jill Stein. I'm in total agreement with her logic. See Dave Lindorff article at Counterpunch / sign petition at #MovementforBer nie.
 
 
+5 # lorenbliss 2016-05-01 14:58
Were Sanders to run as a Green, he would lose most (if not all) of the Working Class vote in Washington state.

As for why, please see my comment near the beginning of this thread.
 
 
-1 # JSRaleigh 2016-05-01 15:33
Quoting Saberoff:
Seattle's socialist City Councilmember Kshama Sawant is urging Bernie to run as Independent or head Green Party with Jill Stein. I'm in total agreement with her logic.


Yeah, that would be a great idea. Bernie should do to Clinton what Nader did to Gore.
 
 
+18 # Inspired Citizen 2016-05-01 10:48
The Bernie or bust pledge is a declaration of war against the Democratic Party establishment.

https://citizensagainstplutocracy.wordpress.com/2016/01/22/bernie-or-bust-pledge-is-a-declaration-of-war-on-democratic-party-establishment/
 
 
-4 # ericlipps 2016-05-01 11:52
Quote:
The Bernie or bust pledge is a declaration of war against the Democratic Party establishment.
The Bernie or bust pledge is a declaration of war against the Democratic Party.
 
 
+14 # Billy Bob 2016-05-01 12:13
The declaration was already made by the Democratic Party as soon as it found out Clinton had opposition.
 
 
-12 # Cassandra2012 2016-05-01 14:13
Quoting Inspired Citizen:
The Bernie or bust pledge is a declaration of war against the Democratic Party establishment.

https://citizensagainstplutocracy.wordpress.com/2016/01/22/bernie-or-bust-pledge-is-a-declaration-of-war-on-democratic-party-establishment/

And thereby ensure a Trump neo-fascist victory?
 
 
+11 # Billy Bob 2016-05-01 17:56
If Clinton can't win without the votes of people who hate her and her amoral duplicitous lying, she's too weak of a candidate to represent us anyway.
 
 
+13 # Aliazer 2016-05-01 10:55
What I read here is the forever on-going between/betwix lamentations about twedledee and twedledum which people of this country continue being infatuated with.

Both parties are completely useless for the people of America, in fact, both have been usurping the voting process and selling it to Wall Street and other special interests while committing treason against the country by globalizing the economy, leaving working people destitute and abandoning the country.

There are only two people that today offer an opportunity to escape from this increasingly destructive process and that is Sanders and Trump. And if Sanders will be, unfortunately, eliminated, people will flock by the millions to Trump, whether that will be, ultimately, a good choice or not.
 
 
-12 # rocback 2016-05-01 12:59
There's another Trump trojan horse.
 
 
+7 # Nominae 2016-05-01 16:37
Quoting rocback:
There's another Trump trojan horse.


You really DO struggle with reading comprehension, don't you Precious ? ;-D
 
 
+9 # Billy Bob 2016-05-01 17:59
You've done more for the Republican cause than anyone else I can think of.

You've done your best to turn off as many people as possible, to just remind many of us why we'll never vote for Clinton.

Kassich may be the Republican nominee, for all we know, because Republicans are standing up and being counted. Democrats, um, not so much.

If the Republicans nominate Kassich, and Clinton is indicted, good luck with that whole, getting her into the White House so she can thumb her nose at us, thing.
 
 
+3 # Cassandra2012 2016-05-01 14:15
Trump is not for the Repugs, perhaps, but he is most definitely for TRUMP as he always is.
Not for the people, whom he despises, and consequently disparages at every turn.

Achtung, Der Drumpf!
 
 
+9 # Billy Bob 2016-05-01 18:01
And this is why he and Clinton are such good friends.

They have so much in common that it's hard to tell them apart.

Clinton is like Cheney (plotting, manipulative, dark, scheming)

Trump is like your goofy uncle who doesn't know people can actually hear him.

They both have the same attitudes about most things, but Trump is less of a warmonger, and too stupid to actually get most of them done.
 
 
+17 # Inspired Citizen 2016-05-01 10:56
"She is indeed the lesser evil."

Sane Progressives disagree: https://youtu.be/UszjUSCjNPY
 
 
+18 # oakes721 2016-05-01 10:57
.
President Sanders: A Gentleman
 
 
+12 # jdd 2016-05-01 11:23
To Hillary backers who say they want to stop Trump, I ask why are you and the Democratic Party backing the weaker candidate? Trump has made it clear that he will not play nicey-nicey as Bernie mistakenly did, but will expose her on Benghazi, the illegal email server, and probably the Goldman Sachs transcripts as well. She is, as he has stated, an easy target, widely disliked and untrusted, and a much more preferable opponent than Bernie.
 
 
-11 # ericlipps 2016-05-01 11:56
Quoting jdd:
To Hillary backers who say they want to stop Trump, I ask why are you and the Democratic Party backing the weaker candidate? Trump has made it clear that he will not play nicey-nicey as Bernie mistakenly did, but will expose her on Benghazi, the illegal email server, and probably the Goldman Sachs transcripts as well. She is, as he has stated, an easy target, widely disliked and untrusted, and a much more preferable opponent than Bernie.

Oh, really? Suppose by some miracle Sanders gets the nomination. Trump will red-bait him into the ground, quoting Bernie's own loud declarations that he's a socialist.

But it won't happen, since at this point Sanders' nomination would TAKE a miracle, and those are pretty thin on the ground.
 
 
+13 # librarian1984 2016-05-01 13:16
Quoting ericlipps:
Trump will red-bait him into the ground

How many times can you show people a hammer and sickle? There's a BIG difference between a communist and a social democrat. Drop a 30-second spot that has Bernie and Jane in a hot tub talking to Swedes. Badda bing. Over.

Part of running against the establishment is the difficulty in getting your message out. If Sanders is the candidate the media will HAVE to focus on him, and then his ratings go up, because his message of economic populism and social justice is relevant and appealing, and offers an alternative to Trump's fascistic populism. Polls show the more people hear Sanders' message the more they like it, while the opposite is true of Clinton's message of incremental change. More importantly, Sanders' platform wins the votes of Independents, 42% of the electorate, as evidenced in open primary results. Those contests are giving you important information that you ignore at your peril.

When you run HRC, with her horrible likability ratings, you lose any advantage against Trump's abysmal likability.

Sanders mobilizes Independents; Clinton mobilizes the GOP. Even if it's not fair, there are few figures who will rile up the GOP's GOTV like either of the Clintons.

Sanders is more electable AND has a better agenda. This is a no-brainer for a progressive.

The DNC has been able to marginalize its progressives for a long time, but not *this* time.

Progressives reject Hillary Clinton.
 
 
+14 # Radscal 2016-05-01 13:41
The major difference there is the attacks Drumpf (or whatever Republican) make at Sanders are precisely the things we LOVE about him.

Whereas when the Republicans expose HRC's full complicity with Wall Street, her warmongering disregard of women and children around the world, her backing of and by the private health insurance, weapons manufacturers, fossil fuel industry, etc. etc. etc., that will cause even fewer liberals/progre ssives to be willing to hold their noses and vote for her.

Anyone who will rationalize voting for the candidate threatening war with Iran and Russia, establishing a global fascist system with TPP and TIPA, and taking at best tiny, token steps to address Climate Change is not progressive or liberal.
 
 
+8 # lorenbliss 2016-05-01 15:04
Yes! Accurate analysis clearly stated. Kudos!
 
 
+9 # Nominae 2016-05-01 16:43
Quoting ericlipps:
... Sanders' nomination would TAKE a miracle, and those are pretty thin on the ground.


It ALSO took a miracle to put a freakin' roving robot on MARS.

But it is *THERE* !

If they had been forced to heed YOUR "wise" advice, the freakin' Wright Brothers would have kept working on *bicycles* until the day they died ! ;-D

Did the Wright Brother's *first* airplane design WORK right out of the shop ? Hell NO ! Good thing that didn't cause THEM to go home with their tails tucked between their legs and send them skittering off to hide under their beds.

There is a MOVEMENT going on here, so basically - lead, follow, or get out of the way !
 
 
+4 # tigerlillie 2016-05-01 22:58
Oh come on, ericlipps, Trump has already called Saders a communist, to little or no effect.
 
 
-12 # rocback 2016-05-01 13:07
The Republicans have been attacking Hillary for 30 years. On Benghazi, they have held 9 commissions that showed nothing. In the last one 7 GOP former federal prosecutors backed by millions of tax payer dollars and hundreds of staff cross-examined her for 11 hours and she wiped the floor with them.

On the e-mail BS, contrary to the lies on Fox "News" the FBI said they are NOT investigating Hillary.

Fox, the GOP, hate radio and the right wing echo chamber attacks her 24/7 and she's still standing. I don't think I would call her "weak". She has had over $100 million in negative ads spent on her by GOP super PACs. Bernie has had NONE spent aginst him.

Yet she has gone UP in the polls, beats Trump 50 to 39%, has received millions more votes than Trump and will destroy him in a one on one policy debate.

I'll take my chances with Hillary instead of a 75 year old socialist.
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2016-05-01 23:18
Actually, the FBI IS investigating Hillary. This isn't personal. This is a CRIMINAL investigation. The only one saying anything different is Clinton herself. The FBI has been very clear about this.

You ARE taking your chances with Hillary (the 70 year old liar, and criminal).

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/the-fbi-just-gave-hillary-the-worst-news-of-her-campaign/

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/05/this_is_how_the_fbi_destroys_hillary_the_10_questions_that_could_end_her_white_house_dreams/

http://time.com/4276988/jim-comey-hillary-clinton/

-----------------

It's called "Google". You can actually read things for yourself and inform yourself. You don't need to take all of your information from Clinton.
 
 
+9 # RMF 2016-05-01 11:35
I am a strong supporter of Bernie -- both cash and advocacy -- and he certainly is the ideal candidate from a progressive standpoint, and I certainly wish to see him in the White House. However, if Bernie does not gain the nomination I will vote for Hillary. As a life-long Democrat/progre ssive I will vote Democratic, recognizing that Hillary may be the best we can do this cycle. Admittedly, Hillary's platform in the international sphere is disappointing, but her position on domestic/econom ic issues is vastly superior to anything the GOP has to say or propose. Ryan is already floating a proposal to (again) deep six Obamacare, by fragmenting the risk pools and transferring high risk insurance coverage back to the individual states, where it can be disposed of completely -- thus, a vote for anyone other than the Democratic Party nominee may be handing the entirety of the institution (not just the House of Rep) over to the inmates. The GOP want to take us backward, undoing the advances we have made under Obama, and I will not make a voting decision that risks loosing the gains we have made. That point of view demands a vote for the Democratic Party nominee, even if it is Hillary.
 
 
+6 # lorenbliss 2016-05-01 15:40
Trouble is, we of the 99 Percent have made no real "advances" or "gains" under Obama or any other president since 22 November 1963.

(Yes, there was LBJ's so-called "Great Society," but that was nothing more than bribery to obscure the horrors of USian imperialism in Southeast Asia.)

Like most USian workers, I never got a real raise -- "raise" defined as an increase in disposable income -- after 1973. Never mind my skills were consistently award-winning.

ACA meanwhile is a scam: the premiums and co-pays are so high, few but the wealthy can afford them.

Indeed the (obvious) purpose of Obamacare is to lock in place, forever, the Ayn Randite principle of healthcare as a privilege of wealth rather than the human right it is everywhere in the (civilized) world.

Note too how -- just as the Republicans claim -- ACA is partly financed by (savage) cuts to Medicare.

In my case this includes an 82 percent reduction in Medicare Extra Help. That atrocity is part of a total 2016 income-reductio n of $155 per month.

All but $33 of these cuts were imposed by the "Democratic" Jay Inslee administration. To stifle protests, the cuts were kept secret until the last possible minute.

In fact, were it not for the beneficence of two dear friends, that $155 per month total cut -- $1860 per year -- would have eventually flung me into homelessness: not a fun prospect when one is 76 years old and in deteriorating health.
 
 
+13 # Radscal 2016-05-01 16:22
Well said.

I realized while campaigning for Nader in 1996 that few people under the age of about 50 understood what I meant by saying that incomes hadn't risen in decades. It took me too long to realize that as individuals, all they saw was that they usually were making more money than they had 20 years ago.

