RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Boardman writes: "The Sanders campaign has more than enough principled reasons to resist conventional political wisdom and carry on its campaign at least into convention floor fights and street demonstrations, not least because Democrats are acting as if they want only to co-opt Sanders supporters and send the Sanders political revolution down the memory hole."

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. (photo: Lynne Sladky/AP)
DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. (photo: Lynne Sladky/AP)


Platform for Deception – Democrats at Work

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

28 June 16

 

“Our job is to pass the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party”
“[This is] the most ambitious and progressive platform our party has ever seen”

he Sanders campaign has more than enough principled reasons to resist conventional political wisdom and carry on its campaign at least into convention floor fights and street demonstrations, not least because Democrats are acting as if they want only to co-opt Sanders supporters and send the Sanders political revolution down the memory hole.

Taken together, the two comments above frame the Democrats’ attempt at a “Mission Accomplished” moment for the party’s platform draft for 2016. Anyone who wants to read the full text and judge it independently is asking for too much participatory democracy. The Democratic National Committee online offers only two platforms, both from 2015. The Democratic National Convention online offers a press release summarizing the 30-page platform draft, but not the document itself. The apparent purpose of this approach is to persuade people that the party has taken Bernie Sanders into the fold and his followers should now fall in love and fall in line with the Democratic Party. And that’s the spin the party got in early coverage from the Washington Post, Associated Press, N.Y. Daily News, CNN (“Clinton campaign hails progressive Democratic platform”), The Hill, and others.

Conventional wisdom has it that party platforms are not to be taken all that seriously, since politicians are notorious for breaking promises, and platforms aren’t binding on candidates anyway. But what about the circumstance where the party platform is made up not only of promises, but of many real and veiled threats? How seriously should we take that? Robert Reich suggests that Hillary Clinton’s lack of a progressive vision for the country enhances the chances of a Donald Trump presidency.

No wonder, then, that the Democratic Party is working to create the image of a progressive party where there is none. DNC Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz thanked the platform committee for “a platform draft that advances our party’s progressive ideals and is worthy of our great country.” Platform Drafting Committee Chair Rep. Elijah Cummings said, “The draft platform we have produced in an open and transparent manner reflects our priorities as Democrats and demonstrates our vision for this nation.” To support these claims, the DNC press release highlights “key progressive policies” in the platform draft, some of which are perennial promises of pie-in-the-sky coming closer to earth. It also leaves out some things that progressives might find important. The following checklist, based on limited available information, is necessarily incomplete in the absence of the 30-page platform draft itself. And in any event, the meaningfulness of any of these platform planks (or omissions) is dependent on the will of a party that has been becoming less and less progressive for thirty years.

Jobs. It’s “the most ambitious jobs plan on record,” and the sky is full of pie. Focus on restoring infrastructure and revitalizing decaying communities seems encouraging, but that’s about as specific as it gets.

Minimum Wage. The committee said a minimum wage of $15 an hour is a nice idea, but rejected the Sanders proposal to actually raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. The Clinton members of the committee also rejected indexing any minimum wage to inflation.

Education. For public schools, the platform “reaffirmed Democrats’ commitment to supporting teachers, schools and communities.” Re-thinking federal mandates, not so much. College education for all who qualify, even less. Eliminating (or just mitigating) student debt, not at all.

Death Penalty. “This is the first time in the Democratic Party’s history” that it has called for abolishing the death penalty. A little late, but all the same progress from 1992, when Bill Clinton found it politically expedient to rush back to Arkansas to make sure his state killed a retarded man.

Trade: “Existing deals must be continuously re-examined and enforcement of those existing agreements must be tougher.” Not tough enough now, with TransCanada suing the US under NAFTA for delaying their Keystone XL pipeline? Not a word about that. And not a word about the pending TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership), opposed by Sanders, sort of opposed by Clinton, but supported by President Obama, so the committee felt politically hog-tied and punted (if you can imagine such contortions). The platform says, “A higher standard [undefined] must be applied to any future trade agreements.” Really?

Earned Income Tax Credit. The DNC calls this “looking out for working people,” and it helps, but not in day-to-day living, only once a year. Expanding it is a feel-good idea with minimal real impact.

Wall Street Reform. The platform promises expanded regulatory controls, like the ones the party refused to adopt when it could in 2009-2010. The platform hints at adopting a “modernized” Glass-Steagall Act, the one the party abolished to make the crash of 2007 possible, if not inevitable. And the party dangles the bait of breaking up too-big-to-fail institutions that threaten economic stability, a break-up the Obama administration made sure didn’t happen. The platform appears to ignore “private equity” threats entirely.

Multi-Millionaire Surtax. The platform is long on rhetoric (“ensuring millionaires can no longer pay a lower [tax] rate than their secretaries”), but short on specifics. Wealth disparity, in any form, is not addressed.

Expanding Social Security. The platform first promises to “fight every effort to cut, privatize, or weaken Social Security,” but neglects to mention restoring cost-of-living increases. The committee adopted an amendment promising to expand Social Security, paying for the expansion by taxing annual incomes above $250,000 (roughly five times the American median household income)

Immigration. The platform draft specifically supports “keeping families together, ending family detention, closing private detention centers, and guaranteeing legal counsel for all unaccompanied minors in immigration proceedings,” as well as “comprehensive immigration reform” without other specifics. The platform is silent on deportation, which has been higher under President Obama than any previous president.

Universal Healthcare. Reiterating its decades-old assertion that “health care is a right,” the platform promotes the Affordable Care Act as a success to build on. The committee, like the president in 2009, explicitly rejected single-payer, Medicare-for-all, despite its manifest popularity and superiority over any other available plan. The Clinton people would have none of it. Universal health care is not even serious pie-in-the-sky.

Honoring Tribal Nations. The committee “unanimously adopted the most comprehensive language ever in the party’s platform recognizing our moral and legal responsibility to honor the sovereignty of and relationship to Indigenous tribes – and acknowledge previous failures to live up to that responsibility.” That’s it, no specifics. No promise to clean up uranium contamination on Navajo land, for example.

Climate Change And Clean Energy. In an apparent rebuke to the president’s “all of the above” energy non-strategy, the committee adopted a joint Sanders-Clinton proposal “to commit to making America run entirely on clean energy by mid-century.” This would actually be a radical proposal, if the party actually meant it. But the committee also flatly rejected any carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gasses and it flatly rejected any freeze on natural gas fracking, leaving the air, underground water, and earthquake-prone areas as vulnerable as ever to the largely unregulated, destructive process. The committee also rejected a ban on fossil fuel drilling on federal land or in federal waters.

Reproductive Rights. According to the DNC, the “platform goes further than previous Democratic platforms on women’s reproductive rights,” which is a measure of how weak previous platforms were. This platform defends Planned Parenthood, opposes the 1973 Helms Amendment (limited US spending abroad on abortion), and opposes the 1976 Hyde Amendment (limiting domestic federal expenditures on abortion).

Criminal Justice Reform. The platform draft “calls for ending the era of mass incarceration, shutting down private prisons, ending racial profiling, reforming the grand jury process, investing in re-entry programs, banning the box to help give people a second chance and prioritizing treatment over incarceration for individuals suffering addiction.” This is tantamount to rejection of Clinton-era “reform,” as well as an implied rebuke to the sitting president, who has done little to end these horrors.

Marijuana. The platform does not come close to supporting legalization, but is for “supporting states that choose to decriminalize marijuana,” without specifying how such support would be expressed (no mention, for example, of removing the stupid federal classification of cannabis as a Schedule I Controlled Substance). The committee adopted an amendment recognizing the racial disparity of the impact of marijuana laws on African Americans (and other minorities), but stopped short of saying what, if anything, to do about that injustice.

That is the last item in the full list of issues the DNC chose to highlight from the platform draft adopted (with Cornel West abstaining) on June 25. Unsurprisingly, the DNC did not offer a comprehensive list of all the platform issues, ignoring Israel, for example, although it was reported elsewhere:

Israel. Israel was very much on the platform committee’s mind, and the committee rejected a proposal that the US should oppose Israel’s ongoing illegal occupation and colonization of the West Bank. The draft platform reflects Clinton’s support for the mirage of a “two state solution” of some sort (not specified). The platform does stake out two new positions for the party: first, that Palestinians “should be free to govern themselves in their own viable state, in peace and in dignity" and second, that Democrats “oppose any effort to delegitimize Israel, including at the United Nations or through the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions [BDS] Movement." It’s not clear how Democrats will justify both supporting Israel’s illegal occupation and opposing the entirely legal BDS Movement.

Iraq And Syria. Although untouted by the DNC, the platform also calls for “more inclusive governance” in Iraq and Syria. What, you thought there was a war there or something? Seriously.

And then there’s the highly uncertain, open-ended list of issues possibly important to the American people, but that go apparently unmentioned by the DNC and media coverage. Or maybe they’re there and being ignored:

Assault Weapons. Contrary to what you thought you saw on TV, Democrats have no apparent platform plank dealing with assault weapons, 100-shot clips, background checks, or any other aspect of gun regulation. Not a mumbling word.

Military Budget. $600 billion a year for what? Not worth asking.

Intelligence Budgets. Billions more, much in black budgets, and for what? You’d better not ask.

Terrorism. In the unlikely event that terrorism were actually omitted, that would be a sign of maturity and intellectual integrity, moving away from fear-mongering. It could happen, right?

Terror War in Yemen. Yes, the Saudis are the international war criminals fronting for US, but our hands are bloody. And the profits are good, so why bring it up in a party platform? Have you forgotten how divisive Viet Nam was?

Afghanistan. Not a word about America’s longest war. Long may it wave.

Iran. Saudi Arabia. Turkey. Libya. Etc., etc. Nothing revealed.

Poverty. There are 47 million poor people in America, as Sanders repeatedly points out. They are as invisible in the Democratic platform as they are in everyday life. Why have we become a country where it’s considered a tolerable response to round up homeless people and ship them off to somewhere else, anywhere else but here? The platform is as oblivious to America’s poor as to the world’s poor.

The omissions go on and on – what is the Democratic Party’s policy toward any of the unaddressed issues out there? In favor of war in Ukraine? Itching for Naval confrontation in South China Sea? Wanting to accept England as our 51st state? Who knows? If this is the most progressive party platform the Democrats have ever seen, then the Democrats have never seen a truly progressive platform. Not that that is any reason to stop the shuck and jive.



William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

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 # indian weaver 2016-06-28 14:38
Don't vote in this presidential election. I won't, unless I write in Jill Stein, or Bernie, or myself or somebody like me, period. I've had it up to here with b.s. I'm ready for violent revolution, the only path to a chance of representative democracy remaining, and that's no guarantee either. Fed up. Sold out. I no longer support this national government, period. I do support some of my local politicians, and a few state politicians. But Washington offers me nothing I want (well, except for the postal system SS and Medicare - so, I am still vested in this system which will gradually die, along with me).
 
 
+96 # Billy Bob 2016-06-28 15:23
I will absolutely vote, no matter what.

1st Choice: Sanders

2nd Choice: Jill Stein (if write-ins aren't allowed in my state)

3rd Choice: STILL voting down-ticket (If Stein isn't even allowed in my state).

I will NOT vote for Clinton, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
 
 
+33 # markovchhaney 2016-06-29 01:42
Ditto, Billy Bob.
 
 
-62 # rocback 2016-06-29 11:22
Would somebody please tell this doofus his fifteen minutes is up? We have a national emergency called Trumpism to deal with. Bernie Who is just getting in the way.
 
 
+67 # WBoardman 2016-06-29 11:29
Yes, there's a national emergency,
a longstanding one, actually,
of which Trumpism is merely
the most glaring excrescence.

Clintonism is a deeper,
more metastasized cultural cancer.

Trumpism vs Clintonism
neatly frames the existential choice,
the moral blackmail forced upon us.
 
 
+15 # 47scooter 2016-06-29 13:45
Yes...Trumpism is merely the most glaring excrescence.

Thanks for the new word - glad I looked it up: ".. an abnormal, excessive or useless outgrowth"

So.. given that Hillary said she would break up the big banks "if they deserve it" and said she opposes TPP "in its present form," what existential choice is better --

Clintonism WITH a lightly tweaked TPP
or
Trumpism with NO TPP?
 
 
-11 # tgemberl 2016-06-29 14:45
How about Trumpism with no country at all?
 
 
-30 # tgemberl 2016-06-29 14:31
William,
I agree that the Democratic Party statement on Israel is really wrong. We must push for a secular single state.

But I think a lot of Sanders supporters need to get over themselves. It all seems to be about “why didn’t people agree with me?”

I’m not saying you don’t bring up some serious problems in your other points. We have a deeply flawed political system in this country. I’m not inspired by Hillary, either. But Trump represents something qualitatively different from Mitt Romney, John McCain, or George W. Bush.

Yesterday I wrote to someone over the web that George W. Bush, though a bad president, was a decent human being. The person wrote back, "Tell that to all those thousands of people who died in Iraq." But thinking about it, I realized that holding high office at all means there's a good chance you will do bad things.

But going through a fake religious conversion to get votes (as Trump has apparently done) is something different. That level of obvious cynicism means we are in worse trouble. Our political institutions could be close to collapse. We can’t take a chance on Trump winning.

In case you're wondering about the reference to the fake religious conversion, on Meet the Press Sunday it was mentioned that the "respected" evangelical leader James Dobson says he is now a "baby Christian."
 
 
+11 # LionMousePudding 2016-06-30 01:05
Sure, Presidents kill thousands of people, they can't help it.

But FALSE RELIGIOUS CONVERSION OMG THAT'S UNFORGIVABLE !!

What??
 
 
-6 # tgemberl 2016-06-30 13:26
Okay, you have a point. Of course killing thousands of people is worse than a fake religious conversion. But they are kind of in different realms. One is the actions of a politician once he gets in office. The other is the image he presents to get elected.

My argument is that once someone is in high office, he is likely to do some bad things. At least in the world we live in now. If Bernie Sanders got elected, he would be constrained to make decisions on matters like whether to take a position in the civil war in Yemen. He might make a mistake. It might cost lives.

But to make my point a little clearer, let's say that Bernie, in his campaign, told an obvious lie and knew he could get away with it. What would that say about our politics? In my opinion, it would show that they are close to complete collapse.

George W. Bush couldn't have campaigned in 2000 saying, "I am going to invade Iraq though there are no weapons of mass destruction." That is akin to what Trump is doing with his fake religious conversion.
 
 
+10 # WBoardman 2016-06-30 13:42
tgemberl refers preposterously to
"the civil war in Yemen"
that, insofar as it exists, is overwhelmed
by Saudi aggression with a coalition that
is already supported by the US,
including internationally condemned cluster bombs.

Reality check:
US is already supporting genocidal war in Yemen,
and the Houthis are the target, NOT al Qaeda or ISIS.

I've written several pieces about this criminal war,
not that anyone much notices. For examples:

April 2015
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/29655-focus-yemen-matters-as-a-target-as-a-market-as-a-culture

April 2016
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/36394-ussaudi-aggression-in-yemen-celebrated-by-co-aggressor-uae

Here's what shows our politics are close to collapse: someone
fretting about Bernie without apparently even knowing
the US has been part of a criminal war in Yemen for 15 months.

Not that Bernie's mentioned Yemen, or that Hillary has, or that much of anyone in the media has....

This is an abject failure of our politics,
which started collapsing long since,
and hit free fall with the Twin Towers....
 
 
-4 # tgemberl 2016-06-30 14:08
William,
I wasn't trying to say anything significant about the war in Yemen. That was just hypothetical. But I do think you need to consider that all politicians are constrained by being in office. It's harder to be an idealist once you're in office. If Bernie were elected, there's a good chance that a couple of years from now people on RSN would be writing about how "Bernie has betrayed his progressive mandate."

That's not to say that we shouldn't try to make the world a more peaceful place. I want to cut the military. But you have to be realistic about what a politician can do.
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2016-07-01 08:15
"But I do think you need to consider that all politicians are constrained by being in office."

--------

True, but once again, you're not listening to what people's actual concerns are. You're making a straw-man argument by pasting your assumptions on all of us.

We ARE NOT "disappointed" in Hillary Clinton, "due to the constrains of 'tough decisions' she's 'had' to make".

We're DISGUSTED with her which-ever-way- the-wind-blows Mitt Romney-syled brand of politics that's only concerned with power and personal glory and will say literally anything it thinks you want to hear. She's not struggling with hard choices. She's been bought and paid for for many years already, and has always sided with the big-moneyed interests she meets with privately. This is what informs her prostitution to Wall Street, the fossil fuel industry, the banks, and the military contractors.

And, by the way, politicians don't suddenly become warmongers "due to tough choices". They ARE warmongers all along, and suddenly have the power to act on their murderous fantasies.

This is why she's made a joke out of all attempts to "bring her to heel".

And, this is why many of us will NEVER vote for her, no matter which tactic your side uses to cloud the facts.

And THAT is why you're missing the point entirely.
 
 
-1 # tgemberl 2016-07-01 12:55
Billy Bob,
The minute someone steps into office, they are flooded with complicated problems. For example, Obama had to deal with the question, "is it better to just let the Libyan people settle their own destiny or to keep Qaddafi from slaughtering all his opposition?" You are assuming that Bernie would not have to face those tough choices because he's such a good person. As I said, by the standards of what people here on RSN say, I would expect Bernie would disappoint you within a couple of years.

Then there's another point. Another way that people on RSN tend to interpret Obama is in terms of conspiracies. "Obama was always a bad person, and he always planned to overthrow Qaddafi in Libya and Yanukovych in the Ukraine." That's a way of re-imaging politicians so that you don't have to believe they ever have tough choices. If they just had the right moral/political orientation, they'd never do anything wrong. So we just have to elect the most pure people, like Jill Stein, and everything will be fine. That is out of touch with the real world.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2016-07-01 19:23
"So we just have to elect the most pure people, like Jill Stein, and everything will be fine. That is out of touch with the real world."

-----------

Once again, you're intentionally misrepresenting what the left wants from the Democratic Party.

This conversation has all the tone of "respect" with none of the actual respect.

You refuse to listen. You refuse to answer my comments directly. Instead, you misdirect.

Is this a "good cop, bad cop" thing?

I guess Clin-troll central command knows it's done all the damage it could with firebombing race-baiters calling names and attacking every other comment.

So, it's decided to send you in as the clean up crew and "make nice"?

Until you actually show the respect necessary to allow for the fact that Sanders' supporters (AND Jill Stein's) know EXACTLY what they're talking about, and are just as sophisticated as you are, your "Kumbya" tactics will get you nowhere.
 
 
-3 # tgemberl 2016-07-01 13:21
Sometimes I've thought that if you were the president of some tiny country like Tuvalu (pop. 10,640), you would never make morally ambiguous choices, simply because you have no power to do much. It's harder for the leader of a country like the US to avoid them.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-07-02 06:23
I've thought that about anarchy. I used to think it was a great idea. The trick comes when it's scaled up. Anarchy is possible in, say, a commune, but it fails miserably in a city.

It IS extraordinarily difficult to be a leader, esp. of a place like the US, and the days are FILLED with monumentally difficult decisions, you're right. and we can't know all the conditions and constraints the decision makers know.

But they're not ALWAYS that complicated.

One of the first things that turned my Hope and Change world upside down was the appointment of Geithner and Paulson (and attempt at Summers). WHAT?!

I've appreciated your willingness to discuss things without rancor.
 
 
0 # tgemberl 2016-07-05 12:39
Thanks, Librarian1984!
 
 
+4 # Oyster 2016-07-01 16:06
Billy Bob:

Perfect! And I couldn't agree more. Thank you!
 
 
-1 # WBoardman 2016-07-03 12:27
why does tgemberl invoke Yemen when
tgemberl "wasn't trying to say anything significant"
about it? Hunh??

tgemberl makes much of the obvious truism that
people in office face complicated decisions and
sometimes have no good choices.

We all know that.
Invoking it makes tgemberl sound like an apologist,
even an apologist before-the-fact .

Knowing that officeholders face difficult decisions
doesn't absolve them for judgment on the decisions
they make.

Obama chose, under minimal pressure, to take single payer
off the healthcare table, recognize the Hunduran coup
government, let torturers walk, and let bankers go unpunished.

And that's just Year One.
Maybe tgemberl thinks those are ok decisions,
but the latter three involve turning a blind eye
to criminal behavior.

By tgemberl's logic, pursuing justice within the rule of law
is somehow idealism to be eschewed.

By temberl's logic, it's only "realistic" to sanction
military coups, torture, and banker thieves.

Maybe that's a widely held view. If so,
it's no wonder we're in a world where we're expected
to choose between Trump and Clinton,
and be happy about it... ;-)))
 
 
+1 # Skyelav 2016-07-03 17:06
Yes exactly tgemberel, but which would you rather have, someone who promises peace, no corruption, a sound economy, great health care, no trade giveaways, and gets .1% of that passed while slowing everything down, or more of the same???
 
 
+9 # RLF 2016-06-30 06:34
Fake conversion! That's as bad as pretending your against TPP!
 
 
+6 # A_Har 2016-06-30 16:23
Quoting tgemberl:
But I think a lot of Sanders supporters need to get over themselves. It all seems to be about “why didn’t people agree with me?”

Waking UP to reality is nothing to GET OVER.

Quoting tgemberl:
Yesterday I wrote to someone over the web that George W. Bush, though a bad president, was a decent human being. The person wrote back, "Tell that to all those thousands of people who died in Iraq." But thinking about it, I realized that holding high office at all means there's a good chance you will do bad things.

WTF! The guy LIED to get us into a war where more than 1.5 million people DIED as a result of the war and invasion. Your "point" seems very much like a justification. "Bad things"? how about WAR CRIMES. A lot of nations agree since many in the Bush administration are afraid to travel to other countries for fear of being arrested for SAME.
 
 
+8 # A_Har 2016-06-30 18:21
Besides which....I won't "get over" this.

Hillary Clinton Hints at Giant, Trump-Like Giveaway to Corporate America

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/27/hillary-clinton-hints-at-giant-trump-like-giveaway-to-corporate-america/

Jon Schwarz
2016-06-27T14:07:07+00:00

"Hillary Clinton gave a big speech in Raleigh on her plans for the economy on June 22. It was full of Bernie Sanders-like rhetoric about “outrageous behavior” by business and Wall Street.

But it also included a dog whistle that only huge multinational corporations would hear, telling them that she plans to deliver on one of their greatest dreams and slash their longterm taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars...."
 
 
+6 # librarian1984 2016-07-01 00:20
And who's going to oversee this largesse? Bill Clinton -- in charge of the economy.

I would love to get an idea of how much the D!ck & W show cost this country -- how many trillions they drained from our economy.

It looks like we're about to get another drubbing.
 
 
-9 # tgemberl 2016-06-30 19:49
Read my response to LionMousePuddin g above.
 
 
+2 # crispy 2016-07-02 00:30
tgemberl, you say "I agree that the Democratic Party statement on Israel is really wrong. We must push for a secular single state" I agree and that state should be called Palestine as Israel has not behaved as a legal responsible state and therefore see it's (artificial) statehood revoked
 
 
+1 # Skyelav 2016-07-03 17:02
Yes, just like Hillary supporters are unfriending me by one to four a day... so if who doesn't agree with whom and what??? Please. Sanders supporters obviously have vision beyond the current unpleasantries of a national election in a two party system. We understand the problem, and it's Clinton on the right and of course, your favorite whipping boy, Trump on the far right. Or is he? We see a country free of corruption, at the very least, followed by stupidity and greed. So get over your sheep-self and vote Green or for Bernie if he wins the day!
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-07-01 08:36
Quoting WBoardman:
Yes, there's a national emergency,
a longstanding one, actually,
of which Trumpism is merely
the most glaring excrescence.