Of course, almost everyone sees increases in their income from age 20 to 50 or so. What they failed (and still fail) to see is that their income percentile had not improved.

In short, if incomes had risen just equal with increases in productivity, then basically everyone in the 99% would be making MORE than they did/do.

Instead, with inflation and cuts to benefits and the "social safety net" almost everyone is earning LESS than someone in their shoes did decades ago.

My wife and I are also very close to hunger, homelessness and early deaths, so I can say that I know how you feel. That's why it irritates me so when HillBots like Rain disingenuously claim we're being "selfish" to oppose HRC. We're really putting it all on the line.
 
 
+9 # lorenbliss 2016-05-01 17:35
Thank you.
 
 
+8 # Nominae 2016-05-01 17:40
Quoting Radscal:
..... That's why it irritates me so when HillBots like Rain disingenuously claim we're being "selfish" to oppose HRC. We're really putting it all on the line.


HillBots like Rain, et al. run on the motto: "open mouth - disengage brain".

Please pay that crap no serious mind. It is no more to be seriously considered than the memorized tauntings of toddlers.

We really ARE "putting it all on the line", here, but "respect" FROM mental midgets such as the Bots here under discussion would be of absolutely *no* consolation even if we had it.

Being "admired by" the morons from "Special Class" does not allow a man to carry his head any higher than previously.

It literally outrages me that, as a society, we allow humans of the intelligence, wisdom and potential social value represented by the likes of you and lorenbliss to become marginalized, ignored, and all but starved out of that same society.
____________________________________________
 
 
+8 # lorenbliss 2016-05-01 18:48
That's because anyone of genuine "intelligence, wisdom and potential social value" is (and always has been) an immediate threat to capitalism -- all the more so now that it is following its equivalent of a genetic mandate to mature into fascism or Nazism.

That said, thank you for the compliment.
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-05-01 19:43
What Loren said. And thanks.
 
 
+2 # tigerlillie 2016-05-01 23:01
Ryan and Cruz are the real dangers, despite the despicableness of Trump.
 
 
-14 # PsychePhixer 2016-05-01 11:52
RSN is wondering why contributions have slowed to a trickle. I have always supported RSN but I'm having a hard time now motivating myself to send in my every 6 months $30 since RSN is printing only heavily nasty anti-Clinton crap. I know RSN bragged a few weeks ago "WE SUPPORT BERNIE BECAUSE WE CAN". It's seeming like you want to get rid of all the democrats who support Hillary Clinton - how sad is that you are at the same low level as the Bernie Bro's and the Bernie or Bust folks who prefer to take the country down "scorched earth style" rather than print article that are pro-Hillary Clinton. You may go down the tubes if you decide to continue on this way.
 
 
+15 # djnova50 2016-05-01 12:43
RSN is a Progressive news site. Hillary is not a Progressive. It is really not easy to find pro-Hillary stories on Progressive news sites. Perhaps try the Wall Street Journal.

Seriously, though, I never voted for Hillary when she was running against Obama in 2008. If you read up on Hillary's actions as Secretary of State, you will discover just how disastrous her reign was. She destroyed lives and created more refugees than she helped.

I will not support Hillary Clinton this time around. We do not owe her the Presidency.
 
 
+14 # Radscal 2016-05-01 13:46
If "alternative media" mean anything, it is that they provide information that is different than what the corporate media saturate us with.

Genuinely positive (or even accurate) reporting on Sanders is rare in the corporate media. Remember when the Washington Post ran 16 negative Sanders stories in 16 hours?

But regardless, this article is actually basically accepting the coronation of HRC, and suggesting how she could "win over" Bernie supporters.
 
 
-9 # PsychePhixer 2016-05-01 16:10
"Coronation"? Hillary will win because she's the best candidate. Hillary stuck her neck out as First Lady to do her best to get universal health care for all Americans and has been viciously attacked nonstop by the GOP ever since. Her reward is to have Bernie supporters behave like Republicans & chop her neck off. It's sad the under 30 bunch do not know or care about history nor the courage it took to do what she did for Americans. And to top it off, Bernie gets the credit for blazing the way when he simply had to follow in her footsteps. It's a sad state of affairs when we have 2 qualified candidates & ones' supporters behaves like mean-spirited, self-destructiv e R's (Bernie or Bust) while the others' supporters are altruistic & accepting of either candidate. It says a lot about "character: both of the candidates who set the tone & of the candidate's supporters. The character of HRC & HRC supporters is positive, the character of Bernie or Bust people and Bernie who encourages it is negative. Who are these people willing to throw Americans under the bus & hand the presidency over to the GOP, who have temper-tantrums like soiled 2 yr-old's. Who are these people who put their childish wish list above the health and well-being of all Americans?
 
 
+11 # Radscal 2016-05-01 17:40
Since my wife and I were Universal Single Payer Advocates starting in the 1980s, we paid very close attention to Clinton's Healthcare plan creation and proposal.

It was a huge disappointment, that was later sold as HeritageCare and RomneyCare and finally Obamacare.

As Senator, she voted FOR NeoCon appointments and all of the NeoCon agendas.

As Secretary of State, she sold neoliberal policies around the world, and pushed for NeoCon murderous brutality from Honduras to Libya and Syria.

I won't vote for a Republican, even if she puts a "D" after her name.
 
 
+7 # Nominae 2016-05-01 17:50
Quoting PsychePhixer:
Who are these people who put their childish wish list above the health and well-being of all Americans?


From all available evidence contained in your rant above, Sir, they are *OBVIOUSLY* people *EXACTLY* like YOU !

You know .... the "low information" Clintonista Camp !
____________________________________________
 
 
+15 # librarian1984 2016-05-01 14:13
The implication is that it's the Clinton supporters who've been generous and they're leaving this hellhole (of berning truth and optimism). I respectfully disagree.

I support RSN monthly and give as much extra as I'm able. But I've also been donating to Bernie and to the progressive candidates he's recommending. I'm tapped. I'm not putting creamer in my coffee or riding the bus for awhile.

I appreciated RSN's acknowledgment and understanding of just those circumstances a while back, and I promise I'll be more generous as soon as I'm able.

Psyche, I'll bet there are a lot of things we can agree on, but I have to tell you that the whole freaking television and internet are filled with Clinton inevitability, and I find this site a rational and supportive oasis. Please don't try to take it away from me.

It's not 'nasty anti-Clinton crap' if it's facts, and I've found the Berners here much more substantive and reasonable than the Brock-developed trolls sent here to demoralize 'the opposition', ie, the people they'd expect votes from in November.

Can't we have an honest exchange of ideas? I don't demonize Secretary Clinton. She's a human being, and I believe a corporatist masquerading as a progressive.

I too want a woman president, but I want that woman to inspire progressives. I want Eleanor Roosevelt, not Maggie Thatcher.

As for generosity, I'll bet progressives donate more than neocons, though I'll bet the latter talk about it more. (Right, shady?)
 
 
+8 # tigerlillie 2016-05-01 21:24
Quoting librarian1984:
The implication is that it's the Clinton supporters who've been generous and they're leaving this hellhole (of berning truth and optimism). I respectfully disagree.

I support RSN monthly and give as much extra as I'm able. But I've also been donating to Bernie and to the progressive candidates he's recommending. I'm tapped.


I am tapped out too,after overspending myself contributing money to the Sanders campaign. I am old, ill, and on disability, but I also have a teenaged daughter to support, and have been literally scrounging for food to put on the table. I will continue to support Bernie, and RSN as well, but with more moderation.
 
 
-6 # PsychePhixer 2016-05-02 00:40
Libraraian, I wouldn't dream of taking or trying to take anything away from you or anyone else. I know the majority of Bernie supporters (which I was until recently) are idealistic and good people and the ones who express "hate" regarding Clinton, the Bernie or Bust people are a tiny fraction of his supporters. For that I am grateful. I have always watched Thom Hartmann and the enjoyed Brunch with Bernie aegment but the more I see and hear about him as a person, the less I like him. His entire tirade about Clinton and WAll St. is completely disingenuous as this is the system we've had to deal with since Citizens United was put in place by the conservative Rovbert's Court in Jan 2010 to allow the GOP to buy the House and Senate. Bernie is the only one who can make "I only take small donations" work. The emphasis has to be getting money out of politics and getting an amendment to Citizens United. Hillary wants that and if anyone can make it happen it will be her and the Democrats appointing the next 2 to # Supreme Court Justices.
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-05-02 07:22
Quoting PsychePhixer:
Bernie is the only one who can make "I only take small donations" work. The emphasis has to be getting money out of politics
You're right, it's a good goal, and Sanders is the only one who wants to make that happen. We don't know if he's the only one who can make it work. A year ago did you think HE could do it?

I'm surprised that seeing him more has turned you against him; it's had the opposite effect on me. I want to see his keen intelligence, remarkable stamina and kind heart in the White House.

I wish you'd think about what YOUR desires for America are, then compare them to the nominees. 'Incremental change' is offensive and inadequate. That should be what you plead AFTER you mess up, not what the plan IS.

And personally, I don't want Sec. Clinton to nominate any justices; I want Sanders to nominate them.

I feel this SO strongly that I WILL NOT vote for HRC, and believe if enough progressives state this clearly and convincingly, if neither candidate reaches 2383 the super delegates will be convinced by Sanders himself, with our help.

HE is the candidate for this moment, for this electorate, for this crisis.


I feel pity for Hillary Clinton. She dreams of being the first woman president. I find her a tragic figure in some ways, and I wish her no harm, but I think her presidency would be disastrous.

I cannot vote for her. I WILL NOT vote for her. And if the DNC insists on her, THEY will be responsible for Trump.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-05-02 07:36
Quoting PsychePhixer:
His entire tirade about Clinton and WAll St. is completely disingenuous as this is the system we've had to deal with since Citizens United was put in place by the conservative Rovbert's Court in Jan 2010 ....

Wall Street problems started when Pres. Clinton pushed to repeal Glass-Steagall, freeing the banks to hop in bed with Wall Street bad boys.

Greed. Crash. Bailout. Bonuses all around.

Twenty years later, Missus Pres. Clinton is giving secret speeches to Wall Street and won't tell us what's in them. She's going to eventually, but first we'll get denial followed by tedium seasoned with drama, and then Trump will release them and we'll find out Clinton said Elizabeth Warren is fat or she's promised to privatize social security. Could go either way.

Citizens United is just the icing on the cake, and should be eliminated, not amended.

If you're a Thom Hartmann fan, you probably have a lot more in common with Sanders, and I worry that in the future you'll be another in the legion of embittered previous Clinton supporters. The pair have a habit of using people and discarding them. Notice Jennifer Granholme's name isn't being mentioned as VP? She didn't deliver MI.

You are backing a poor candidate, and someone who doesn't have your interests at heart, or those of your kids. Even if she means well, and we probably part ways there, she has horrible judgment, and a president's horrible judgment costs lives.
 
 
+5 # Nominae 2016-05-01 17:18
Quoting PsychePhixer:
RSN is wondering why contributions have slowed to a trickle. I have always supported RSN but I'm having a hard time now motivating myself to send in my every 6 months $30 ...... You may go down the tubes if you decide to continue on this way.


Good gawd, yet another blackmailing, bludgeoning, browbeating enabler of TROLLS.

I know that you are not new here, PsychePhixer, and that you are quite likely not a troll yourself, but that group must have taken you under their wing.

Therefore, welcome as a potential TROLL pool apprentice - crocback will be happy to show you the ropes.

And you are going to "jerk" your five bucks a month unless you are allowed to control the ENTIRE content on a site that has ENDORSED Sanders - and force that site to print only what *you* approve regarding SANDERS' OPPONENT ?

O.K.! *THROW* your weight around for that monthly five bucks, Big Fellah ! You know ... you and Rupert Murdoch ! Media MOGULS ! *That* should have 'em wetting down their pant-legs !
 
 
+2 # tigerlillie 2016-05-01 21:26
Ha ha, that's a great post, Nominate. Smile.
 
 
+2 # AshamedAmerican 2016-05-01 21:47
There is enough deception in the MSM about HRC, and has been for decades. The democrats that support her need to be educated about what she really is. She is another representative of the plutocrats that run this country. She is happy to slaughter any person or nation that gets in the way of increased power, control and profit for the 1%. She is happy to continue such policies and those of wasting nonrenewable resources in support of an unsustainable economy while otherwise wrecking all habitable qualities of our planet. Her inhumane priorities have been proven; her words are not to be trusted. We will all be going "down the tubes" if we ignore such facts.
 