Clintonism is a deeper,
more metastasized cultural cancer.

Trumpism vs Clintonism
neatly frames the existential choice,
the moral blackmail forced upon us.


Mad props, yo.

(My kids told me to say that. They said I wouldn't look foolish at all. I trusted them. I'm a fool.)
 
 
+20 # Radscal 2016-06-29 13:11
Sanders needs to stay in the running for the increasingly likely possibility that HRC will be indicted on at least one of the TWO CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS she is under.

As the open letter signed by 50-some intelligence agencies veterans stated, HRC's private server use resulted in several violations of the Espionage Act.

You know, the same law that HRC has cited for reasons to prosecute whistle blowers. The difference of course being that whistle blowers did it to inform the public about government malfeasance while HRC did it to prevent FOIA disclosures of her corruption (especially "gifts" to their private charity, money laundering scheme).

Debbie, The Sane Progressive and journalist HA Goodman had a great exchange on this yesterday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6XPrwJBsng

HA Goodman also looks into the already-served subpoena of the Clinton Foundation and its direct ties to the corruption charges already made against HRC stalwart, VA Governor Terry McAuliffe. Hint: it's about illegal "donations" from Chinese nationals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x6AbgxLWP4

At least 3 of HRC's "super-delegate s" have been charged with federal crimes since her campaign began. She's getting further and further from those 2383 delegates, while Bernie is getting closer and closer.
 
 
-26 # rocback 2016-06-29 17:18
you have been watching too much Fox "News".
 
 
+15 # Radscal 2016-06-29 18:03
Sorry, I don't watch your favorite TV station.

But I do read the actual evidence, like the sources cited in the above discussions.
 
 
+3 # RLF 2016-06-30 06:37
Same stupid DNC crap! Go back and tell DWS that I'm giving money to the Kandor campaign!
 
 
+6 # gumby 2016-06-30 20:31
I'm not afraid of the big bad Trump. As far as I can see Clinton is worse. She is more likely to get us involved in conflicts with Russia, Iran and China. I don't trust her at all. I believe the Democratic party is the enemy. I'll be voting for Jill Stein.
 
 
+2 # maindrains 2016-07-01 22:14
When Trump first decared his run for the presidency I just couldn't believe it! Trump!? NO! I still think that but sometimes I think Trump could be such a loose cannon he could reveal (unintendedly) so much of the dark underbelly of US politics that he may be worth a chance rather than knowing Clinton will just carry on as before. I don't know.
 
 
+1 # Skyelav 2016-07-03 17:14
I think Trump could be such a loose cannon he could reveal (unintendedly) so much of the dark underbelly of US politics that he may be worth a chance rather than knowing Clinton will just carry on as before.

YEP, YEP....
 
 
+1 # Skyelav 2016-07-03 16:56
You are joking, of course.. about Trump rocback.. Trump is further left than Clinton in several areas and issues. Plus sometimes the only way to fix something is to destroy it... either way my vote will be for Green.
 
 
+23 # Helga Fellay 2016-06-29 08:46
I am 100% with you, Billy Bob. I think if all the progressives and independents, and disenchanted others who distrust both Clinton and Trump were to vote for Jill Stein, the Green Party could win. Within just a few weeks they increased nationwide from 0.36% to 7%, and if the rising support would continue at that same rate, by November there would be a good chance. So please, folks, don't just stay at home or write yourself in, vote Jill Stein in November. Donate now, so they can afford to hire the staff the need to get Jill Stein on ballots in those states where she is not yet on the ballot. And yes, I, too, will NOT for Clinton, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
 
 
-27 # rocback 2016-06-29 11:28
Washington Post today:

"Bernie Sanders just gave an amazingly condescending interview about Hillary Clinton"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/28/bernie-sanders-just-gave-an-amazingly-condescending-interview-about-hillary-clinton/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_1_na
 
 
+32 # WBoardman 2016-06-29 12:09
Interesting example of the WSHINGTON POST
expressing establishment obtuseness.

For "condescending, " the Post beats Sanders hands down.

The Post's basic argument comes down to:
shut up about principle, play the political game,
and play it by our rules!

Perfectly reasonable for the Post to take such
a condescending perspective,
but not at all reasonable for anyone to take it seriously. ;-)))

And there's another, typically mainstream media hypocrisy here:
the Post piece is an editorial pretending to be a news story.
 
 
-30 # rocback 2016-06-29 17:21
Principals? you mean like using two headed coins like Sanders supporters got caught trying to break ties? You mean like claiming it unfair for super delegates to vote against the voters and then when that the only way you can win, do just what you said was unfair? You mean continuing to take in money from people who trust you when you don't have a chance in hell of the nomination? You mean voting to immunize gun manufacturers and then lie about it claiming it didn't? THOSE principals?
 
 
-27 # rocback 2016-06-29 17:27
As a veteran Nevada politics reporter, Jon Ralston put it,

“Despite their social media frothing and self-righteous screeds, the facts reveal that the Sanders folks disregarded rules, then when shown the truth, attacked organizers and party officials as tools of a conspiracy to defraud the senator of what was never rightfully his in the first place.”

This kind of outrageous, Trump-supporter actions are a direct result of months of incitement and criticism from the Sanders’ campaign claiming that any- and everyone not embracing Bernie and his agenda, or acquiescing to rule changes to “allow” Sanders to win, is corrupt and a corporate shill. Or, as WaPo’s editors framed it, “Senator Sanders has fostered a toxic mix of unreason, revolutionary fervor, and perceived grievance.” That “fostering” is not unlike Republicans inciting evangelical fundamentalists to perceived grievances; they are already without reason. It is, as the editorial board said, “Bernie Sanders’ campaign selling his own brand of fiction.”
 
 
-19 # tgemberl 2016-06-29 17:47
rocback,
I agree with some of what you say. But I think it's unfair to blame Sanders himself for this. This is really just the nature of political factionalism. Once we choose factions, we look for any reason to think our faction is right and the other one is wrong. So naturally Sanders and his supporters are upset that they didn't win. But they should get over that. Hurt feelings are not the most important thing in life.
 
 
+13 # Billy Bob 2016-06-29 19:42
No, hurt feelings aren't important at all.

But moral and ethical consistency are.

The insult implied in the idea that this is about "hurt feelings" shows you have absolutely no idea what was even being debated between the candidates.
 
 
-9 # tgemberl 2016-06-30 20:09
I apologize for implying it was about feelings. I did not intend to say that is all Sanders supporters cared about. Of course not. Sanders was a good candidate with good ideas. But he lost. The question is: what do we do now? Do we continue to dwell on what we didn’t like about the primary campaign or do we deal with the threat of Trump?
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2016-06-30 20:34
You're still not listening.

Trump = Clinton.

There is no "lesser" evil involved here.

They are equal evils.

----------

So, the question indeed IS, "what do we do now"? How do we deal with Clinton-Trump?

One thing I won't do is pretend I can fight Trump by supporting Clinton, when the evil between them is awash.
 
 
-3 # tgemberl 2016-07-01 12:59
See my other response to you above. It's after your response on the point about being "constrained by public office."
 
 
-3 # Billy Bob 2016-07-01 19:25
All you're doing is repeating yourself without listening.
 
 
+5 # crispy 2016-07-02 00:52
hilary stole the vote as pointed by another contributor: read this rocbasck
http://alexanderhiggins.com/stanford-berkley-study-1-77-billion-chance-hillary-won-primary-without-widespread-election-fraud/
1 chance in 77 billion it was not fraud!!
 
 
+1 # Skyelav 2016-07-03 17:17
Gun manufacturers should NOT be held responsible for mass shootings any more than auto makers should be responsible for car crashes (unless there was negligence as the law is written now.) Sanders was right on that one. Check your other facts, too.
 
 
-44 # Barbara K 2016-06-29 12:14
rocback: At least Hillary is a genuine Democrat. So why should someone who spent 44 years as an independent and then ran on the Dem ticket have any say about the Dem party? It is up the the Democrats what they do. She won the Primary and all the sore losers will just have to get used to it and stop whining.

..
 
 
+27 # dsepeczi 2016-06-29 12:56
Quoting Barbara K:
rocback: At least Hillary is a genuine Democrat. So why should someone who spent 44 years as an independent and then ran on the Dem ticket have any say about the Dem party? It is up the the Democrats what they do. She won the Primary and all the sore losers will just have to get used to it and stop whining.

..


Your quote typifies exactly what's wrong with this country ... blind party loyalty instead of a deep, realistic understanding of the issues and how they affect our daily lives. The democratic party, as has been pointed out in this article and so many others, does not represent the working class anymore. It hasn't for quite some time. There's a reason this country's middle class is struggling in a manner not seen since the Robber Baron days. It's not a "sign of the times" or a "random event". It has been legislated by BOTH parties, not just the repugs. The corruption is done openly and the results, if you pay attention, are equally transparent. So, why should I blindly support members of either party that have led us to this point ? Why would you choose to so smugly dismiss a candidate and his supporters for actually fighting for the interests of the people ? Your smug commentary reeks of as much hubris as the Washington Post writer that rocback decided to post. Your "let them eat cake" comments aren't going to go a long way towards convincing any true progressives to vote Hillary, not that many would anyway.
 
 
-15 # tgemberl 2016-06-29 14:50
No one is asking you to "blindly" support Hillary. They're only asking you to think about the consequences of a Trump victory.

I agree with you that Barbara is wrong to say Sanders isn't a good candidate just because he hasn't been a Democrat in the past. That's not the point. I think Sanders was a good candidate.
 
 
+13 # lfeuille 2016-06-29 17:32
Speaking for myself, and I'm sure that goes for all the others who will not vote for Hillary, I have thought about it and I've come to the conclusion that the greater danger lies with Hillary. I've given my reasons many times. I'm tired of repeating myself. If you don't agree fine. Do not imply that it is a frivolous decision.
 
 
-13 # tgemberl 2016-06-29 17:49
I am not saying your decision is frivolous. I just think it would be a good idea to reconsider it for the reasons I gave above.
 
 
+14 # Radscal 2016-06-29 18:07
Have you read the DNC/HRC documents showing that they together planned to create a Hillary v. Drumpf election? How they conspired with the corporate media to draw the basest of the Republican base to nominate him at the same time that they worked hard to scare everyone else to the point that we have longtime Republicans saying they'd vote for her?

It's a set up. Please don't let yourself be played the fool.
 
 
-13 # rocback 2016-06-30 12:34
Look out! Those black helicopters are coming. Time to pass out the tin foil hats here...you are running out! :-)
 
 
+10 # Radscal 2016-06-30 14:13
Hahahaha. You'll do anything to avoid the actual evidence... even when that evidence was generated by the DNC and HRC team.
 
 
+5 # CL38 2016-06-30 20:38
You post repeatedly from that bigbrotherspeak you hear from within YOUR tin foil hat.
 
 
+2 # tgemberl 2016-06-30 20:34
Would you give me a link to that or some place I can get it?
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-07-01 12:39
Thank you for considering looking at the actual evidence.

Here's Guccifer 2.0's site that contains all the DNC/HRC documents he's made public.

https://guccifer2.wordpress.com

Both the Clinton Campaign and the Drumpf Campaign admitted that Bill Clinton and Donald had a phone conversation immediately prior to Drumpf's escalator ride into history.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html

And the entire plan for how the DNC/HRC planned to run against Drumpf PRIOR to either of them announcing they were running is in Guccifer's documents and HRC emails.

http://thesmokinggun.com/sites/default/files/assets/dj
 
 
+11 # Billy Bob 2016-06-29 19:50
And we're asking you to consider the consequences of a Clinton victory.