 
+18 # Blackjack 2016-05-01 12:29
I have said from the beginning that if HRC loses, she (and most of the Neocon Party) will blame Bernie (and those of us who support him). The Clintons could never be responsible for anything not in their favor.

The Dem Party left me; I didn't leave it. But I have waited 40 years to draw that line in the sand, continuing to vote for the party after all the abuse they've given progressive Dems. No more!
 
 
-11 # PsychePhixer 2016-05-01 13:00
Blackjack, Why is it that there are no Clinton supporters who say "if Hillary doesn't win, I won't vote for Bernie". It's notable that the biggest chunk of both Trump and Sanders supporters are under age 30 and lack a great deal of knowledge about many things regarding how government works (it does when you get rid of Citizens United and Dark money and regressives in the house, senate, and Supreme Court). America is great and it can and will work without starting from scratch. We will get the Universal Health Care, a movement begun by Hillary Clinton as First Lady. It is she, not Bernie who was and is the real progressive who also knows the in and outs of domestic policy and foreign policy). Many in the under 30 group do not know history, are not well educated and are grabbing onto Bernie's promise to give them a free education and free health care. His movement has good points and I will vote for him as the nominee, but Hillary Clinton is the real progressive, the one who has the experience and knowledge to keep us on track and actually get us to Universal Health Care she proposed to begin with.
 
 
+13 # librarian1984 2016-05-01 14:57
Are you saying if Sanders is the nominee you'll vote for him?

Clinton and her supporters insult an important constituency they're having trouble appealing to. Here's a hint: insults don't work. People scolded youth for not voting but now that they ARE, they're trashed for not picking the designated candidate. Young women especially have been belittled, and I find that astonishing coming from someone who claims the mantle of feminist icon. Aren't you troubled?

Youth may not have the experience we do, but that doesn't mean they're stupid or uninformed, and for heaven's sake they HAVE ears, so why would the Secretary and her people treat them so badly? Do you think that's smart? Is that the plan you would come up with? And what does that suggest about the general election?

Now we can discuss a great many things civilly, but you CANNOT say Hillary Clinton is a progressive. There is no one here who believes that.

But let's move on. You criticize young voters for not being educated, but then turn around and criticize them for wanting a free education. That's like conservatives who want to outlaw abortion, but also defund and demonize sex education and birth control.

Unfortunately the DNC has decided to adopt the GOP love of a low-information apathetic electorate, but these magnificent Bernie supporters are confounding the establishment and confronting the status quo. I applaud them.

If you want to attract them, how about listening to what they're saying?
 
 
+7 # Ken Halt 2016-05-01 19:36
librarian: BRAVO! Love your factual, cogent comments. It's gotten to the point that whenever I see your byline I give an "up" and then read it and am assured it was a well-deserved agreement!
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-05-02 07:42
Haha! That's very kind of you, but I question your judgment :-) My kids tell me I'm a bit of a wild card.
 
 
+6 # tigerlillie 2016-05-01 21:32
Now, THAT is history, psyche phixer. Read and learn. Thank you, Loren.
 
 
+5 # tigerlillie 2016-05-01 21:35
Oops, my above comment showed up here, but it was meant to go under Loren' s comments about the call for universal health care originating with the Kennedy's.

Nothing has been the same since their assassinations. Would that I could live in that alternative universe where they lived and this nation thrived.
 
 
-3 # PsychePhixer 2016-05-02 00:54
Librarian, I support free higher education for junior college and affordable higher education.I support universal health care for all. You are ignoring the FACT that Hillary Clinton is also for these goals. Bernie said at the beginning of his run, "Senator Clinton and I have the same goals, we only differ on how to get there". Bernie and Hillary voted the same way 93 percent of the time. So all this incendiary rhetoric is political nonsense and extremely destructive. My 4 children are all well educated. We paid for the firt 4 years for their Bachelors then they all went deeply into debt for their doctorates. That is a national shame and needs to end. Bernie won't make any of our mutual lofty goals materialize magically. Hillary has the same goals and she has the knowledge and skills needed to bring them to fruition. The enemy is not Hillary, it is the Republicans holding our government hostage. Put your energy into stopping the GOP so our government can function as it is meant to do (get the money out of politics). Join StampStampede.o rg and work at this. I do.
 
 
+3 # Bruce Gruber 2016-05-02 08:06
"affordable higher education" (?!?) ... a typical Hillary dodge!

Do you mean lower interest or longer term of indebtedness? Is that intended to reduce your principal obligation by dedicating a number of years of servitude at public wage? Does it mean some percentage of your parents' income?

All meaningless complexity allowing re-interpretati on and years of Congressional "hashing" to become encrusted with tax-free immigration by off-shored $trillions$ escaping taxation - because you "know how to get things done" ??

It was what Hillary's handlers hide in the opaque meaninglessness of so much of what she stands with ... being careful to keep the cracks open and available. She's not "HATED"! She's despised for her purported intelligence and empathy being for sale so cheap.
 
 
+7 # Nominae 2016-05-01 18:14
Quoting PsychePhixer:
....Why is it that there are no Clinton supporters who say "if Hillary doesn't win, I won't vote for Bernie"....


HRC supporters are unable to contemplate a world in which HRC does NOT win. She *IS*, after all, the anointed Darling of THE MACHINE !

Quoting PsychePhixer:
... things regarding how government works (it does when you get rid of Citizens United and Dark money and regressives in the house, senate, and Supreme Court).


The very things to which you refer above exist *BECAUSE OF* Corporatists like the Clintons in the FIRST PLACE !

DAMN ! Remember what Lincoln said about "fooling all of the people
ALL OF the time"? (Emphasis added)

Clintonistas cannot overcome that Lincoln- referenced law of nature NOW anymore than could politicians in Lincoln's own day, in SPITE OF all the paid TROLLS Hillary sends out in the vain attempt to accomplish the impossible.

If Hillary was THAT good, she would NOT BE fighting a rear guard action with Sanders supporters.

When rain falls, sh*t gets wet.

Even Clinton Trolls cannot change the actual FACTS on the GROUND !

As to Hillary's so-called "foreign policy experience" let's just ask ANYONE overseas recently contained in a U.S. Issue BODY BAG - you know ..... all of that Clinton Pollyanna Propaganda to the contrary.

BTW, Sanders doesn't NEED your condescending little "default" vote. This is a MOVEMENT, not a "Coke v.s. Pepsi" contest at the County Fair.
 
 
+6 # lorenbliss 2016-05-01 18:37
Actually, the fight for universal health care was begun by the Kennedy family long before Hillary came on the scene.

First -- and I will not apologize for the fact it will no doubt make some of us cry (as it surely did me) -- here is our martyred President John Fitzgerald Kennedy on the subject of universal health care in the United States: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14A1zxaHpD8

Then here is his martyred brother Robert:

"If we are not prepared to move forward, energetically and imaginatively, to build on the blueprint of the Medicare legislation, then we had better be prepared for some very serious problems" (Sen. Robert Kennedy, 15 May 1966, quoted on pg. 88, "Robert F. Kennedy Promises America a New Day," edit. Bill Adler, Signet: 1968).

Then Sen. Ted Kennedy in 1977: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2q4G6Ljt8w

And finally Slick Willy and his wife Hillary and their scheme to appear to support universal health care even as they sunk it by closed-door meetings and tying it to forcible civilian disarmament -- sabotage for which they've been obscenely rewarded by the insurance barons and the prescription drug lords ever since. For the ongoing magnitude of these rewards, see for example http://www.commondreams.org/views/2007/05/18/hillary-inc

also http://wwwcounterpunch.org/2007/11/12/why-hillary-s-health-care-plan-really-failed/

Obviously, Hillary's Goldwater Girl (deposit) slip is still showing.
 
 
+3 # lorenbliss 2016-05-01 18:52
Oops, my bad dyslexic typing -- a dropped word in the RFK statement -- now corrected, with my deepest apology for the error.
 
 
+8 # Radscal 2016-05-01 19:57
FDR's "Second Bill of Rights" introduced in [edit. 1944;1948 was when Eleanor Roosevelt helped craft the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights] included:

"...the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health” -

See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/119553#sthash.rH5fmEJf.dpuf

BTW: Your Counter Punch link didn't work for me, but thanks for the others. I still believe that our nation cannot be righted without uncovering the truth about the assassinations of the 1960s. If they amounted to a coup (and I am sure they did), then we have never restored our republic.
 
 
+7 # lorenbliss 2016-05-01 20:18
It works as it copied into my bookmarks, but it's long enough your computer may be breaking it apart. Here it is again:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/11/12/why-hillary-s-health-care-plan-really-failed/

And here it is as a TinyURL:

http://tinyurl.com/j25vb6j

(Both links work for me. The TinyURL should for sure work for you.)

As to the assassinations, we are in total agreement. And we're in some pretty heavy-duty company...
 
 
+7 # lorenbliss 2016-05-01 20:33
Also: universal health care was implicit -- though not specifically named -- in FDR's Four Freedoms speech, 1941:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms

And as I am old enough to remember Eleanor Roosevelt very well, another of Hillary's insufferable deceptions -- right up there with her sniper-fire lie -- was her effort to equate herself to the late Mrs. Roosevelt, who was unquestionably one of the most outspoken humanitarians in U.S. history.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-05-02 13:49
Very cool. Yes, on issue after issue, Mrs. Roosevelt was consistently awesomely progressive on all human rights.

I got your link working. Maybe it was just my 'puter being cranky.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-05-02 20:07
What a great, insider's view of HillaryCare. Thanks.
 
 
+5 # JCM 2016-05-01 12:30
Part 1: I write this to those liberals and progressives who are so frustrated with the political system and extremely turned off due to Bernie’s apparent loss. To me Bernie was the only Politician who has dedicated his life to bring the American Dream to all Americans. That said, the political reality we face is harsh. We have one party, the republicans, that is so entrenched with their donors and so subservient to them that their agenda is extremely destructive to the common man and the environment which we all live in. At this point some might think that the democrats aren’t much better but this idea of equivalence is patently wrong. To see the difference you have to consider what would happen if either party had filibuster proof control over Congress, taking the Presidency, the Senate, the House, and Supreme Court.
What would the republicans most likely do: destroy Obamacare, privatize Social Security, reduce Medicare and Medicaid, reduce taxes on the rich, reduce regulations on pollution, the financial industry, the insurance industry, the food & pharmaceutical industry, the chemical industry, reduce spending on education, research and development, infrastructure, and renewable energy. They would drill a lot more for oil and probably dig for coal and frack us pretty good. They could possibly remove the minimum wage. Let us not forget their choice of Supreme Court Justices, which has helped enable their agenda for years.
 
 
+7 # Nominae 2016-05-01 18:45
Quoting JCM:
What would the republicans most likely do: destroy Obamacare, privatize Social Security, reduce Medicare and Medicaid, reduce taxes on the rich, reduce regulations on pollution, the financial industry, the insurance industry, the food & pharmaceutical industry, the chemical industry, reduce spending on education, research and development, infrastructure, and renewable energy. They would drill a lot more for oil and probably dig for coal and frack us pretty good.


Dude ! This stuff is just a HOWLER ! ;-D

If you think Dems have "protected Social Security" the reader can solidly infer TWO things:

1. You have difficulty *reading*!
and
2. Neither you nor any of your loved ones are actually ON Social Security.

Hillary is STRIDENTLY in favor of FRACKING, and every OTHER SINGLE threat you list above has ALREADY been *launched* with RESOUNDING bi-partisan approval.

Comedy, Sir, is definitely *not* your calling ! ;-D
 
 
+9 # Radscal 2016-05-01 20:09
And of course, Obama has issued more permits for offshore oil drilling than any other President (including the Arctic), and increased sales of coal and "natural gas" to the highest amounts in history.
 
 
+6 # tigerlillie 2016-05-01 21:40
JCM, one of the first things Obama did once he was in office was renig on his promise to never threaten or bargain with funding for Social Security. This was the primary reason that many older people in my state voted for him!

Just wait until you are old and your health is declining, and your union has allowed your retirement pension to be triggered away by embezzlers.

You can simply never trust a career Democrat, not Obama, not Hillary.
 