Clinton supports the TPP.

Clinton wants war with Iran.

That's two issues where she stands to his FAR right.

========

I WON'T be part of it. The consequences of EITHER of them in the White House are too horrendous to even think about. That's why I WILL NOT support either one of them.
 
 
-10 # rocback 2016-06-30 12:37
False, She is against the TPP and it was her work getting all the countries together for the Iran sanctions that brought them to the table to ditch their nuclear weapons program.

She has made this a safer world.
 
 
+10 # Billy Bob 2016-06-30 13:37
FALSE, She's threatened to bomb Iran repeatedly. She's been pretty open about Obama's deal with Iran making him a wimp.

FALSE, she's "against TPP in it's current form". That's Clint-speak for "she's FOR IT", but will tweak the language and then claim a victory.

FALSE, she only even PRETENDED to be "against" TPP to appease Sanders voters.

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

So, once again, Crock, you're lying.

I hope she pays you well.
 
 
+12 # Salus Populi 2016-06-30 14:55
Once again, the "nuclear weapons program" did not exist. Of course, facts are irrelevant to a Party Propagandist, but it didn't exist to begin with. The sanctions, along with the support for terrorist groups in Iran, hurt or killed many people.

"Getting" Iran was always a goal of the neo-cons. Syria is the next step, and Hillary wants to challenge the second most powerful nuclear-armed country in the world by forbidding it to fly over a country that has invited it to support itself.

Her probable choice for Defense Secretary has publicly supported increased bombing of Syria and "boots on the ground." Hillary showed her "safer world" chops by supporting the military coup in Honduras, the neo-Nazis in Ukraine, calling Putin "Hitler," promising the most militarily powerful and nuclear armed, paranoiac state in the Middle East that she would not only support anything their government chose to do, but would increase the supply of weapons and materiel to their bloated and nuclear-armed military.

And in "bringing Iran to the table," she more than once threatened to nuke them, in blatant violation of the NNPT, which as a ratified treaty is Constitutionall y the "highest law of the land."

As for being against the TPP -- which she previously called the "Gold Standard" of trade agreements -- then, with two-thirds of the Platform Committee, and with the remainder opposed to the TPP, why did her people insist on *not* including opposition to the TPP in the platform?
 
 
+4 # CL38 2016-06-30 20:36
tgemberl

Why don't YOU suggest that the DNC consider the consequences of a Trump 'victory'. It's the DNC and Hillary who've set this up.

If he wins, Clinton, the DNC and Democrats are guilty of the manipulation of voters and the 'democratic' election process to install Clinton regardless of what VOTERS want!
 
 
+15 # Billy Bob 2016-06-29 19:45
Barb,

Party affiliation is less important than moral and ethical consistency.

If Trump had run as the Democrat and Clinton had run as the Republican - you'd STILL vote for "the Democrat".

The whole "sore losers need to get over it" remark smacks of Bush/Cheney after the 2000 election.
 
 
# Guest 2016-06-29 19:45
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+13 # Oyster 2016-06-29 20:14
Quoting Barbara K:
rocback: At least Hillary is a genuine Democrat. So why should someone who spent 44 years as an independent and then ran on the Dem ticket have any say about the Dem party? It is up the the Democrats what they do.

..


You are missing one of the most basic points of democracy: Does political party exist for the sake of constituents or does it exist for the sake of political bosses?

In democracy the mission of politicians is to represennt citizens' opinions, needs, etc to the best they can to bring out the political benefits back to the citizens. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that the political process has been turned into political festivities and the most effective agent for it is now money (Wall Street). In fact, it is difficult to argue HRC as a Democratic politician, given her voting history and policy she has implemented as secretary ouf states. I can only see her --rich white person-- killing (and gloating afterward) brown people.

Before you talk about who is genuine and who has worked (44 years! by your counting) as independent, think for once who is trying to get what done for whom. Bernie has every right to choose the best platform for the job.

If she becomes president more wars (with Iran and Russia) will start and your children might shed blood in foreign land. I simply don't understand why you want to vote for someone like her.
 
 
-8 # rocback 2016-06-30 12:40
The whole point of a party is to gather together and galvanize a majority of voters to win an election with the most (not all) issues you think are for the good of the country.

You will never get such a large group to agree on 100% but Sanders and Clinton are so close than either is to Trump, it is a practical way to get close to what you want.
 
 
+8 # Billy Bob 2016-06-30 13:39
The whole point of DNC politics seems to be turning away liberal voters.

Never mind. You've made it clear. YOU'VE CONVINCED ME.

The Democratic Party DOESN'T NEED OUR VOTES.

Therefore, it's nice to see you wasting your time here, because you're wasting Hillary's money.
 
 
+4 # Oyster 2016-06-30 21:45
Roc:

My point is that Bernie represents my position (and clearly millions of others, as well) and HRC does not --she represents 1% by pretending to be progressive. (And it is perfectly simple and easy for HRC to disprove my point: all she has to do is to disclose her speech to Goldman Sachs. You (Roc) think about that. Why doesn't she just want to let known what she said to the Wall Street bankers?). If in Bernie's judgment it is most effective to use Democratic Party as a platform to accomplish a given particular goal, I trust Bernie (because he doesn't hide anything from me / his constituents).

What's your point? Do you have any?
 
 
+9 # CL38 2016-06-30 20:33
"why should someone who spent 44 years as an independent and then ran on the Dem ticket have any say about the Dem party?"

Answer:

1. Sanders worked in cooperation with Democrats in the House and Senate for decades.

2. Because Sanders is the ONLY candidate working to push the 1% Democratic Party back to representing the 99%, as FDR Democrats did! Sanders works hard to force the Democrats to acknowledge and do something about the gross inequality most are living under, thanks to the collusion of the gop/dem all-one-party system, for all intents and purposes,

do you get it now??

or will you respond with more gibberish that defends the gop clinton running as a '1% democrat'???
 
 
+2 # crispy 2016-07-02 01:05
barbara see my comment just above yours: the Clinton machine stole the votes...Sanford and Berkeley are reputable institutions and they say 1 of 77 billion chances that this was not a victory through fraud!!
 
 
0 # Skyelav 2016-07-03 17:20
You are kidding Brabara K. Dems used to have principles, be anti war, pro labor, should I go on????? Oh, you must be about 21 years old, just learning to read, and a sheep to your parents, or something worse. We happen to be "whining" as you say, to save the United States from corruption, greed, and stupidity...
 
 
+11 # lfeuille 2016-06-29 17:28
Nobody does condescension better than HRC.
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-06-30 20:41
so true. she drove me crazy with the constant lies, put downs of Sanders while she hid or denied her most reprehensible f**kups during the debates!
 
 
-17 # Robbee 2016-06-29 14:00
Quoting Billy Bob:
I will absolutely vote, no matter what.

1st Choice: Sanders

2nd Choice: Jill Stein (if write-ins aren't allowed in my state)

3rd Choice: STILL voting down-ticket (If Stein isn't even allowed in my state).

I will NOT vote for Clinton, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.


we have a 2party system - by constitution - so decrees the 12th amendment! so forth!

everyone can piss and moan! - but every vote for anyone but hill - is a vote for rump!

now you can go ahead! - piss and moan!
 
 
+14 # jimmyjames 2016-06-29 17:49
You better reread the 12th amendment, Robbee. That amendment says nothing about a two-party system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
 
 
+9 # jimmyjames 2016-06-29 17:51
BTW, from what I just read, it would be possible (and legal) for Hillary to chose Bill Clinton, or even Barack Obama, for Vice-President.

Holy shit!!
 
 
+8 # Radscal 2016-06-29 18:13
I don't think so.

The 22nd Amendment would seem to prevent that:

Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits

"1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

Since VPs are elected to the office whose sole Constitutional Power is to become President, I can't see your suggestion being Constitutional.

Of course, the Constitution has clearly been eviscerated and nullified, so maybe....
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2016-06-29 21:05
I think the most obvious choice is clear:

CLINTON / TRUMP

The 2 of them should run on the same ticket, and allow the Democratic Party to offer an alternative.
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-06-30 00:12
Don't the leaked DNC documents show that they ARE running on the same ticket? ;-)
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2016-06-30 08:53
Can you post a link? I checked out a few. It's obvious the DNC and HRC colluded to shut out Sanders, but I didn't read anything specifically showing collusion between HRC and Trump.

However, the 2 of them are friends, share a shell company, and have more in common than either of them has with anyone else.
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-06-30 14:21
Here's Guccifer 2.0's site that contains all the DNC/HRC documents he's made public.

https://guccifer2.wordpress.com

None that I've read are communications between the Clintons and Drumpf. If such exist, they'd be on HRC's personal server, which Guccifer and others have stated they hacked. In fact, the Clinton team admitted they'd been hacked (despite her lies to the contrary).

But we do have both the Clinton Campaign and the Drumpf Campaign admitting that Bill Clinton and Donald had a phone conversation immediately prior to Drumpf's escalator ride into history.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html

And the entire plan for how the DNC/HRC planned to run against Drumpf PRIOR to either of them announcing they were running is in Guccifer's documents and HRC emails.

http://thesmokinggun.com/sites/default/files/assets/djtdncgucc.pdf
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2016-06-30 20:37
Thanks for the links.

Very interesting info.

Trying to make a point to a few relatives, I've actually made a "why I won't vote for Hillary" list. Sounds pretty silly, I know.

But, I've made a list of 44 reasons (so far).

Your links are responsible for 2 reasons I didn't already know about before today.
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-07-01 00:30
Haha, I have a 'Bernie Information Sheet' I put together! I keep a bunch in my backpack and give them out to people who are interested -- and leave them on the doorstep of people with Hillary signs up.

I have a feeling there are going to be some heated family get-togethers this 4th of July!

Anybody know where Nominae and Merlin have been? Haven't heard from them for a while. Miss them.
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2016-07-01 08:21
Merlin was here just a day or so ago.

I haven't heard from Nominae either, though.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-07-01 08:42
And rural oregon progressive? Maybe holiday stuff.

Anyway, hope you ALL have a good holiday. Well .. most.

Some of us will be celebrating our country, others will be busy undermining its principles. (Right, rockgut?)
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-07-01 04:47
(Hey BB, I think I noted this awhile ago, so please forgive the repetition.)

When we were canvassing they suggested we ask people what their issues were -- and LET THEM TALK.

THEN you tell them what Sanders' position is.

I found this really worked, and had many good conversations with people.
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2016-07-01 08:24
I guess the reason I've made the OCD list is that it's not just one or two little trivial things holding me back from voting for her. I'm not "withholding" my vote at all. She not only hasn't earned it, but she's turned it away 44 times already. That's a lot of "minor disappointments " to swallow.
 
 
# Guest 2016-07-01 08:43
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-07-02 16:32
I think that's part of the point. WE have dozens of things we can tell people about why they shouldn't vote for HRC, but that can be overwhelming to people not as interested as we are.

So you have your list but you let them tell you what they care about, I guess highlight that section, and give them the list!
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-07-01 12:49
Very cool. I'm glad to have been able to help.

Is there anyway for us to see your list?

I also have a huge and detailed list of what I call "Hillary's History," but I don't seen RSN's comments format as able to handle so much.

I've never used RNS's section where commenters can write and post longer essays. Maybe we could use that.
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2016-07-01 19:29
Writing for Godot is fun, but in the end, you really ARE "writing for Godot". From my experience, only a small handful of readers ever actually pay attention.

I'll be glad to show you my list eventually, but I'm actually honing it to make it more "rebuttal-proof ". I haven't had the time, but I'd like to add more links and be more specific (less broad) in my language.

It's good enough to show family, but it's not good enough to throw any surprises at you. I might message it to you, if you're interested in helping me correct my stats.

It's up to 47 reasons now.

It's like those old "H and R Block" commercials with "reason number 32, why you should switch to H and R Block".

You'd have to remember TV commercials from the 1970s to get that reference.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-07-01 21:41
I've never submitted anything to the Godot section, but I have gone in and read some.

Let me know if/when you have it compiled for public consumption. ;-)
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-07-01 19:30
"but I don't seen RSN's comments format as able to handle so much."

Hahaha! How big a file IS it?

So I get the impression we could make a library of all the material comrades have put together. That makes me so happy, for obvious reasons.

I have visitors for the holiday, and lots of cooking and baking to do. I may get on a bit this weekend, but just in case I'll say now -- I hope you and yours have an excellent holiday.

Thank you both for your insight, intelligence and humor.

Who knew, a year ago, how Senator Sanders would shake things up, eh? It is so absolutely glorious.
 
 
+53 # grandlakeguy 2016-06-28 21:47
HILLARY CLINTON IS NO MORE A LEGITIMATE NOMINEE...

THAN

GEORGE W BUSH WAS THE LEGITIMATE PRESIDENT!


I will write in Bernie or vote Green. The Democratic Party has lost all legitimacy.

We can only hope that Bernie comes to the same conclusion and joins forces with the Green party to challenge this charade of representative government that has been inflicted on the people of the United States.
 
 
+12 # reiverpacific 2016-06-29 08:46
Quoting grandlakeguy:
HILLARY CLINTON IS NO MORE A LEGITIMATE NOMINEE...

THAN

GEORGE W BUSH WAS THE LEGITIMATE PRESIDENT!


I will write in Bernie or vote Green. The Democratic Party has lost all legitimacy.

We can only hope that Bernie comes to the same conclusion and joins forces with the Green party to challenge this charade of representative government that has been inflicted on the people of the United States.


"Democrats are acting as if they want only to co-opt Sanders supporters and send the Sanders political revolution down the memory hole." (Quote)
They should know that the progressive Genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back -especially for the young voters!
 
 
-17 # Robbee 2016-06-29 13:59
Quoting grandlakeguy:
HILLARY CLINTON IS NO MORE A LEGITIMATE NOMINEE...

THAN

GEORGE W BUSH WAS THE LEGITIMATE PRESIDENT!


I will write in Bernie or vote Green. The Democratic Party has lost all legitimacy.

We can only hope that Bernie comes to the same conclusion and joins forces with the Green party to challenge this charade of representative government that has been inflicted on the people of the United States.


we have a 2party system - by constitution - so decrees the 12th amendment! so forth!

everyone can piss and moan! - but every vote for anyone but hill - is a vote for rump!

now you can go ahead! - piss and moan!
 
 
+4 # Salus Populi 2016-06-30 15:07
Are you even conscious? You just posted the same nonsense, and had it *immediately* refuted by a link to a mainstream source. No, the two-party system, as they teach in government or citizenship 101 in Middle School, and as is on the federal citizenship test, has *no Constitutional basis whatsoever*!! Perhaps, judging from your sloppy sentence structures, non-sequiturs and the like, you should go back and take remedial reading and communication. That, or have someone a little more literate vet or edit your screeds before you post them.
 
 
+16 # Farafalla 2016-06-28 22:31
Now their file on your ass just got bigger: "I'm ready for violent revolution." Plus the Left has no guns, so we would have to team up with the right wing whackjobs since they have all the guns. Mmmmmm. I prefer emigration.
 
 
+10 # Helga Fellay 2016-06-29 08:54
I have considered emigration, but the problem is that Clinton's America is not a nation, it's an Empire, and it's not possible to emigrate from an Empire, just move farther away from its center of power. And the farther away you move, the more vulnerable you become (unless you emigrate to Russia or China, but that's probably no bed of roses either). If you live and vote here, at least the oligarchy has to PRETEND it cares about you.
 
 
+1 # tgemberl 2016-06-29 16:07
Farafalla,
I agree with you about the fantasies of revolution. There is no practical way that people on the left could stage a revolution. In fact, there never has been. But it's a human failing to think that if there was one, it would turn out the way they want. In fact, when violent revolution happens, there's no way to control what will happen. It's true that Lenin and Castro were wily politicians who knew how to read the winds of change and maneuver to get something like what they wanted. But who would be the American Castro? There isn't anybody.

Here's another thought. Leon Trotsky is a good evidence that revolutions are uncontrollable. He was a person who really believed in the ideals of Marxism, but once things didn't go right and Stalin took over, there was nothing he could do. So believers in revolution are left with the belief that something right "could have happened." There is no way to make sure violence will produce goodness.
 
 
+2 # dsepeczi 2016-06-30 10:10
Quoting tgemberl:
Farafalla,
I agree with you about the fantasies of revolution. There is no practical way that people on the left could stage a revolution. In fact, there never has been. But it's a human failing to think that if there was one, it would turn out the way they want. In fact, when violent revolution happens, there's no way to control what will happen. It's true that Lenin and Castro were wily politicians who knew how to read the winds of change and maneuver to get something like what they wanted. But who would be the American Castro? There isn't anybody.

Here's another thought. Leon Trotsky is a good evidence that revolutions are uncontrollable. He was a person who really believed in the ideals of Marxism, but once things didn't go right and Stalin took over, there was nothing he could do. So believers in revolution are left with the belief that something right "could have happened." There is no way to make sure violence will produce goodness.


Yes. That's a very true statement. Though the chance would exist that things might go for the better, the short-term effects of anarchy in a country as violent as our's would not likely turn out very well. I think the world left behind would closely emulate the world created in the Walking Dead, where armed groups of various sizes try to kill each other off as often as they attempt to cooperate, not any great democratic utopia.
 
 
+29 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-06-29 00:42
@Indian weaver - You said, "But Washington offers me nothing I want (well, except for the postal system SS and Medicare...)"

Washington doesn't give us SS & Medicare. It is just the holding company, the pension funds investor. WE GAVE US SS & MEDICARE! It is OUR money that WE contributed. It is NOT "YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK."
 
 
+30 # futhark 2016-06-29 01:34
Part of the strategy here is to make you feel fed up and sold out so that you will accept that voting the lesser of the evils is your only option to not voting at all. The Democratic Party establishment knows that politically interested and active Americans treasure their vote. They want to restrict your choices to support a candidate you find distasteful. The only way we can win free of this trap is to realize we don't have to vote for the eventual winner, but owe it to ourselves and the rest of the planet to vote for the best candidate. Let reform of the American political system begin with this election. Stop voting for plutocratic hand puppets.
 
 
-19 # rocback 2016-06-29 11:30
The "strategy" is to get you to drop the petulant act and vote for your own best interest.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-07-01 00:42
You call it an 'act' because you are amoral, a mercenary who can't comprehend principle.

You look human (I assume) but you lack humanity.
 
 
-18 # Robbee 2016-06-29 13:58
Quoting futhark:
Part of the strategy here is to make you feel fed up and sold out so that you will accept that voting the lesser of the evils is your only option to not voting at all. The Democratic Party establishment knows that politically interested and active Americans treasure their vote. They want to restrict your choices to support a candidate you find distasteful. The only way we can win free of this trap is to realize we don't have to vote for the eventual winner, but owe it to ourselves and the rest of the planet to vote for the best candidate. Let reform of the American political system begin with this election. Stop voting for plutocratic hand puppets.


we have a 2party system - by constitution - so decrees the 12th amendment! so forth!

everyone can piss and moan! - but every vote for anyone but hill - is a vote for rump!

now you can go ahead! - piss and moan!
 
 
+20 # economagic 2016-06-29 07:02
# indian weaver

Weaver, I share your disgust with Dick City, as do Mr. Boardman and most people posting here. But in your despair, please take a little time to lobby your Representative in the House to vote against the TPP. Lobby HARD, and do it BEFORE the election.

We can stop this abomination (one among many), but only if every member of the House receives unrelenting pressure from now until the vote is taken. The public is overwhelmingly opposed, but the MCs are under enormous pressure from the president and corporate lobbyists.

The vote will likely come very soon after the election, perhaps the next day (or night), and the outcome will depend on the vote in the House, as the Senate appears to be solidly in favor.
 
 
+10 # Vardoz 2016-06-29 12:33
So we better make damn well sure we change he house and senate and local govts. as well. We don't want to end up with a Trump or HRC presidency and a GOP house and senate. That would destroy us. We need to vote Progressive all the way for reps who support Bernie's agenda. We are leaving the DNC and I suggest that people call all their Super Delegates and tell them they will not be getting your vote as we did because they endorsed HRC who stole the election. Why vote for a rep that doesn't support their base? 202-224-3121 dial zero and ask for your rep. How about turning up the heat on these reps. There is a lot more to do and Bernie wants us to get involved, run for everything and devote yourselves to changing the system as much as you can.
 
 
+12 # tigerlillie 2016-06-29 13:42
I am not ready for violent revolution, but I am about ready to give up. I don't think that the nation or the people of this world can survive another 4 years of corruption.
 
 
-18 # Robbee 2016-06-29 14:00
Quoting indian weaver:
Don't vote in this presidential election. I won't, unless I write in Jill Stein, or Bernie, or myself or somebody like me, period. I've had it up to here with b.s. I'm ready for violent revolution, the only path to a chance of representative democracy remaining, and that's no guarantee either. Fed up. Sold out. I no longer support this national government, period. I do support some of my local politicians, and a few state politicians. But Washington offers me nothing I want (well, except for the postal system SS and Medicare - so, I am still vested in this system which will gradually die, along with me).


we have a 2party system - by constitution - so decrees the 12th amendment! so forth!

everyone can piss and moan! - but every vote for anyone but hill - is a vote for rump!

now you can go ahead! - piss and moan!
 
 
+9 # 666 2016-06-29 14:11
I agree with almost everything said here (except by the trolls), however I can never support violent revolution. That is an individual choice, but I would prefer non-violent revolution (in the spirit of gandi and mlk). I'll never vote for HRC (yes for stein or the socialist party) but then I'll never vote dem or gop. That said, there are a VERY few progessive dems worth voting for, sadly none of them are in my district. Sadly, there are also a lot of unopposed gops running which means there'll be a lot of blanks on my ballot, at least until the voting machine programs do their "magic"
 
 
-1 # tgemberl 2016-06-29 17:57
666,
I like your sentiments, but there is a problem with "non-violent revolution." Revolution of any kind, if it is different from "reform," means the complete breakdown of your governmental system. It means your constitution doesn't work at all anymore. Now, I do think we need some serious changes in our constitution, but I can't see how a complete breakdown of our political system could be good. It would mean we would be at the mercy of other imperial powers like China or Russia. And a non-violent revolution might turn violent eventually anyway. I think reform is the only way.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-06-30 00:54
Revolutionary reform?
 
 
+1 # Dave_s Not Here 2016-06-30 00:39
Watch out. They're coming to get you.
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-07-01 00:40
"They're coming to get you."

Or they're coming to entrap you.

We cannot listen to anyone espousing violence.

Violent revolution destroys individuals and businesses. It doesn't damage the Machine. They are perfectly fine with cops and agents getting hurt. What do they care? Those people are fodder, just as we are chattel.

The ONLY great non-military changes in the 20th century have come through NONVIOLENT revolution -- and don't let any provocateur tell you any different.

Violence gives them an excuse to lock you away. Violence lets them use you as propaganda with low-information citizens.

If you value the revolution, if you value Senator Sanders' agenda -- we stay nonviolent. Period.
 
 
+6 # librarian1984 2016-07-01 07:02
@ indian weaver

"I'm ready for violent revolution"

I mistakenly gave you an up-vote, indian weaver. I have done so many times in the past, and I agree with 95% of what you say here, but we cannot have a violent revolution. We would lose in every way imaginable.