 
+1 # pupdude 2016-05-03 11:39
Quoting Nominae:
Quoting JCM:
What would the republicans most likely do: destroy Obamacare, privatize Social Security, reduce Medicare and Medicaid, reduce taxes on the rich, reduce regulations on pollution, the financial industry, the insurance industry, the food & pharmaceutical industry, the chemical industry, reduce spending on education, research and development, infrastructure, and renewable energy. They would drill a lot more for oil and probably dig for coal and frack us pretty good.


Dude ! This stuff is just a HOWLER ! ;-D

If you think Dems have "protected Social Security" the reader can solidly infer TWO things:

1. You have difficulty *reading*!
and
2. Neither you nor any of your loved ones are actually ON Social Security.

Hillary is STRIDENTLY in favor of FRACKING, and every OTHER SINGLE threat you list above has ALREADY been *launched* with RESOUNDING bi-partisan approval.

Comedy, Sir, is definitely *not* your calling ! ;-D



So then you're saying it's been the Republicans who have been protecting Social Security all along! I never knew this. How awesome. Wasn't it the republicans who started Social Security? So much to learn.
 
 
0 # JCM 2016-05-03 20:09
No not the republicans, FDR actually.
 
 
-2 # JCM 2016-05-01 12:32
Part 2: Now, what would the Democrats most likely do if they had full control over Congress: They would improve Obamacare and possibly create a system like Medicare for all, increase taxes on those who can afford it, would enforce regulations on pollution, on the financial industry, the insurance industry, the chemical industry, the food industry, would increase spending on infrastructure, education, research and development and renewable energy. They would try to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and reduce our carbon output. They might increase the minimum wage to a living wage and appoint Supreme Court Justices that would help strengthen the 99%.
I invite anyone to add to these lists.
So what does all this mean? It means that this election is not a choice between the lesser of two evils; it is a choice between a country and environment destroyed due to unrestrained greed (the republicans) or a country turning to heal itself, the common good and the environment (the Democrats).
Hilary is a part of all this but it is fundamentally indispensable to vote for every Democrat you can, including Hillary so that the republicans, don’t have a chance to take over or obstruct. If you are a liberal or progressive and the thought of the republicans taking over Congress, or still able to obstruct, doesn’t propel you to vote for every Democrat you can, then there is no hope for our country.
 
 
+11 # librarian1984 2016-05-01 13:56
JCM, I see what you're saying and agree with a lot of it.

-BUT there HAVE been times when Dems were in control, and we didn't get ANY of those things, not even the most basic -- minimum wage, infrastructure spending, jobs, debt relief etc. They don't even try. The Dems have been spineless and inconsequential.

-Now look at this nominating year. I'm worried by the DNC's willingness to accept GOP tactics, and they are, as usual, trying to dismiss progressives with a pat on the head. They want our votes, but not our input, and arrogantly assume they have us over a barrel.

Normally they do. We fall in line and vote AGAINST someone, though rarely does the DNC take the trouble to offer us anyone to vote FOR.

-But we didn't win even against BushCo, a ripe target; we DID, however, win when we voted FOR Obama's optimistic message.

Are you really willing to risk Trump becoming president because you're so heartily FOR sweeping *incremental* change? Why aren't you as offended as I am by that concept?

I don't even mean the obvious, desperate NEED for radical change. I just mean, are you going to stump door-to-door with the resounding message of lowered expectations?

-The electorate is angry, feeling betrayed by their government. This is a populist moment and there are TWO candidates appealing to the disillusioned. We have one of them -- a guy who's proven himself a superb campaigner.

Are we really going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory AGAIN?
 
 
-3 # JCM 2016-05-01 15:39
We did get Obamacare even when there were a number of blue dogs keeping the more progressive agendas from happening. We also got the banks out of student loans. Significant help paying off college loans. The Lilly Ledbetter act. And there is a larger list of legislation beneficial to the 99%. What do you think you would have gotten if the Republicans had been in complete control the last 7 years. To say a few, no Obamacare, higher interest student loans with no help. More deregulation of the financial and oil industries, etc.
I get it. The Dems screw up but in comparison to the republicans they are a far better choice. Your choice, Democrats or republicans. Your vote counts.
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-05-01 18:10
You're right. Obama and Congress accomplished a lot, especially considering what they were up against. It's impressive. But I'd say it's also, with the exception of ACA, the picture of incrementalism. And there are bad things too. Insiders were charged with the Wall Street fallout and the result was taxpayers and homeowners left holding the bag. More free trade agreements went through, but none fair. The Keystone battle, FOIA backups and attacks on whistleblowers.

None of that says progressive to me. I like Obama personally, and I didn't expect him to be ultraliberal, but I'm not happy, and Secretary Clinton promises more of the same -- incremental improvements (and a more hawkish temperament).

Clinton's agenda is old school and backward looking, while Sanders is looking toward the future. I'm already hearing more people echoing his call for a balanced approach to the Israel-Palestin e dispute.

He has good ideas for putting lots of people to work and improving the lives of the 99%. Can you imagine the hope and hard work engendered for bright high schoolers all over the country who would suddenly find they have a hope of going to college? What an investment in our youth.

We are the richest country in the world. Why do we always have enough for the military but never our people? People are angry, and Sanders can lure them from Trump. He can mobilize millions of young Independents, invigorate the party and save the planet.
 
 
+5 # Nominae 2016-05-01 19:30
Quoting JCM:
The Lilly Ledbetter act.

Yeah .... eight freakin' YEARS ago, when the Ledbetter Act *finally* amended the *Fifty-Two-Year -Old* Civil Rights Act of 1964 !

Can you see HOW progressives might *NOT* perceive these lame "victories" you tout to be exactly *LIGHTNING FAST* Social Progress ? Even AS the "Baghdad Bob" Candidates OF the 1%, and their unctuous apologists such as YOURSELF *keep* shilling away like little beavers in FAVOR of the STATUS QUO ?

We KNOW that the 1% loves keeping things *JUST* the way they ARE !

The very NAME "Progressive" might give a *bright* reader the hint that WE do NOT applaud Trickle Down, War-profiteerin g, Climate Change and Environmental Devastation just the way that *IT* IS !

This deadly STATUS QUO, and ALL of what you trumpet above, is, at *BEST*, "progress" at the rate of a DRIBBLE AND A LEAK"!

Nothing more than the rich tossing the poor a necessary bone from time to time to keep them DISTRACTED !

The bilge that you list above amounts merely to *more* deflection and misdirection from what truly IS pertinent to life in the REAL world, right here, right NOW !

The insinuation that the Dems are NOT, (right along *WITH* Repubs) even NOW subsidizing Big Oil to the tune of $16 BILLION taxpayer dollars PER YEAR, is simply insulting to the intelligence of the RSN readership.

You know ... to mention just ONE of the absolutely YAWNING holes in the logic of your slippery and ingenuous Dem "Apologia".
 
 
+15 # Radscal 2016-05-01 13:58
"what would the Democrats most likely do if they had full control over Congress: "

What they did in 2009/2010? How about what they did in 1993/1994?

Remember when Obama ended the "dumb wars," introduced Universal Single Payer Healthcare and punished Wall Street malfeasance?

Neither do I.

I do remember when Hillary convinced him to escalate the war in Afghanistan. I do remember when he and Democratic Congressional Leaders took both USP and even a Public Option off the table. I do remember when they gave Wall Street $ hundreds of billions of our tax dollars (and the Fed gave them untold $trillions) and then watched as millions of families were kicked out of their homes.

I do remember when Obama put Social Security on the bloc, and I remember that Hillary had to be hassled about it for months before finally saying she wouldn't cut Social Security.

But never underestimate the power of amnesia and delusion. Vote Same Old Same Old, for Change.
 
 
-3 # JCM 2016-05-01 15:28
I understand your deep frustration. The Democrats often fail to deliver on the best of liberal or progressive policies, but the consequences of letting the republicans maintain this level of obstruction or worse take full control, appoint Supreme Court Justices, and continue to deny climate change would be catastrophic. We must do everything possible to keep them out.
 
 
+13 # Radscal 2016-05-01 17:43
I no longer believe these establishment Democrats WANT any liberal or progressive policies with the exception of a tiny handful of domestic social policy issues.

If the FDR, New Deal Democrats can retake the party, I will support them fully.

If they continue along their Clintonian "New Democrat" neoliberalism, they will have earned my scorn, not my vote.
 
 
+1 # lorenbliss 2016-05-01 20:52
Here, below a meaningless Peter Max miasma of color, is the poster that -- were the sponsor's name replaced by a "Vote Sanders" message -- perfectly describes the present-day mental state of the USian 99 Percent. Check it out:

http://drewfriedman.blogspot.com/2011/07/different-drummer.html

and again as a TinyURL:

http://tinyurl.com/zmvuzjj
 
 
0 # Radscal 2016-05-02 13:57
LOL.

And yes on Peter Max. What was that all about? Even high on acid, I found his stuff boring.
 
 
+5 # Nominae 2016-05-01 20:23
Quoting JCM:
...but the consequences of letting the republicans maintain this level of obstruction or worse take full control, appoint Supreme Court Justices, and continue to deny climate change would be catastrophic. We must do everything possible to keep them out.


"Be Afraid !! Be *VERY* AFRAID !! The Sequel"

Opening soon at selected theaters near you.

As Radscal observes, Establishemt Dems ARE now the Monsters to BE resisted, right along WITH their better-known, and longer established, Boogie Men Bedfellows from across the Aisle.
 
 
+6 # librarian1984 2016-05-01 15:37
I wish I could give you 100 thumbs up.
 
 
+4 # Nominae 2016-05-01 20:30
Quoting librarian1984:
I wish I could give you 100 thumbs up.


librarian intended the praise above for Radscal, (and I second librarian on that sentiment 100%) - not for my own post intervening.

This is why I like to encourage us to use the @IntendedTarget designator. These Qs move too quickly to allow full clarity over
time in the absence of the little @sign indicators !
____________________________________________
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-05-02 07:46
Quoting Nominae:
This is why I like to encourage us to use the @IntendedTarget designator.

I have no idea what that means.

And can somebody please tell me how to turn off %$&!@ autocorrect. I'm not a bad speller -- I'm a bad typist!
 
 
# Guest 2016-05-01 20:11
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+3 # Nominae 2016-05-01 20:13
Quoting Radscal:
But never underestimate the power of amnesia and delusion. Vote Same Old Same Old, for Change.


*Whew* ! PRIMO, Radscal, PRIMO ! Just had to say it ! ;-D
____________________________________________
 
 
-20 # lights 2016-05-01 12:32
Weissman: Speaking of clothespins!!! You smell bad and you smell destructive!

This is just more political maneuvering CRAP to take down Hillary Rodham Clinton AND the Democratic party! Sanders is showing himself more and more as a pompous, ass who thinks he and his BS revolution are both at the center of the universe!

Oh, sure, a real honest guy.. that Sanders! I'm sick of his political games and sick of his dishonest, conniving surrogates like Weissman who play REAL dirty politics!

Sanders has been trying to take down the Democratic Party for decades! HE IS NOT a DEMOCRAT at heart!
 
 
+4 # JCM 2016-05-01 12:43
Can you be more specific, any actual examples?
 
 
-8 # lights 2016-05-01 19:44
Sure. He is NOT a Democrat at heart! Clear to understand. And most of the Sanders followers on this site - LOVE that he wants to take down the Democratic Party! THEY DO NOT CARE if in the process it takes down this country!
 
 
+1 # Nominae 2016-05-01 20:40
Quoting JCM:
Can you be more specific, any actual examples?


You really *are* new here, huh ?
You will soon get to know the RSN "characters". ;-D
 
 
+8 # Ken Halt 2016-05-01 19:42
lights: HRC and the Dem party are taking themselves down, they are too toxic and status quo for any informed person to vote for.
 
 
+2 # Nominae 2016-05-01 20:38
Quoting lights:
.... I'm sick of his political games and sick of his dishonest, conniving surrogates like Weissman who play REAL dirty politics!


Dear ME, Precious ! Take a Bi-Carb ! ;-D
 
 
+3 # Majikman 2016-05-01 13:01
A Trump or Cruz prez is not the end of the world. How far are they going to get with a congress that hates them both? When even Boener piles on Cruz...tis a beautiful thing. I suspect what we'd have is sameoldsameold stalemate with congress doing what it does best--NOTHING.. .or as HRC wants tiny incremental changes.
 