The narrative would become OUR violence. They would lock us up, confiscate our property. Rioting would hurt citizens, businesses and cops.

Other than military actions, the ONLY thing that has brought meaningful progress for a long time is NONVIOLENT action.

Follow Gandhi and King, not those thugs who bullied election workers in FL. That can't be us, or Sanders' revolution will fall apart.

There are provocateurs who will try to get us to resort to violence and we CANNOT fall for that. (I don't believe that of you.)

I like your posts very much, weaver, but I strongly disagree with that one statement.
 
 
+1 # Skyelav 2016-07-03 16:54
Indian weaver I totally agree with you. Bernie is not eligible for write in votes. You have to jump through some hoops and it's apparently too late. I will vote Green because if we could ever muster support for a third party that would start the fix on the problem. With two parties there will be none, ever.
 
 
+58 # Buddha 2016-06-28 15:21
The Democratic Party is showing yet again that it cannot be changed from the inside and that it is completely corrupted by Donor bribery. So now we have with Trump at the helm of the GOP a party of racist ethno-nationali sm, we have with HRC and Obama at the helm of the Democrats a party of corrupted Oligarchy camouflaged as a "party of the people". Sigh.
 
 
-15 # Robbee 2016-06-29 13:56
Quoting Buddha:
The Democratic Party is showing yet again that it cannot be changed from the inside and that it is completely corrupted by Donor bribery. So now we have with Trump at the helm of the GOP a party of racist ethno-nationalism, we have with HRC and Obama at the helm of the Democrats a party of corrupted Oligarchy camouflaged as a "party of the people". Sigh.


we have a 2party system - by constitution - so decrees the 12th amendment! so forth!

everyone can piss and moan! - but every vote for anyone but hill - is a vote for rump!

now you can go ahead! - piss and moan!
 
 
+11 # WBoardman 2016-06-29 14:01
Somebody needs to read the 12th Amendment
(which is not so easy ;-)))
 
 
+4 # jimmyjames 2016-06-29 17:54
Quoting WBoardman:
Somebody needs to read the 12th Amendment
(which is not so easy ;-)))


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
 
 
-5 # Robbee 2016-06-30 11:57
Quoting WBoardman:
Somebody needs to read the 12th Amendment
(which is not so easy ;-)))

what the 12th amendment boils down to, is that if no candidate wins a majority of the electoral college, then the GOP house of disreps picks our next prez

- sanders, rump and hill would all pick-off various states - assuring that none of them won a majority of the electoral college - throwing the election into our house of repugs - whereby rump's win would be assured!

in sum, you do the math! - a 3-way race assures rump victory! - sorry!

go bernie! - then go dem!
 
 
+10 # Sandor 2016-06-29 14:29
Robbee writes (over and over and over again)
we have a 2party system - by constitution - so decrees the 12th amendment! so forth!

everyone can piss and moan! - but every vote for anyone but hill - is a vote for rump!

now you can go ahead! - piss and moan!

But the 12th Amendment does not in itself establish a 2-Party system. It says nothing at all about how many parties may participate in any Presidential election.

And of course there have been powerful Third Parties and Fourth parties at various times in our history, and many, many not-so-powerful or merely local parties who also have participated in US Presidential elections. And some of those Third parties developed over time into one or another of the dominant Two parties.

Repeating his distortion many times does not make Robbee's distortion more credible.
 
 
-3 # tgemberl 2016-06-29 18:04
Okay, so the 12th Amendment doesn't say there has to be a two-party system. But how do you think a winning third party is going to materialize this year? Do you really think a lot of Americans are suddenly going to decide to vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson?
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-06-30 00:19
For quite some time, a majority of eligible voters have refused to vote for Establishment Democrats or Republicans.

If they see a viable alternative (which the corporate media will never show them) then yes, a 3rd Party candidate could win (assuming our votes would be tallied somewhat accurately).

This election year is throwing everything we thought we knew into the dustbin. And alternative news/informatio n sources is part of the reason. If Sanders is denied the Democratic nomination, this could be the year that an alternative could win.
 
 
-5 # rocback 2016-06-30 12:45
The green party is only on the ballot in 23 states. They got less than 1% in the last election. Grow up.
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-06-30 14:24
Your candidate has threatened on numerous occasions to "obliterate" the families of people I love.

I wil do every ethical/legal thing in my power to protect those innocent people.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-07-01 08:58
@ Radscal

A third party run always seems like such a risk but, you're right, what is there to lose THIS time? There IS no LOTE. They're both just plain evil -- over-the-thresh old-of-acceptab le-evilness evil, and if anybody can do it, it's Sanders.

For a long time I've been holding out, thinking it will be much easier to change the Democratic Party than create another, but this platform nonsense puts the lie to that.

Thing is, if the DP would sincerely incorporate a progressive agenda, they would get many of Sanders' votes.

But they are so clueless and arrogant. They are going to give progressives no other choice but to leave, and then they will have TWO opponents in every election.

I've been skeptical of a third party, but I am nearly there. We'll see what happens in Orlando (and then Philadelphia).

Could be BIG changes are in the offing.

Regards.
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-06-29 18:20
Robbee is a graduate of the Karl Rove school of propaganda. Tell a lie often enough and some people will believe it.

And lies are all it has. It laughs that its candidate has, on multiple occasions, threatened to "obliterate" the families of people I love.

I'm coming to believe those murders are exactly why it supports the murderous Zionist, HRC.
 
 
-4 # Robbee 2016-06-30 16:38
Quoting Sandor:
Robbee writes (over and over and over again)
we have a 2party system - by constitution - so decrees the 12th amendment! so forth!

everyone can piss and moan! - but every vote for anyone but hill - is a vote for rump!

now you can go ahead! - piss and moan!


But the 12th Amendment does not in itself establish a 2-Party system. It says nothing at all about how many parties may participate in any Presidential election.

And of course there have been powerful Third Parties and Fourth parties at various times in our history, and many, many not-so-powerful or merely local parties who also have participated in US Presidential elections. And some of those Third parties developed over time into one or another of the dominant Two parties.

Repeating his distortion many times does not make Robbee's distortion more credible.
what the 12th amendment boils down to, is that if no candidate wins a majority of the electoral college, then the GOP house of disreps picks our next prez

- sanders, rump and hill would all pick-off various states - assuring that none of them won a majority of the electoral college - throwing the election into our house of repugs - whereby rump's win would be assured!

in sum, you do the math! - a 3-way race assures rump victory! - sorry!

go bernie! - then go dem!
 
 
+60 # CL38 2016-06-28 15:40
I could not force myself to read through the list of issues they've failed -- once again -- to include in their 1% platform. Hillary remains a gop candidate in democratic guise and the rest of us are screwed, as always.

I'm disheartened and disgusted.

I take an oath NEVER again to donate, make calls for their gopeed-up candidates. listen to DNC rhetorical bullshit--or the vile deceitful promises of the first female sell out, a rigged President. They're all liars, stealing elections and fucking over the majority 99%, 318.9 million humans and countless animal species--which I have more respect for, than I do these dishonorable Democrats and what they've done to the country.

I'll continue working with Bernie progressives--a nd write in Bernie Sanders in November.

Some relevant thoughts on shame:

Shame: the painful feeling arising from the consciousness of something dishonorable, improper, ridiculous, etc.,

Shame is closely related to, but distinct from guilt. While shame is a failure to meet your own standards of behavior, guilt is a failure to meet other's standards ...

Shame: the root of dysfunctions in families, says Montpelier, Vt.-based Jane Middelton-Moz, author of “Shame & Guilt: Masters of Disguise.”.

Shame is an unspoken epidemic, the secret behind many forms of broken behavior.

DEMOCRATS BETRAYED and SOLD THIS COUNTRY and 318.9 million people OUT. SHAME ON THEM ALL
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-07-01 01:09
One wonders what happened to these underdeveloped human beings.

Can you imagine having the intellect, the will, the strength these people have -- but only using it for self-aggrandize ment? To have such power and use it only to acquire MORE. Always MORE.

To be able to detach themselves from the harm they do to the millions of people they're supposed to represent. We say we're better than animals but what evidence is there?

Were they raised that way? Do their parents and children admire their success, or despise what they are? Are they sociopaths or is that what DC does to them?

You know what's sad? When I was a kid my mom told us to look up to our leaders and learn from them, but what I tell my kids now is NOT to act like our so-called leaders who, it turns out, are basically parasites.

Violence and greed are the bane of our species, and the root of it seems to be our own damn government and the MSM. The founders, for all their faults, wanted a nation based on enlightenment ideals.

I don't think this is what they had in mind, nor is it what I find acceptable.
 
 
+58 # guomashi 2016-06-28 17:57
There needs to be a mass exodus from the democratic party.
It is already a minority party, down to about 1/3 of americans. it should go down below 10%. They need to get the message.
 
 
+44 # RMDC 2016-06-28 20:12
Guo -- yes. Both parties have outlived their usefulness and legitimacy. New parties are emerging. These two minority cabals survive only by their corruption.
 
 
+15 # CL38 2016-06-28 22:39
Agree.
 
 
+1 # ericlipps 2016-06-29 05:02
Quoting guomashi:
There needs to be a mass exodus from the democratic party.
It is already a minority party, down to about 1/3 of americans. it should go down below 10%. They need to get the message.

And what would replace it? I mean, really?

If you want a third party, build it from the bottom up, with wins in local and state races; don't demand the presidency first. It took a four-way election on the eve of civil war to get the Republican Party into the White House the first time; we can all hope that doesn't happen again.
 
 
+8 # guomashi 2016-06-29 11:35
Quoting ericlipps:
Quoting guomashi:
There needs to be a mass exodus from the democratic party.
It is already a minority party, down to about 1/3 of americans. it should go down below 10%. They need to get the message.

And what would replace it? I mean, really?

If you want a third party, build it from the bottom up, with wins in local and state races; don't demand the presidency first. It took a four-way election on the eve of civil war to get the Republican Party into the White House the first time; we can all hope that doesn't happen again.



You can't have a third party as long as you have only one party with two names.

Both Republican and Democrat parties are minorities and unrepresentativ e of the electorate. They have no validity. They deserve no further support, attention or respect.

Trump has thankfully shattered the Republican party. The Democrat party is salivating over the prospect of now becoming the party of uncontested graft in their place.

Neither has a place in a democratic society. Without withdrawing support from the Democrat party, no progress can be made.

You can't build from the ground up if you are surrounded by skyscrapers of corruption.
 
 
-9 # ojg 2016-06-29 23:45
Guo, of course you can build a third party and I welcome you and your RSN comps to begin the work. Oh, but the work--that's what is stopping you, isn't it? It is so much easier to try to hijack a party that millions of Americans are happy with. It is so much easier to moan and groan because you and your fellow non-Democrats were not allowed to steal the Democratic party. Why in the world did you not try to hijack the Republican party since so many of you think that Trump is the better choice? If you begin your work now, and stop this 24/7 bellyaching, in four years you'll be ready for the next presidential election! Oh, but the work!
 
 
+4 # dsepeczi 2016-06-30 10:18
Quoting ojg:
Guo, of course you can build a third party and I welcome you and your RSN comps to begin the work. Oh, but the work--that's what is stopping you, isn't it? It is so much easier to try to hijack a party that millions of Americans are happy with. It is so much easier to moan and groan because you and your fellow non-Democrats were not allowed to steal the Democratic party. Why in the world did you not try to hijack the Republican party since so many of you think that Trump is the better choice? If you begin your work now, and stop this 24/7 bellyaching, in four years you'll be ready for the next presidential election! Oh, but the work!