 
-4 # Cassandra2012 2016-05-01 14:21
Indeed it may be the end of the world.... Cruz, the '2nd coming' and his mad father who believes in end-times, and Trump the neo-fascist delusional narcissistic bully who cares for only one thing--- Trump.

Both ready to sell the people of this country out!
 
 
+10 # Majikman 2016-05-01 19:00
Nope, the end of the world comes when dragon lady decides to duke it out with nukes with Russia, China & Iran. Even if nukes aren't considered how does WW3 grab you?
 
 
+4 # lorenbliss 2016-05-01 21:02
Perhaps prophetically, I keep hearing that line from the film "Waterloo" when Bonaparte's generals tell him "The Cossacks are watering their horses in the Seine"...
 
 
+9 # Ken Halt 2016-05-01 19:53
Cass: HRC's agenda, as an agent of the deep state oligarchic plutocracy, is to sell 99% people of this country down the pike! Why vote for the sameosameo which has gotten the 99% nowhere for the past 36 years? The Dem party and its candidate has to earn our vote by presenting a superior platform and nominee! The Dem party has a stellar candidate in Bernie Sanders, all progressives and most independents will vote for him and assure a victory. If the Dem party wants to risk running a less galvanizing and popular candidate, the Nov loss will be on its shoulders, not ours!
 
 
+3 # lfeuille 2016-05-01 18:48
I tend to agree. And there's a good chance it would be only 4 years and not 8.
 
 
-3 # pupdude 2016-05-01 23:35
Quoting lfeuille:
I tend to agree. And there's a good chance it would be only 4 years and not 8.


There's a better chance it'll be 8 with 1-4 new Scalias on the SCOTUS.
 
 
# Guest 2016-05-01 23:32
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
-2 # pupdude 2016-05-01 23:34
Quoting Majikman:
A Trump or Cruz prez is not the end of the world. How far are they going to get with a congress that hates them both? When even Boener piles on Cruz...tis a beautiful thing. I suspect what we'd have is sameoldsameold stalemate with congress doing what it does best--NOTHING...or as HRC wants tiny incremental changes.


You're forgetting SCOTUS appointments.
 
 
-4 # mmc 2016-05-01 13:08
If you're a Sanders supporter and you fail to vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee, whatever lame-ass excuse you make up for yourself you will still be supporting Trump/Cruz, and your pigheaded resistance will be responsible for the final, permanent demise of our country. Not only will your progressive agenda be stomped out by the neo-nazis now calling themselves Republicans, their vengeance will make Sherman's march to the sea look like a cub scout picnic. Wake up and stop acting like a jihadist.
 
 
-11 # JCM 2016-05-01 18:29
Thank, Thanks, Thanks!
 
 
+5 # Nominae 2016-05-01 20:51
Quoting JCM:
Thank, Thanks, Thanks!


Yessir, JCM, one can tell a LOT about a man by the company he keeps ! ;-D
____________________________________________
 
 
+3 # Nominae 2016-05-01 20:50
Quoting mmc:
..... whatever lame-ass excuse you make up for yourself you will still be supporting Trump/Cruz, and your pigheaded resistance will be responsible for the final, permanent demise of our country. Not only will your progressive agenda be stomped out by the neo-nazis now calling themselves Republicans, their vengeance will make Sherman's march to the sea look like a cub scout picnic. Wake up and stop acting like a jihadist.


Dang, mmc - were you recently laid off from your previous calling as a foaming-at-the- mouth Hellfire and Brimstone Preacher ?

People here are going to exercise their Freedom of Choice to vote whatever the hell ticket *THEY* want to vote - unless they are weak-willed morons who are easily swayed by rabid, hysterical and finger-wagging lectures such as that to which you "treat" us above.

Don't you think that maybe yahoo news Q would provide a more tempting percentage of empty-headed idiots to be frightened by your inane, insane and barely coherent exhortations above ?

Expand your horizons !
 
 
-1 # RMF 2016-05-01 13:09
I support Bernie, and his platform which is based on the soundest of progressive principles. But as much as I love Bernie, it's clear to me that JCM's comments have it right. Failing to support the Democratic nominee -- Hillary if that be the case -- could be the biggest mistake of the progressive community in recent memory. I supported and canvassed for Obama and do not want to see the hard fought gains trashed by handing the country over to the GOP. Trump has brazenly claimed "the country can't afford a minimum wage increase" and I won't throw my vote away by voting third party or write-in, and in effect giving my vote to the GOP.
 
 
-4 # JCM 2016-05-01 18:28
Great!!
 
 
# Guest 2016-05-01 21:52
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+6 # tigerlillie 2016-05-01 22:13
RMF, why Obama supporters like you ever discuss his real heritage, which has been the accelerated destruction of our constitution & the Bill of Rights. He renewed Indefinite Detention, while admitting that it was probably unconstitutiona l. He has pushed the trend of claiming executive authority that is not mandated by the constitution to the maximum.
He has waged a campaign of military imperialism in the muddle east on behalf of multinational companies who want easier access to oil. He has treated our U.S.military troops like cannon fodder, but forbidden the photographing of their coffins. He has done everything he can, to a really extraordinary extent, to suppress free speech. He has bailed out Wall Street with the tax money paid by the 99% and failed to prosecute them for their criminally reckless behavior. Yes, he is a good friend to corporate USA. He has done nothing to fight the universal surveillance apparatus in this country, which aspires to world wide surveillance. These issues are a lot more important than the few good things he has done. And while Affordable Care is better than nothing, he allowed the insurance companies to write it.

Sorry. First time around I supported him completely. Second time around, I voted for him on the basis that he was better than the alternative. I am not going to vote for a war criminal again. & that is a direct reference to his drone warfare program, and HRC' s bloody track record as Secretary of State.
 
 
+1 # tigerlillie 2016-05-01 23:05
That was intended to say "NEVER" not "ever" in the first sentence above.
 
 
+1 # RMF 2016-05-02 02:32
And Trump would be better? The answer to that question should be obvious to all. Or, to put it more bluntly, the coming national election is an excercise in realpolitik -- not an idealistic game or wish list with no foundation in reality -- reality in the sense of actually becoming national policy. I have been a strong supporter of Bernie, but if he fails to win the nomination, I am not going to start tilting at windmills, as many on here suggest. It's really true that you can't always get what you want....
 
 
# Guest 2016-05-01 23:37
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
-2 # pupdude 2016-05-01 23:38
Quoting RMF:
I support Bernie, and his platform which is based on the soundest to progressive principles. But as much as I love Bernie, it's clear to me that JCM's comments have it right. Failing to support the Democratic nominee -- Hillary if that be the case -- could be the biggest mistake of the progressive community in recent memory. I supported and canvassed for Obama and do not want to see the hard fought gains trashed by handing the country over to the GOP. Trump has brazenly claimed "the country can't afford a minimum wage increase" and I won't throw my vote away by voting third party or write-in, and in effect giving my vote to the GOP.


Indeed.
 
 
-10 # PsychePhixer 2016-05-01 13:13
Light, I gave you a "thumbs up" and it registered as a "thumbs down". It also happened today (and other days) when I give a thumbs up to a progressive who will support both Hillary and Bernie depending on which of them gets the nomination. Also when I give a thumbs down to a Bernie or Bust comment it registers as a thumbs up. Something is rotten and it's not confined to Denmark?
 
 
+11 # Majikman 2016-05-01 14:13
You are not the only one registering thumbs. What you see is the NET result of several people's thumbs simultaneously.
 
 
-5 # PsychePhixer 2016-05-02 01:14
Majikman - I suppose that is possible, but it happens so often and only in one direction which still leaves me wondering if there is some little Wizard behind the emerald curtain.
 
 
+10 # Radscal 2016-05-01 17:47
Those of us who have been on RSN for a while know that if we want to see how our votes are tabulated, then we scroll down and hit the "refresh comments list" button BEFORE we vote.

That really should have been in your Brock "Correcting the Record" handbook.
 
 
+5 # Majikman 2016-05-01 18:56
One would think the trolls would learn how a site functions before blasting away. They're so easily identified, n'est ce pas?
 
 
+6 # Nominae 2016-05-01 22:24
Quoting Majikman:
One would think the trolls would learn how a site functions before blasting away. They're so easily identified, n'est ce pas?


I find their naivete both refreshing and infinitely helpful, *because* they stand out like a sore thumb. The only one who even attempted a "shot" at subtlety was JCM, and that mask wilted quickly.

We did have some *serious*, no-shit, Military Psy-Ops-levels- of sophistication Trolls recently on the site. *They* were as pleasant to get removed as an impacted and severely infected molar !

These "script kiddies" recently from the Clintonista Camp are an annoying, but an embarrassingly "easy to handle" mess to clean up. ;-D
____________________________________________
 
 
# Guest 2016-05-02 01:31
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
-2 # PsychePhixer 2016-05-02 01:34
Bonjour Majikman and Nominae. Do I understand you correctly to be referring to those of us who will vote for either of our two Dem candidates as "trolls"? I volunteer hundreds of hours in each election (2008, 2010, 2012)with MoveOn.org making calls all over the country to get out the Dem vote. I stamp my bills ala Ben and Jerry's Stamp Stampede grassroots movement to get the money out of politics and I have donated hundred of dollars to End Citizens United and Dem candidates. Excusez-moi, What did you say it is again you do that makes you a progrssive?
 
 
-1 # Nominae 2016-05-02 07:19
Quoting PsychePhixer:
Bonjour Majikman and Nominae. Do I understand you correctly to be referring to those of us who will vote for either of our two Dem candidates as "trolls"?


You do *not* understand correctly, no.

That has, in fact, been at least part of the difficulty with our communication here.

Additionally, I might refer you to one of my earlier responses to you in the Q above where I note that you are *NOT* one of our shiny new hired-gun Trolls from the Hillary Camp, because I recognize your online "handle" from years past here on RSN.

SO, au revoir, PP, don't tease us by saying you're bailing unless you *really* mean it, and then, of course, the standard caution regarding the door and one's lower posterior still applies.... ;-D
____________________________________________
 
 
+2 # ahollman 2016-05-01 13:40
Some responses:

Can readers stop calling those they don’t like a “neo-con”? The word has no inherent, commonly agreed-on meaning, so it’s just name-calling.

To those who urge Sanders to run as an independent, not a Democrat, he made it clear when he announced his candidacy that that was not viable. It’s not viable now.

Hillary Clinton is neither evil nor the lesser of two evils. She is a corporate Democrat, certainly NOT a progressive (e.g. supported war in Iraq, trade pacts, fracking, and US interventions that supported corrupt foreign governments). Re the excesses of the financial industry, she was the good person who let evil triumph by doing nothing (did NOT go after her home-state financiers, DID take their money).

When he announced, Sanders also made it clear that redressing the issues he was running on was more important than either him or the office of the Presidency. Those who support him should honor that by getting involved in federal, state, local, Democratic Party, and third party politics, also in the media, think tanks, and academia. That is what, in 1971, future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell urged conservatives to do in his now-public “Powell Memo” (look it up and read it). In short, do what conservatives have done for 45 years very successfully.

Sanders’ candidacy is one battle, not the entire war. Let’s treat it that way. Elect Corporate Clinton President, then pressure her the way New Dealers pressured patrician FDR: relentlessly.
 
 
-2 # JCM 2016-05-01 18:27
Way To Go!
 
 
+7 # lfeuille 2016-05-01 18:50
It does have a commonly agreed upon meaning. There are several people who don't know the meaning, but they can look it up.
 
 
+3 # dbrize 2016-05-02 10:14
ahollman,

Replies to each paragraph:

1. Sorry, the word has a very specific, agreed upon meaning. Start with PNAC papers, work forward and you will easily discover the meaning.

2. He did make it clear. So, why would you tell folks not to encourage it? Hope springs eternal doesn't it?

3. Of course she is "evil" in the political sense of the word. This is because the entire "system" is currently evil. There some attempting to change the system. She is not one of them.

4. Good advice, what makes you believe many aren't already doing so? Unfortunately electing Hillary will do nothing to "redress" the issues.