We are putting in the work. Part of that work is rejecting the LOTE argument and convincing others to do the same, for the exact reasons you cite. A stronger than ever 3rd party vote for Jill Stein today could make the Green Party a reality for 2020. But go ahead and gloat and display yourself as a know-it-all (that actually knows nothing) pompous ass. See if I care. I'll continue to work for change while you vote in the status quo. You can thank me later. ;-)
 
 
+5 # Salus Populi 2016-06-30 15:41
ojg: You don't say how many millions are happy with our choices. Yet more than half of those polled hate both candidates. And by large majorities at that. When impacted wisdom teeth, poisonous snakes, wasps, mud daubers and yellow jackets, fried okra-flavored ice cream, Ty Cobb, David Koresh, and Idi Amin all beat out both "major party" candidates in popularity, one would think it's past time for a re-examination of the political system that arranges those to be the "choices." As Phyllis Schlafly once didn't say, "a choice, not a ble-e-e-e-eccch hhh-o."
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-07-01 07:21
Salus, I don't usually post just a huzzah, content with letting my thumbs-up suffice, but this is a great post, from start to finish.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-07-01 01:30
You think it's not work dealing with you tiresome trolls? Geez you're stupefying.

There's a reason dictators round up the artists and the writers and the philosophers and separate them from the masses. Much of the battle is one of ideas.

What you neglect to consider is you're honing our arguments and reinforcing our sense of community. boo hoo. Unintended consequences.

You're obviously not here to persuade so your purpose is to demoralize, confuse and splinter, but I'd say you've done just the opposite.

Does RSN discourage the use of the word 'wanker'? I only ask for clarification. What about .. what was it they called the people who beat up trade unionists? What did they call the people who forcefed suffragists? The ones who turned hoses on civil rights activists? The ones who beat up gays and bullied nonconformists? Surely there's a name for those people.

That's what you remind me of.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-07-01 13:04
" what was it they called the people who beat up trade unionists? "

Goons?
 
 
+15 # cymricmorty 2016-06-29 08:17
Regime change begins at home.
 
 
+54 # PGreen 2016-06-28 20:42
While I'm not really surprised at a few concessions to social liberalism on issues like the death penalty, I'd have been shocked if there was anything in the DNC platform that challenged the economics of our current system (capitalism). And there is not.

Of course, protecting the military industrial complex is crucial to maintaining the economic hierarchy.

The oligarchy's bottom line is protecting their own wealth and status.
 
 
-17 # rocback 2016-06-29 11:33
See, your post is the problem. You don't even mention that Sanders WON on minimum wage. I say why give the perpetually aggrieved ANYTHING since it will never be enough. You are acting as if you won the nomination rather than lost it.
 
 
+14 # Radscal 2016-06-29 13:29
See, your post is the problem. You didn't even read the article about the minimum wage.

It states that the draft says $15 "is a nice idea," but does not make fighting for it a plank. I read the wording and it says the DP "supports" it, which could well mean exactly what HRC has done: applaud and take credit for it when cities or states pass it.

Meanwhile the HRC/DNC team UNTIED the minimum wage from inflation. They did the same thing with Social Security. Prices going up? Tough luck suckers.

Even though the Platform is a toothless document meant to inspire voters, HRC/DNC insisted on watering down even the token wording. They don't do aspiration.

They do fear-mongering. Be afraid of Drumpf. That's all she's got. Just as was planned by February, 2015.
 
 
+11 # lfeuille 2016-06-29 17:50
I guess she's afraid that with all the attention the platform is getting this time, people might actually try to hold her to it instead of instantly forgetting it. So she has to fight anything that is meaningful.

This really gives the lie to all the trolls who keep trying to tell us "Clinton is against TTP". etc. She says so on the campaign trail, but makes sure her appointees on the platform committee vote it down. Big surprise.
 
 
-8 # rocback 2016-06-30 12:52
The Democratic President is for the TPP. Hillary is against it. Sanders supporters wanted it to say all democrats are against it. It says instead we are split which is basically true.

She agreed on several other items including the $15 min wage (which by the way even Bernie doesn't raise it to $15 until 2020).

When she agrees on a platform, bernieistas say its the platform is not important but when she disagrees it's the end of the world.

The "perpetually aggrieved" will never be satisfied.
 
 
-9 # tgemberl 2016-06-29 18:12
I live in Birmingham, Alabama. We tried to raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour and were unable to. The state legislature wouldn't let us. $15 an hour would be important in high-wage places like New York and San Francisco but would never go through in a lot of the country. I think Hillary's $12 proposal is very reasonable.
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-06-30 00:30
The DNC doesn't have a $12 minimum wage demand in their platform. They wrote that they "support" the idea of $15.

I have friends who have lived just outside of Birmingham for decades. They don't think a person can support one person, let alone a spouse and child on $10. The fact that your State Legislature wouldn't pass even that is ample evidence that it doesn't represent its own constituencies. That's why we need a Federal minimum wage that is a living wage.

And yes, if workers in Jasper, AL are getting at least $15, then employers in NYC and Chicago will be forced to pay even more. That's the point.
 
 
-2 # tgemberl 2016-06-30 13:14
"evidence that it doesn't represent its own constituencies"

Okay, so how are they going to start doing that?

I agree with what another poster said, that if you are going to build a third party, it will have to be built at the local level. And state level. Talking about big policy changes at the national level may not get anywhere.

Actually, I believe that some policies have to be set at the national level. We need better support for the poor. But the point is, parties don't just start at the top. You have to have some meaningful engagement with people at the local and state levels.

Winning arguments about politics is not going to change things. You can be right and not accomplish anything.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-06-30 14:33
It's a specious argument invented by the HRC/DNC Political Machine that Sanders is some sort of "top down" campaign.

In reality, Sanders caught on so powerfully because his message resonates with the MANY grass roots level movements that have been growing for years.

From Occupy and BLM to Environmentalis m, LGBT rights and anti-globalizat ion, all of these and more began at the base. Few knew that an obscure Senator from VT had been fighting the good fight for all of these issues for decades.

But once he began campaigning nationwide, people realized that here was a Presidential candidate who shared their values.

And Sanders has said from day one that this "political revolution" MUST take place at ALL levels.

His opening remark at the DNC Convention last year was that the Republicans haven' been winning elections; the Democrats have been LOSING them. If we want progressive change within the two-party, we must require the DP to take up these policies that Sanders has been promoting for decades.
 
 
-6 # tgemberl 2016-06-30 20:27
Okay, but Sanders lost. You can hold onto your righteous indignation if you want to, but how does that help with the challenge we're facing now?

I'm not saying that we should be totally satisfied with the Democratic Party. But it's what we have now. Criticize the party all you want. But please don't buy into the fantasies that if Trump won, there would be an upswell in progressive thinking that would make America into a better society.
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2016-06-30 20:40
What will happen to the "Sanders lost" talking point, if Clinton is indicted?

How will you continue your argument if Hillary becomes president, and everything we've said about her is true?

You don't seem to be listening. If you were, you'd realize we're pretty serious about all of this. Her actions don't become less repulsive due to the existence of Donald Trump (who happens to be a close friend of hers).

Sanders may have lost.

Stein may have lost.

Decency may have lost.

America may have lost.

None of that will prevent us from trying.
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2016-06-30 20:44
Ask Radscal, and just about everyone else you're arguing with.

I - MYSELF - have made literally the EXACT SAME argument as you for years.

LOOK IT UP.

GOOGLE: RSN Billy Bob 2012 lesser evil
 
 
+3 # dsepeczi 2016-07-01 10:52
Quoting Billy Bob:
Ask Radscal, and just about everyone else you're arguing with.

I - MYSELF - have made literally the EXACT SAME argument as you for years.

LOOK IT UP.

GOOGLE: RSN Billy Bob 2012 lesser evil


I remember, distinctly, respectfully debating this point with you while you supported the LOTE last election.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2016-07-01 19:33
And I remember how respectful you were about it.

It's why you've always been one of my absolute favorite people to talk to here. There are a handful of people I could imagine myself being great friends with. You're certainly one of them.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-07-01 22:46
Geez it's like Christmas around here, with peace breaking out all over the place.

Could HRC have gotten into our koolaid supply? Is it time for 'unite later'? Or is there hope for this world?


Perhaps most importantly, WHO is going to approach the Trump people with our message of cheer and good will?

Hey, Merry Chr -- WHUMP!
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2016-06-30 20:45
Here's an example:

"Unfortunately for many of us still living on Earth, the GREATER evil poses MORE of a threat to us than the lesser.

If someone gives you a choice of punching you in the mouth or shooting you in the head, the LESSER evil is to be punched in the mouth. Choosing to not choose, or choosing to pretend one of the choices was to get a juicy kiss won't change that fact.

You've been given a choice. If you choose not to decide, you've chosen (by default) to be shot in the head.

I'll take the lesser of two evils any day. I'd also take a bad head cold rather than stage 5 cancer."

=========

Yep, that was ME, 4 years ago.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/13970-the-moderate-mitt-myth
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2016-06-30 20:46
So, what changed my mind?

In a sense - NOTHING.

I still feel that way, to an extent.

Here's the problem -

CLINTON IS NOT LESS EVIL.
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-07-01 01:42
Man, BB. Your posts are always good but you've been on a roll lately.
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2016-07-01 08:26
Thank you. I really like your posts as well.

In my case, I think It's about how much time I have or don't have.

Lately, I've had to make the best of the time I do have or I'd never post at all. Unlike Crock, I don't do this for money.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-07-01 09:08
I am just plain ol' giving up sleeping.

The hallucinations are fun.
 
 
-3 # tgemberl 2016-07-01 14:54
Billy Bob,
You have to think on a deeper level. Of course, as I said to you above today, if we could just elect pure people and they never made any bad choices, it would be great. But that's not the nature of politics.

You might be right that in some sense we're worse off today under Obama than we were four years ago. I doubt it, but it's possible. But you have to think about what is possible in politics. As has been said, "politics is the art of the possible." Unless you're elected to be a dogcatcher--and maybe even then--you have to make difficult decisions every day. Or at least every week. Sometimes you won't have the information to make the right choice. Then the "Monday morning quarterbacks" will say that you should never have made the choice you did. They'll even start saying you are a bad person.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2016-07-01 19:38
Your very first sentence informs me that I won't be reading the rest of your post.

SORRY.

I don't need to think any "deeper" than I already do about this.

In fact, I argued your side of this debate much better (AND more respectfully) than you have, in the past. I could STILL take the reigns and argue on your behalf more effectively, because I wouldn't preface everything with an implied insult to the intelligence of my debate opponents.

You've repeated yourself enough without responding to my arguments meaningfully. It's clear you don't really read my posts before replying, or you don't comprehend them. So the little jab about "deep level thinking" fell flat, and I won't be wasting any more time on this thread answering you.

I may, however, continue responding to you on other threads, because your subtle Kumbya approach needs to be responded to directly, because I don't appreciate the deception, or the change of strategy.
 
 
-1 # tgemberl 2016-07-03 18:49
Billy Bob,
I am really sorry that I have not validated your statements as you think I should have.

One of my convictions is that there is no such thing as winning arguments in this life. The best you can do is lay out your ideas and hope they will sink in eventually. You can hope that someday I will say, "You know, that Billy Bob wasn't so wrong after all."

You have obviously been a very sincere person who tried to evaluate all the issues as best you could. Naturally, then, you expect validation for that. You wanted me to say you were right. But what if we both have tried to evaluate all the issues and came to different conclusions? That can happen.

It's even possible that you have looked over evidence a lot more than I have, yet I am right and you are wrong. If that is the case, it's not because I'm smarter. I may have a different set of tools for evaluating the evidence. A different set of beginning assumptions.
 