5. The "war" will continue no matter who is elected.
 
 
+5 # Blackjack 2016-05-01 13:57
Psyche, to answer your laments, I would put my "political history" up against just about anyone on this site. Sam Rayburn was my congressman when I was a young adult; LBJ was his protégée, serving in the TX state senate before being elected nationally. After LBJ, whose everlasting regret was Vietnam (it actually killed the man), I have suffered through weak-kneed, jelly spined Democrats most of my life. Had they stood up years ago against the Repuke barrages (like LBJ would have done), then we wouldn't be faced with the dilemma we face today. But they kowtowed and "compromised" away our democracy to the point that I no longer recognize the party of FDR. I haven't left it; it left me long ago and now I can no longer play the Dem game of "lesser of evils." Let the chips fall where they may. If HRC loses, it won't be because of me or other progressives who have simply had enough; it will be because she and Bill decided long ago to stick with the DLC and have ridden that horse all the way to today. They had options years ago to work for a more progressive agenda and did not. They love the money and are sticking with it no matter what. As for whether the Clintonistas would vote for Bernie, I don't know or care. They would have a choice just as I have, but I can tell you one thing for sure--if they didn't vote for Bernie, I wouldn't blame them if Bernie lost. I would blame Bernie.
 
 
0 # PsychePhixer 2016-05-02 02:08
Blackjack We'll never get another FDR or the "perfect president"but Bill Clinton did progressive things for Americans:
1. The Family and Medical Leave Act. .
2. Raising taxes on the rich. Clinton’s 1993 tax increases helped produce the federal govt’s only recent surplus, and were the only successful attempt to make taxation more progressive.

3. The Brady Bill. Clinton got this law passed after years of the gun lobby fighting it tooth and nail; it has since stopped more than half a million people from getting guns they shouldn’t have.

4. The California Desert Protection Act. This popular law protects a chunk of ecologically valuable land in the southeastern corner of the Golden State.
5. A minimum wage increase. In 1996, the Clinton Adm was able to get the first increase in the wage in decades through a Congress that largely opposed the very existence of the minimum wage law.

6. SCHIP (the State Children’s Health Insurance Program).

7. Health Insurance Portability (the so-called HIPAA or “hippa” law) created the COBRA program to provide for rights to privacy (ironic, considering that conservatives claimed that the original Clinton health care plan would have meant the end of all patient privacy).

8. Violence Against Women Act. The National Domestic Violence Hotline says that this law “changed the landscape for victims who once suffered in silence.”
 
 
0 # Blackjack 2016-05-02 13:50
Damn, Psyche, if that's your criteria, Richard Nixon did "some progressive things," like opening up ties with China, establishing the EPA, and more. I'm guessing somewhere along the line, other Repuke presidents did "some progressive things," but that doesn't mean I want them or their spouse as my current president!
 
 
-8 # Woratnac 2016-05-01 13:57
I like Bernie tremendously (though he's hardly revolutionary, as Noam Chomsky has pointed out; he's a New Deal Democrat.) I voted for him in the Massachusetts primary. But the longer he competes with Hillary, the farther he will drive his supporters, providing she wins the nomination - which is just about certain - to abstain from voting entirely, or to write his name in. What will the consequence be? Trump or Cruz. The so-called "left" should be very, very afraid, and should be banding together to vote for Hillary provided she wins the nomination. If we do not, we are in for a horrendous American fascism that will destroy the planet - probably under Cruz, who will open concentration camps wide to receive us. Yes: even older people like me. How in the world can we shoot ourselves - and what tattered threads are left of democracy in this country - in the foot? By sheer, pig-headed ignoring of the prospect staring us in the face. It will hardly be the first time in my lifetime that "the left" has done this, but this time it will be fatal for all.
 
 
+10 # Majikman 2016-05-01 18:54
The sky is falling, be very afraid. Gimee a beak. So how much comforted and assured will you be facing nuclear obliteration if dragon lady decides to take on Russia, China and Iran?
 
 
+10 # lfeuille 2016-05-01 18:59
"But the longer he competes with Hillary, the farther he will drive his supporters, providing she wins the nomination - which is just about certain - to abstain from voting entirely, or to write his name in."

That horse has left the barn. That ship has sailed. Or whatever cliché you choose to employ. And it wasn't Bernie who drove us to it. It was Hillary herself. By reminding those of us who listened to her at all what a neoliberal/neoc on stands for and also by waging an underhanded campaign of innuendo and half truths. Trump and Cruz are awful, but the next four years are not as important than the next several decades and we have to let it be known that we will not stand for it anymore.
 
 
+5 # Nominae 2016-05-01 21:15
Quoting Woratnac:
..the farther he [Sanders] will drive his supporters....to abstain from voting entirely, or to write his name in. What will the consequence be?


The consequence will be precisely what Democracy is *intended* to be. It will be to guarantee EACH VOTER the right and privilege to FREELY vote his or her *OWN* CONSCIENCE, and to let the flippin' chips fall where they may.

You, and similar people exhibiting this *same* trembling anxiety do NOT
"get to" assuage your OWN FEARS by attempting to influence, force, or CONTROL the *free votes* of OTHERS !

Others can vote for freakin' Beelzebub if they *want* to, and you and I, and the REST of a Democracy, must just patiently await the outcome of the election.

Unless, of course, the Election is FIXED - but in the good ol'
gawd-mom-'n'-ap ple-pie U.S. of A., how could THAT possibly happen ? ;-D

If you fear for Democracy, you and like-minded others would do infinitely better to reverse Citizens United and to get iron-clad laws passed controlling Electronic Voting Fraud than to engage in impotent and ineffective efforts at browbeating OTHER voters in "nickle and dime" numbers, into casting the ballots that YOU want to see submitted.

Hillary Trolls ? I'm lookin' at YOU, Kids !! ;-D

You know .... except for that FIGHTING Electronic Voting Fraud thing. No one actually expects the Clintonistas to cut off their noses to spite their faces"! ;-D____________ _______________ _________
 
 
+8 # tigerlillie 2016-05-01 22:27
Withstand, Why don't you blame Hillary for not being inclusive, or at least conciliatory to Bernie' s issues and followers? As you note, historically they are pretty mainstream New Deal policies. Why don't you blame Hillary for her blood thirsty track record which she is eager to escalate if she becomes president? I don't understand how any decent person can examine her history of imperialism, and her plans for the same and more in the future, and support her as a viable candidate. Did we learn nothing from Vietnam? Do you have any humanitarian regard for the poor peoples of the world? Or will it ways be "U.S. first?"
 
 
+3 # tigerlillie 2016-05-01 22:28
Sorry, I can never out think auto correct. The above post was addressed to WORATNAC, not "Withstand."
 
 
+6 # Woratnac 2016-05-01 14:00
More: I am elated beyond expression that there is at last a mass movement for real social change, led by very young people. It's terrific. I hope that in the future this movement could create a new and powerful party in the US - probably not in my lifetime, but at least I have a glimmer of hope now. But I am terrified by the prospect I've delineated above.
 
 
-3 # pupdude 2016-05-01 14:00
So many important issues, critical issues, absolutely!! Which candidate to chose this November... critically important.

On most issues I prefer Sen. Sanders. I also believe many criticisms of HRC are exaggerated.

If HRC wins the nomination I will gladly vote for her over any Republican!!!

Although each of the critical issues deserves careful thought and consideration, sometimes this causes us to lose focus and waste precious time.

In our government, where is power currently concentrated most of all?

I would argue it's the SCOTUS. To me, this issue supersedes all others.

Was Bill Clinton a horrible president? Legislation passed during his years in the White House that you loathe?

Who did he appoint to the Court? Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg! How have they done on the court? Has this affected your life in any way?

President Obama a neoliberal war mongering sellout betrayer? Really? His SCOTUS appointees? Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan! How have they done on the court so far? Any influence on your life at all?

Each of the republican candidates HAS STATED they will appoint justices like Antonin Scalia. Is that what you want? Why?

The future is difficult to predict of course.

IMO the next POTUS will appoint 1-4 justices to the court. 1 more Scalia would be devastating. More than 1? Is that what you want?

Very likely Roe v. Wade would be overturned. Very likely all campaign finance regulations will be invalidated.
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-05-01 18:11
“Was Bill Clinton a horrible president?”

Yes

“Legislation passed during his years in the White House that you loathe?”

First was his first broken promise, signing DADT when he should have done as Truman had done with African-America ns and simply ordered that gays could serve equally.

Then he created the 1033 Program that provides military weapons and equipment to police.

But, to Clinton era Legislation I loathe:

NAFTA, GATT II, Omnibus Crime Bill, Juvenile Crime Bill, Anti-terrorism Act, Telecommunicati ons Act, Welfare Reform Act, DOMA, Repeal Glass-Steagal, Financial Services Modernization Act.

Then there was the weekly bombing of Iraq and sanctions that killed 1/2 million children, which his Secretary of State called “worth it.”

Of course, his promised "peace dividend" was instead used to increase military spending. But he did cut spending on education.

Yeah, a horrible President.
 
 
+2 # AshamedAmerican 2016-05-01 22:10
...and Kosovo and Waco...
 
 
-2 # pupdude 2016-05-01 23:00
But you seem to have ignored the central point of my post.

What about SCOTUS??

He appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Or maybe I'm mistaken? Perhaps George W. Bush appointed her?

Is she horrible too?
 
 
+2 # dbrize 2016-05-02 10:25
Quoting pupdude:
But you seem to have ignored the central point of my post.
[quote name="pupdude"]But you seem to have ignored the central point of my post.

What about SCOTUS??

He appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Or maybe I'm mistaken? Perhaps George W. Bush appointed her?

Is she horrible too?


A Sports analogy; a basketball player pours over his postgame stats:

10 Turnovers
2-17 SM/Att's
0 REB's
5 PF's
1-1 FT's

As his coach senses he must feel pretty bad and approaches to encourage him, the player turns, with a smile on his face and says, "hey Coach did you see I'm the only one that didn't miss a free throw".

Now this is either the epitome of positive thinking or someone not "getting" reality.

As Robert Reich often says,
What do you think?
 
 
-2 # pupdude 2016-05-03 11:46
Quoting dbrize:
Quoting pupdude:
But you seem to have ignored the central point of my post.
[quote name="pupdude"]But you seem to have ignored the central point of my post.

What about SCOTUS??

He appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Or maybe I'm mistaken? Perhaps George W. Bush appointed her?

Is she horrible too?


A Sports analogy; a basketball player pours over his postgame stats:

10 Turnovers
2-17 SM/Att's
0 REB's
5 PF's
1-1 FT's

As his coach senses he must feel pretty bad and approaches to encourage him, the player turns, with a smile on his face and says, "hey Coach did you see I'm the only one that didn't miss a free throw".

Now this is either the epitome of positive thinking or someone not "getting" reality.

As Robert Reich often says,
What do you think?


Great analogy, a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS is just like making a free throw in a basketball game.

Roe overturned... no big deal. Union funding crushed. ... who cares?
Climate change regulations gone .... whatever.

SCOTUS choice seems bigger than a free throw to many.
 
 
+2 # dbrize 2016-05-03 14:17
You have difficulty getting the analogy because you are in the tunnel and can't find your way out.

First, you have NO way of knowing WHO will be on the Court, or HOW they may vote or WHAT cases they will even hear. You are fear mongering for Hillary to keep Sanders folks on board.

Fact: Roberts saved Obamacare.

Fact: The GOP absolutely hated Earl Warren and John Paul Stevens (GOP appt's) and were sorely disappointed in Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter and Anthony Kennedy.

Lesson: SC appts can be very unpredictable once on the Court. Particularly when there is going to be great resistance to any appt perceived to be extreme on the spectrum

Advice: Quit shaking in your boots and scaring the children, it's unbecoming.

Fact: You are welcome to persist in this one note fear tactic but, be aware you are late to the game, others have been trying it for weeks now and Sanders people by and large aren't buying it. They aren't the scare easily type.
 
 
-2 # pupdude 2016-05-03 19:12
[quote name="dbrize"]Y ou have difficulty getting the analogy because you are in the tunnel and can't find your way out.

First, you have NO way of knowing WHO will be on the Court, or HOW they may vote or WHAT cases they will even hear. You are fear mongering for Hillary to keep Sanders folks on board.

Not in a tunnel, in the family room silly.

Trump said he would appoint someone like Scalia. He said that.

Roberts saved Obamacare? Really? Except for the 5-10 MILLION people he dumped into his wondrous creation, the Medicaid hole. No biggie. Who cares?

He also eviscerated the voting rights act ... FACT! So poor people, minorities, college students, etc. disenfranchised . Huge lines and several hour waits during the AZ primary election. Could not have happened without Roberts & friends crippling the VRA. No big deal. Who cares?

Fact: After the Souter debacle, thence began the era of the Federalist Society. Future Souters instantly became much less likely.

No fear here. fear is nothing more than false evidence appearing real.

It's not a fear tactic, it's an opportunity to learn. Maybe the fearless Sanders folks are right. Maybe not. All of this is some element of guesswork.

As Trump has stated his preference for Scalia types, and HRC's hated spouse put Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the court, this seems like useful data for our consideration.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-05-02 14:16
The Democratic Party Establishment has been frightening people of good will to vote for ever more evil "less evils" for 1/4 century or longer with their boogey man of the Supreme Court.

But I've noticed that Supreme Court justices don't order brown-skinned children to be burned alive in their homes. They've never practiced brinksmanship with nuclear-armed countries. They don't give Wall Street banksters the fruit of our labor while kicking millions of families out of their homes.

Here's our central point: Sanders will appoint far better SCOTUS nominees than the Wall Street warmonger, HRC.

If the DNC succeeds in crushing the progressive movement (again), the results will be on their hands, not ours.
 
 
-3 # pupdude 2016-05-01 14:12
Climate change policies? Unconstitutiona l! Obamacare? Obliterated? Same goes for any Wall Street regulation. Goodbye CFPB.

Maybe this will result in a real progressive revolution?

Except the new SCOTUS may strengthen/tilt gerrymandering rules further. Voter ID the same. Voting in traditionally democratic areas may become increasingly difficult. Not to mention counting the votes. SCOTUS can have a huge influence here.

IMO, the list is endless.

But it all comes back to SCOTUS.

Who would you rather have on the court? 1-4 more Scalia's or RB Ginsburg's?

Because of this, if HRC wins the Democratic nomination, I'll happily vote for her.

PS ... C. Thomas and S. Alito horrible also. J. Roberts awful. A. Kennedy mostly bad. All Republican appointees.

Democrats and Republicans not the same. QED.

Best to all.
 
 
+8 # Majikman 2016-05-01 18:47
Well, pup, you discount the fact that HRC would appoint only a candidate approved by her owners, i.e. another Alito or Roberts. She is NOT a progressive or a liberal.
 
 
-3 # pupdude 2016-05-01 23:08
How are you so certain about the future? Do you time travel?

Didn't her husband, the hideous Bill Clinton appoint Ruth Bader Ginsburg not to mention Stephen Breyer?

Are they the same as Alito & Roberts? Can you provide any documentation to support your claim?

Again, can you show me how Alito & Roberts = RBG & Breyer?

Or is your point that she's bad and will definitely appoint republican justices from the Federalist Society because you can label her nonliberal & nonprogressive?
 
 
-1 # Majikman 2016-05-02 00:56
You want documentation for a future occurrence? What the hell are you doing on this Q?
 
 
0 # pupdude 2016-05-02 06:04
You said it is a FACT that HRC WOULD APPOINT only a candidate appointed by her owners. A fact from the future?
 
 
+8 # dquandle 2016-05-01 14:45
Why play nice? Hillary is a murderous greedy thug, who works only for empire and the plutocracy, and is itching to start WWIII. If Bernie "plays nice" he becomes a pawn in unending filthy wars and unending greed and corruption, destroying the world, and destroying this nation and its people. This would be a staggering betrayal of the folks who supported him, and a staggering betrayal of the notion of a peaceful, just world.
There can be no excuse for "playing nice" with a vicious, murderous sociopath.
 
 
+3 # kath 2016-05-01 15:35
I want to know if Hillary is going to be indicted, AND I WANT TO KNOW SOON. You know it's all going away if she gets the nomination.
 
 
+5 # tigerlillie 2016-05-01 22:35
Kath, do you honestly believe that there is any chance Hillary will be indicted over her e-mail scandal? That is the right wing mantra (I know, because I subscribe to Newsmax), and it surprises me every time the possibility is raised here on RSN. She has said that she has no worries about being indicted, and I imagine that she has pretty good reasons not to be. Corruption runs deep and wide in this country. The possibility of HRC being indicted has already gone away. (Although, of course, I would be delighted to be wrong, but that is highly unlikely).
 
 
-2 # pupdude 2016-05-01 23:09
Indicted for what exactly?
 
 
+9 # laurele 2016-05-01 15:39
No clothespins, no nose holding. I still believe Bernie will be the Democratic nominee, but if he isn't, I am writing him in. End of story.
 
 
-10 # VMWH 2016-05-01 15:45
So you are admitting that you are really a Trump supporter.
 
 
+5 # Nominae 2016-05-01 21:36
Quoting VMWH:
So you are admitting that you are really a Trump supporter.


So - laurele is expressing her intention to exercise her FREEDOM as an American Citizen to vote her OWN conscience, as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

You got a *problem* with that ?
____________________________________________
 
 
-2 # pupdude 2016-05-01 23:11
No problem other than if a sufficient number of voters share her strategy its Trump 2016. New Scalias for SCOTUS!!
 
 
0 # Nominae 2016-05-02 01:36
Quoting pupdude:
No problem other than if a sufficient number of voters share her strategy its Trump 2016. New Scalias for SCOTUS!!


So, what do you suggest ? CONTROLLED VOTING according to YOUR preference ?

Voters GET TO vote for WHOMEVER they CHOOSE whether or not that fact causes *you* to wet down your leg ! ;-D

That's called *Democracy* in the world of actual GROWNUPS, pup, and *after* adults EXERCISE that freedom, the freakin' chips fall where they MAY !

So, sac up, Pup, life in the REAL world is about to recommence ! ;-D
 
 
+3 # michigan002 2016-05-01 15:40
Of course, she appears to be making the wrong choice. That's what she does.
 
 
+7 # Nominae 2016-05-01 21:39
Quoting michigan002:
Of course, she appears to be making the wrong choice. That's what she does.


So long as laurele is making HER Constitutionall y Guaranteed Choice,
it *CANNOT BE* the "wrong choice", my pettifogging friend !

It is logically, and legally, *HER CHOICE* !
____________________________________________
 
 
+3 # dbrize 2016-05-02 10:32
Quoting Nominae:
Quoting michigan002:
Of course, she appears to be making the wrong choice. That's what she does.


So long as laurele is making HER Constitutionally Guaranteed Choice,
it *CANNOT BE* the "wrong choice", my pettifogging friend !

It is logically, and legally, *HER CHOICE* !
____________________________________________


Isn't it interesting how so many claiming preference for "democracy", "one person one vote" mentally add the retainer, "as long as they vote the same as me". :)
 
 
-9 # VMWH 2016-05-01 15:44
Clearly, the writer of this article is a Trump supporter. If he were NOT a Trump supporter he would be talking to Sanders about how to get over his problems with Clinton. Anybody who does NOT see that Clinton and Sanders are our two best choices in whichever order they prefer is really truly a Trump supporter. They just don't know it yet. Or maybe some of them have simply been stirring up a scam to get Trump supported with their "support of Sanders.?
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-05-01 20:28
"Clearly, the writer of this article is a Trump supporter."

Clearly, the writer of that comment has never read any of the excellent books or articles written by longtime BBC investigative journalist, Steve Weismann.

Really, "Correct the Record" should give you trolls some basic information before setting you loose to smear your feces all over the internet.
 
 
+5 # Nominae 2016-05-01 21:52
Quoting Radscal:
... Really, "Correct the Record" should give you trolls some basic information before setting you loose to smear your feces all over the internet.


Hear, HEAR !! ;-D

I hope these TROLLs "don't get paid for sh*t !"

Can't resist the Simian Feces Flinging analogy, tho, Radscal - well *done* !
___________________________________________
 
 
+3 # Nominae 2016-05-01 21:44
Quoting VMWH:
Clearly, the writer of this article is a Trump supporter. If he were NOT a Trump supporter he would be talking to Sanders about how to get over his problems with Clinton. Anybody who does NOT see that Clinton and Sanders are our two best choices in whichever order they prefer is really truly a Trump supporter. They just don't know it yet. Or maybe some of them have simply been stirring up a scam to get Trump supported with their "support of Sanders.?


Clearly this comment was written by a Seven-Toed Sloth, but I don't see YOUR writing as representing any significant improvement over the original article.

Just *saying* sh*t doesn't make it magically come true, does it ? Like a recalcitrant 4yr-old dissing the Mars Landing which he has no more hope of comprehending than you do of "getting" Steve Weissman's writing.

Your opinion, or that of any member of the resident Troll Brotherhood here regarding *any* intellectual writing is even *less* useful than nipples on a male.
___________________________________________
 
 
+12 # Ted 2016-05-01 16:34
For some reason everyone in this discussion is pretending that no one is going to swing this particular election with a quick and easy tweak to the electronic voting tally out of the new-found goodness of everyone's heart or something, but ok, I'll play along....

Seems to me this whole Sanders equals Nader argument is silly, HRC will only get the nomination because of superdelegates not general election votes, and polls show Sanders beating trump too, so if all us Sanders supporters write him in, wouldn't he win even if HRC keeps her voters?

Besides, a Democracy can only work if the citizens vote for who they actually want.

I'm writing in Sanders, tired of being manipulated by the so-called two-party system. And if trump gets in at least it will all go to heck quickly rather than having to watch HRC slowly ruin so many more non-american lives.
 
 
-8 # lights 2016-05-01 18:53
You can write him in three times if you want BUT YOU WILL NOT GET HIM!!
 
 
+9 # tigerlillie 2016-05-01 22:39
Ted, I wish I could understand why so many U.S. citizens have so little regard for non-American lives. Is it racism, ethnocentric, nationalism, or moral turpitude?
 
 
+4 # lorenbliss 2016-05-01 23:03
Actually I think it's an extension of the serial-killer syndrome -- elevation of serial killers (Quantrill, Forrest, Custer, Westmoreland, Kissinger, Ted Bundy, Cheney, Albright, etc. ad nauseam) to the status of cultural heroes and heroines.
 
 
+5 # Ted 2016-05-01 23:36
All of the above plus self-induced willful ignorance and phsycotic denial all careful planted and fertilized by the corporate media.
 
 
-5 # pupdude 2016-05-01 23:16
"And if trump gets in at least it will all go to heck quickly rather than having to watch HRC slowly ruin so many more non-american lives."

And if Trump appoints 1-4 Scalias it will all stay in heck for generations.
 
 
+7 # Ted 2016-05-01 23:32
Which is why I am also strongly supporting Progressive down-ticket candidates.

Look, if we don't take a rock-solid grip of this situation and pull it hard, hard, hard to left NOW We might as well just give in to a new era of serfdom.
 
 
+9 # mikerose7 2016-05-01 19:30
The old 'lesser of two evils' argument rears its ugly head once more. I used to fall for it, myself. And then it finally dawned on me, that this erroneous type of thinking is exactly what continues to perpetuate the same old guard Machevellian polics-as-usual . The DNC has not represented my well-being since the era of my grandparents. I caanot and will not co done the underhandeed tactics used by the DNC to cheat Bernie Sanders out of his true majority primary votes and delegates. Tne DNC needs to be routed of all of the old guarde and the Party needs to stop letting Republicans masquerade as Democrats! Sometimes it is necessary to completely deconstruct something in order to rebuild it. I will write-in Bernie, if he is not the Dem candidate running in November. I am willing to forfeit 4 years of Trump in the service of restoring the Democratic Party. No president can effect major decisions, alone. The system of checks and balances requires Congress to endorse or reject the president's wishes. Trump is despised by BOTH Parties! In addition, he is a longtime, close personal friend of the Clintons, and has donated $$$ to both of tgeir campaigns, as well as the Democratic Party and other Dem candidates for various offices. Many of his folliwers are scary ... But I am NOT afraid of him being president for one term. In chess, you often purposefully lose some short-term battles in order to achieve long-term results.
 
 
0 # pupdude 2016-05-01 23:21
You're sure he won't be reelected? Even with a SOTUS packed with fresh young Scalias? Personally, I think you're wrong.

I'm also not scared. Fear is the mind killer.

I prefer a SCOTUS with a majority of justices appointed by democrats, such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg appointed by the horrible Bill Clinton.
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2016-05-01 23:29
You understand completely, no matter how much lecturing you'll take from the Clinton trolls for using your brain.
 
 
-5 # sdraymond 2016-05-01 21:03
Like many other disappointed Dems, I went for Cleaver in 1968. I learned my lesson after Nixon's genocidal push ended up killing millions of SE Asians. So, I didn't join all of you purists in 2000 to vote for Nader. But your misguided idealism gave us and the million plus Iraqis he killed; President "W".

Now you're willing to risk losing everything we want because Hillary won't give it all to us. Hold your nose, vote for Hillary and work with Bernie and the rest of us to try to move the Democratic Party towards our goals. If the Repugnicants take over, you won't stand a chance in hell of getting any of it.
 
 
+3 # Nominae 2016-05-01 22:09
Quoting sdraymond:
Hold your nose, vote for Hillary and work with Bernie and the rest of us to try to move the Democratic Party towards our goals...


OR, we could respect *YOUR* FREEDOM to cast *YOUR* secret and private vote like a responsible adult, and YOU could *reciprocate* that self-same courtesy to US !
_______________ _______________ ______________
 
 
+4 # lorenbliss 2016-05-01 22:01
@sdraymond: Neither you nor I nor any other member of our species will "stand a chance in hell" of surviving once Hillary pushes the button and the retaliatory nukes fall on the USian homeland and then even after the lucky people are dead and the unlucky are dying of radiation poisoning the automatic retaliation launchers continue firing nukes until the planet is scarcely more than a glowing cinder. THAT's what we risk with Hillary.

And as a young Wiccan I know pointed out to me, "President Hillary Rodham Clinton" and "extinction by nuclear apocalypse" are numerological equivalents. Each reduces to a digital root of 8, the dark side of which is is obsession with success, sometimes to the point of self-destructio n.

Even if one doesn't believe in that sort of thing -- and I don't -- the fact someone bothered to calculate it is itself infinitely damning.
 
 
-4 # pupdude 2016-05-01 23:24
Nope. It's just silly.

If she gets elected and doesn't drop the bomb(s), will you apologize?
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-05-02 01:41
Quoting pupdude:
If she gets elected and doesn't drop the bomb(s), will you apologize?

If she gets elected and DOES drop the bomb, will YOU apolo-- ... oh, wait ...
 
 
+3 # lorenbliss 2016-05-02 02:02
@librarian1984: Ah, gods...I'm working my ass off packing books (at last count 1,025 volumes) in preparation for the big move, never a fun job, especially less than pleasurable when you've got a bad back and arthritic joints, but your retort just gave me the very best feel-good laugh I've had for several days. Many many many thanks!
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-05-02 07:55
Hey you're talking to a librarian -- I know from moving books! Just remember to pack them in small boxes.


As a matter of fact, I have an even better idea. Advertise a Bernie Sanders pizza party and then have everybody who shows up grab one box. Heck, you could probably have each one grab ONE BOOK.

Sure there's an existential satisfaction to supporting the best presidential candidate in 80 years, but shouldn't there also be some corporeal advantage to teaming up with these young Bernie supporters?

Lift a book for Bernie!

And do some stretches, bliss!
 
 
0 # pupdude 2016-05-02 05:59
Quoting librarian1984:
Quoting pupdude:
If she gets elected and doesn't drop the bomb(s), will you apologize?

If she gets elected and DOES drop the bomb, will YOU apolo-- ... oh, wait ...



Wouldn't be much point but I'd be happy to if still here.

 
 
0 # RICHARDKANEpa 2016-05-01 22:15
Trump is against imperialism only so long as being so is not in the way of him making his first Trillion. The Clintons never red-bait or smear socialism,Hilar y had some o=praise of socialism back when she was a student fighting her right wing dad. Bot Bernie and Hillary have a gentle touch that their followers need to heed,

http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/36378-bernie-for-vice-president-insist-on-it
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2016-05-01 23:14
No, they just condescend and call it Pie-in-sky and imply that Scandinavian ideas are somehow un-American. That's Hillary's version of smearing.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-05-02 08:08
Why are we always held back by people who lack imagination?

Pie in the sky? Bullshit.

All these people who think heaven has to come AFTER you die, or that the hyper concentration of wealth is not a recipe for disaster -- Smell the sulfurous fumes.

The proposals Sanders has made either once existed in this country or exist in many others currently. Sanders has repeatedly stated how he pays for everything, though MSM ignore it.

All those studies that show the US outranked in one societal measure after another? That is the result of conscious decisions by the people who are supposed to represent us. Thanks for nothing, assholes!

Now if the millionaires and billionaires were going broke, or if Congress was going uninsured, I'd believe this stuff is pie-in-the-sky, or at least had to be delayed. But the $$$$$ is flowing and gushing all over the 1%.

These improvements for the general population aren't happening NOT because we don't have the money, but because THEY don't have the will.
 
 
+2 # lorenbliss 2016-05-01 23:07
Is this website being jammed? It took me more than five minutes -- with innumerable "not responding" messages -- merely to post this question.
 
 
0 # Radscal 2016-05-02 14:43
I couldn't load RSN pages for a couple of weeks. When I finally was able to, I read and posted for a couple days and then it logged me off and wouldn't recognize me to log back in.

But it's been working fine for a couple weeks again.

I'm not paranoid enough to think I was targeted, but I'm skeptical enough to wonder what was/is going on.
 
 
0 # RICHARDKANEpa 2016-05-02 00:09
Trump is against imperialism only so long as being so is not in the way of him making his first Trillion. The Clintons never red-bait or smear socialism,Hilar y had some o=praise of socialism back when she was a student fighting her right wing dad. Bot Bernie and Hillary have a gentle touch that their followers need to heed,

http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/36378-bernie-for-vice-president-insist-on-it
 
 
+1 # Dred Pierce 2016-05-02 00:19
Plants that cannot bloom by day will flower in the NIGHT. Kantner/Slick
 
 
0 # Bruce Gruber 2016-05-02 08:49
Of course, if there is still arable land, life in the oceans and sufficient oxygen, our great grandchildren can reflect on the French and American Revoltions as a solution to degraded incrementalism ... if Elysium can, in fact, be conquered.

But, who cares - if I can get a 5% raise.
 
 
+5 # dbrize 2016-05-02 10:42
Our finest living iconoclast, the inimitable Fred Reed reminds in three paragraphs why the problems will not be solved soon:

"At the top, America is as corrupt as Mexico but American corruption is far more efficient. Among the white middle class, the rot is less. But within the clubhouse of insiders, at the level of the anointed, of the Adelsons and Epsteins and Clintons and Bushes, there is putrefaction most foul.

It is cleverly done, and seldom involves anything so sordid as open bribery. Yet the results are everywhere. Men who knew exactly what they were doing engineered the student-loan bubble. Yet it is legal, like so many scams. Huge military contracts for things not needed, the near-control of Mid-Eastern policy by Israel, poor medical care at high prices, the deliberate gutting of American industry so that corporations can enrich themselves in China–all of this is legal. You pay Congress and it makes legal anything you want.

Credit cards, which intentionally lure people into going deeply into debt and paying usurious interest rates, are legal. Big Pharma paid Congress to rule that Medicare cannot negotiate the price of drugs, opening a sluice to the Treasury. Corruption, but legal."
 
 
-1 # pupdude 2016-05-02 11:13
Putrid Bull Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg to SCOTUS. I guess she's also putrid then?
 
 
+1 # dbrize 2016-05-02 12:04
Quoting pupdude:
Putrid Bull Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg to SCOTUS. I guess she's also putrid then?


Is there something Reed writes that you disagree with? Would you like to discuss it?
 
 
-2 # pupdude 2016-05-02 13:27
Is there something Reed writes that you disagree with? Would you like to discuss it?

I just think the SCOTUS issue has been ignored. Intentionally or not I have no idea.

To me it's critically important, perhaps more than all others because of lifetime appointments for the Justices.

There has been a conservative majority on the court for over 40 YEARS! IMO this needs to change, and it can and will change with the election of a democrat POTUS and hopefully a majority democrat senate. Let's see what life is like here with a liberal majority SCOTUS for 40 or so years.
 
 
# Guest 2016-05-02 13:43
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+1 # dbrize 2016-05-02 13:49
Quoting pupdude:
Is there something Reed writes that you disagree with? Would you like to discuss it?

I just think the SCOTUS issue has been ignored. Intentionally or not I have no idea.

To me it's critically important, perhaps more than all others because of lifetime appointments for the Justices.

There has been a conservative majority on the court for over 40 YEARS! IMO this needs to change, and it can and will change with the election of a democrat POTUS and hopefully a majority democrat senate. Let's see what life is like here with a liberal majority SCOTUS for 40 or so years.


Why are you ignoring my question?
 
 
-1 # pupdude 2016-05-02 14:26
I don't believe that I am. IMO SCOTUS issue supersedes.
 
 
0 # dbrize 2016-05-02 15:17
Quoting pupdude:
I don't believe that I am. IMO SCOTUS issue supersedes.


Aha... I missed your memo. Sorry about that pup...

Attn: Newbies
From: Headquarters
Subject: issues

New hires will be assigned one issue and only one. Do not get thrown off task. You will be assigned multi-tasks after your probationary period.

Good luck,
Supervisory Committee
 
 
0 # Blackjack 2016-05-02 14:58
I know it's hard, but get over "SCOTUS fear." That's what HRC is betting on. . .you will be willing to cave because of the hideous SCOTUSES Trump will appoint. First, Dems have a fairly good chance (if they don't blow it) to retake the Senate, which is the make-or-break slice of govt. to ameliorate SCOTUS appointments. Second, Trump is left of HRC on some issues already, so we don't know what kinds of appointments he might make. If you look at Obama's current choice, he's no shining example of even a moderate, much less a liberal. In this case alone, it's a crap shoot. Third, we will likely not see that many SCOTUS appointments in 4 years (and Trump won't be reelected). Fourth, even "bad" appointments sometimes end up changing with current trends. It is harder to be a hardline conservative when the general public has become more liberal and is demanding more liberal approaches to governing. There's always something to fear in almost every element of life, but there's a difference between legitimate fear and unreasonable fear (paranoia).
 
 
0 # pupdude 2016-05-02 17:06
No fear at all. Eyes wide open. Paying close attention to the issue.

The senate confirmation process is to say the least on very shaky ground. The court itself is currently and for at least one more term, broken.

Trump has explicitly stated, he will appoint justices like Scalia. I believe he's planning to provide a list. Should be interesting reading.

I happen to be an American dude. I support a woman's right to choose. 1 new Scalia, Roe likely further damaged. 2 new Scalias, Roe gone.

Seems like a big deal.

How about Citizens United. I'm pretty sure Scalia was on the wrong side of this decision.

You know the actual title of the case was Citizens United v. Clinton.

Another big deal.

There are many more.

Re: Merrick Garland... seems unlikely he'll ever be on the SCOTUS.

You know that Elizabeth Warren has strongly endorsed his joining the court. Seems like a pretty good recommendation.

Best
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-05-02 18:26
These are excellent points and a fine reason to calm down, and not let ourselves get blackmailed again.

Everybody is freaking out about Trump and SCOTUS as if the establishment nominees are going to be delightful.

I used to get blackmailed by relatives every year for the reunion. 'Oh Grandma's dying! You have to be here!' they'd all moan until I relented, and she went on for another 23 years, happy as a lark.

There's always walking catfish or some stupid thing to freak about. Weren't we all going to die of ebola last year?

(And then the things that are ACTUALLY calamitous they ignore.)

I used to think the LOTE argument was lent credence by BushCo, but those morons are long gone, and we still have the surveillance and the wars and Guantanamo. Edward Snowden is exiled and David Petraeus is a hero.

This is up to the DNC and the super delegates. Without the support of Sanders' supporters, Trump may well win, and a pox on them all. We've tried reason but they dodge issues and get snarky. So if a threat is the language they understand, here it is:

If they want to win in November, Sanders has to be the nominee.
 
 
0 # pupdude 2016-05-02 19:45
Good luck with that. Good luck to you and anyone who might be affected by the Trump SCOTUS.

The "establishment" chose Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR2GzQXYNNThPwcT0q6wdenYP97oQ7BaBM6EZooPJRUX55OuRMt
 

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