 
-1 # tgemberl 2016-07-01 18:11
Here is an important article to read that bears on what I said. It shows how the British Labour Party is falling apart because they couldn't anticipate how the Brexit referendum would go.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/opinion/brexit-takes-jeremy-corbyns-labour-party-to-the-brink.html

Jeremy Corbyn, the leader who is in trouble now, sounds, I have to say, like a lot of people on RSN. It's great to be ideologically pure, but it often has bad consequences.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-07-01 13:13
Sanders hasn't "lost."

First, HRC has not "won" the 2,383 pledged delegates. The nomination will be decided at the Convention.

Second, the overwhelming evidence is that HRC did not "win" anywhere near the number of delegates she's been given. There are numerous suits and investigations into the widespread election fraud her team committed.

Third, the two ONGOING criminal investigations into HRC, plus the already subpoenaed money laundering scheme that is the Clinton Foundation could still bring her down even before the Convention. (Though I fear that Republican FBI Director Comey plans to arrest her AFTER she's stolen the nomination, thereby leading to a Republican sweep of the election).
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-07-01 19:43
"(Though I fear that Republican FBI Director Comey plans to arrest her AFTER she's stolen the nomination, thereby leading to a Republican sweep of the election)"

If that were to happen I think we could get Sanders in there. That's when we get in the streets.

I have to say, I don't know how much 'hope is alive' as that it just hasn't been quite quashed yet.
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-06-30 20:54
Clinton amassed a $45 million fortune through 'public service'.

Hillary was paid $200,000 an hour to speak to Goldman Sach's.

"Hillary Clinton makes $15 million a year.

PolitiFact.com

May 28, 2015 - Says Hillary Clinton "makes more per hour at a speaking gig than the average CEO does in a year."

And you think Hillary's offer of $12 an hour (almost $25,000 year, working a 40 hour week) is generous when it costs about $64,000 to pay for rent or a home, food, child care, taxes and all other expenses to live, today?
 
 
+56 # Moxa 2016-06-28 21:25
One of the very many gifts that Bernie Sanders has given us is a much better look at just how corrupt the Democratic party and the corporate media are. Bernie is a once-in-a-lifet ime candidate who offers real change, real compassion, real courage. Usually we choose between two mediocrities or worse, but this time there is a real difference. It is only by seeing what true integrity looks like that we have a really clear vision of the ugliness of the status quo of establishment politics and media. Constantly challenged by Bernie's unfailingly conscientious voice, the vacuousness of their positions and their deep dishonesty come into sharp focus.

My best hope is that the FBI and DOJ will do their job and indict Hillary Clinton. It is not that I wish her ill, I just want her to lose the nomination to Bernie.
 
 
+25 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-06-29 00:57
@ Moxa - Nah... I wish her ill. She is a liar, a fraud, a criminal. The stupid Republicans spent millions of US taxpayer dollars trying to prove that SOS Clinton was responsible for the sheer incompetence demonstrated at Benghazi when it's the whole, damn government that is willfully incompetent. They are too focused on massive spending on phallic symbols and supporting the 1% as they greedily hoover up everything not tacked down. Those asses trying to credit her with such monumental taxpayer fraud grant her far more credit than she deserves.

But attack her on legitimate grounds? Hell fire no! Because all their sticky fingers are covered with the same graft and corruption as hers. Wouldn't want to tip off the American people to THAT, now would we :(
 
 
+9 # Radscal 2016-06-29 13:36
An interesting bit that is buried in the Benghazi report is that the US-allied forces at the State Department Mission abandoned their posts when the shooting started.

It was members of Qaddafi's former military who went in, drove off the attackers and rescued a few people and brought out the bodies of the two State Department officials who died there.

I generally love irony, but considering what HRC and Stevens did to Libya, I find little joy that the very people they set out to destroy were the only ones fighting on their side.
 
 
+12 # dquandle 2016-06-29 12:44
She, on the other hand, has directed her staggeringly malevolent ill will at the people of this country, for decades.
 
 
-15 # Robbee 2016-06-29 13:55
Quoting Moxa:
One of the very many gifts that Bernie Sanders has given us is a much better look at just how corrupt the Democratic party and the corporate media are. Bernie is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate who offers real change, real compassion, real courage. Usually we choose between two mediocrities or worse, but this time there is a real difference. It is only by seeing what true integrity looks like that we have a really clear vision of the ugliness of the status quo of establishment politics and media. Constantly challenged by Bernie's unfailingly conscientious voice, the vacuousness of their positions and their deep dishonesty come into sharp focus.

My best hope is that the FBI and DOJ will do their job and indict Hillary Clinton. It is not that I wish her ill, I just want her to lose the nomination to Bernie.


we have a 2party system - by constitution - so decrees the 12th amendment! so forth!

everyone can piss and moan! - but every vote for anyone but hill - is a vote for rump!

now you can go ahead! - piss and moan!
 
 
+33 # Thomas Martin 2016-06-28 21:40
Amen about "going down the memory hole" - that's where I see the DNC wanting us Sanders supporters to go! How could we turn it around? ... and now quickly?
 
 
+11 # Radscal 2016-06-29 13:39
Nothing has changed for the nomination.

No candidate has the 2383 delegates necessary. HRC is crashing. Members of her staff were granted immunity to testify against her in the TWO FBI criminal investigations.

Does Obama want his legacy to be that he left his party in the hands of someone he'd have to pardon before she could take office?
 
 
-16 # Robbee 2016-06-29 13:54
Quoting Radscal:
Nothing has changed for the nomination.

No candidate has the 2383 delegates necessary. HRC is crashing. Members of her staff were granted immunity to testify against her in the TWO FBI criminal investigations.

Does Obama want his legacy to be that he left his party in the hands of someone he'd have to pardon before she could take office?


we have a 2party system - by constitution - so decrees the 12th amendment! so forth!

everyone can piss and moan! - but every vote for anyone but hill - is a vote for rump!

now you can go ahead! - piss and moan!
 
 
+12 # dsepeczi 2016-06-29 14:02
Quoting Robbee:
Quoting Radscal:
Nothing has changed for the nomination.

No candidate has the 2383 delegates necessary. HRC is crashing. Members of her staff were granted immunity to testify against her in the TWO FBI criminal investigations.

Does Obama want his legacy to be that he left his party in the hands of someone he'd have to pardon before she could take office?


we have a 2party system - by constitution - so decrees the 12th amendment! so forth!

everyone can piss and moan! - but every vote for anyone but hill - is a vote for rump!

now you can go ahead! - piss and moan!


Any vote for a third party actually is a vote for the return of democracy. Any vote for Hillary or Trump is a vote to strengthen the entrenched "pay for play" politics that have led us to this point.
 
 
+6 # dsepeczi 2016-06-29 14:07
Quoting Robbee:
Quoting Radscal:
Nothing has changed for the nomination.

No candidate has the 2383 delegates necessary. HRC is crashing. Members of her staff were granted immunity to testify against her in the TWO FBI criminal investigations.

Does Obama want his legacy to be that he left his party in the hands of someone he'd have to pardon before she could take office?


we have a 2party system - by constitution - so decrees the 12th amendment! so forth!

everyone can piss and moan! - but every vote for anyone but hill - is a vote for rump!

now you can go ahead! - piss and moan!


How do you perceive the 12th amendment as establishing a two-party system ?
 
 
-6 # Robbee 2016-06-30 11:55
Quoting dsepeczi:
Quoting Robbee:
Quoting Radscal:
Nothing has changed for the nomination.

No candidate has the 2383 delegates necessary. HRC is crashing. Members of her staff were granted immunity to testify against her in the TWO FBI criminal investigations.

Does Obama want his legacy to be that he left his party in the hands of someone he'd have to pardon before she could take office?


we have a 2party system - by constitution - so decrees the 12th amendment! so forth!

everyone can piss and moan! - but every vote for anyone but hill - is a vote for rump!

now you can go ahead! - piss and moan!


How do you perceive the 12th amendment as establishing a two-party system ?

what the 12th amendment boils down to, is that if no candidate wins a majority of the electoral college, then the GOP house of disreps picks our next prez

- sanders, rump and hill would all pick-off various states - assuring that none of them won a majority of the electoral college - throwing the election into our house of repugs - whereby rump's win would be assured!

in sum, you do the math! - a 3-way race assures rump victory! - sorry!

go bernie! - then go dem!
 
 
+8 # Radscal 2016-06-29 14:47
Maybe you have an indictment waiting, too.

That would explain your panicky insistence on us voting for your criminal candidate.
 
 
-7 # Robbee 2016-06-30 16:46
Quoting Radscal:
Maybe you have an indictment waiting, too.

That would explain your panicky insistence on us voting for your criminal candidate.


-for not pissing and moaning! thanks!
 
 
+6 # economagic 2016-06-29 17:19
Well, we had one who had to cut a deal to have his Vice to pardon HIM upon succeeding him in office for crimes of which he had not been convicted and that he insisted he did not commit!
 
 
-7 # Robbee 2016-06-30 16:49
Quoting economagic:
Well, we had one who had to cut a deal to have his Vice to pardon HIM upon succeeding him in office for crimes of which he had not been convicted and that he insisted he did not commit!


- for not pissing and moaning! thanks!
 
 
+35 # grandlakeguy 2016-06-28 21:56
If "we the people" know that our elections are being rigged (and they are!) and we do nothing about it... do we deserve any better?

Are we forfeiting our freedom?

If Bernie is as great a leader as so many of us believe he is...will he also stand by and do nothing?

The entire world is watching...what happens next will define our future.
 
 
+20 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-06-29 01:07
Well, at least some of us know the elections are rigged. And yes, we are all forfeiting our fundamental freedoms. Deserve better? Yes we do, EVEN if we don't have the courage to pull a Snowden. Because that's what you're asking of us when you throw down that gauntlet. Give up everything, including your life or just do what you did yesterday. For the person with a spouse, a house, a mortgage, and 3 kids, that choice is pretty, damn easy.

As long as our prison doesn't have bars, we can lie to ourselves and pretend we are free.
 
 
+24 # lorenbliss 2016-06-29 04:33
@tref: "As long as our prison doesn't have bars, we can lie to ourselves and pretend we are free."

That is perhaps the most profound statement ever posted on RSN. Thank you.
 
 
+12 # Jim Rocket 2016-06-29 06:47
It's important to note that you can take people's freedom without taking their guns.
 
 
+11 # Radscal 2016-06-29 13:54
Or, as yesterday's Greenwald article pointed out, the Democrats are using guns as the excuse to take away yet more of our freedoms/rights.

Did anyone else notice that the Supreme Court ruled that evidence the police gather illegally can now be used to prosecute a case? That was about the last shred of the 4th Amendment left standing, and now it's gone.
 
 
+9 # dsepeczi 2016-06-29 14:04
Quoting Radscal:
Or, as yesterday's Greenwald article pointed out, the Democrats are using guns as the excuse to take away yet more of our freedoms/rights.

Did anyone else notice that the Supreme Court ruled that evidence the police gather illegally can now be used to prosecute a case? That was about the last shred of the 4th Amendment left standing, and now it's gone.


I did notice that with much dismay. It amazes me that so many still believe with all their heart that we live in a free society in spite of so much evidence to the contrary.
 
 
+6 # Salus Populi 2016-06-30 15:55
And it was a five to three decision, with Clinton appointee Steven Breyer -- a corporatist and authoritarianis m acolyte who brought us the beginning of the great virus of deregulations that, among so many other ills, characterized the Carter-Reagan-B ush-Clinton-Bus h-Obama administrations -- who cast the deciding vote.

Sotomayor, of whom I had expected little since her appointment, wrote probably the finest dissent in living memory, a jewel that should be required reading in any course on criminal law.
 
 
+12 # economagic 2016-06-29 07:10
Another approach is to recognize the near certainty that the current system will collapse in the not-too distant future, with AGW the result of one unstable and over-stressed sub-system among many. Assume that, and start building the foundations of systems that might help some of us survive the resulting bottleneck. Start in your own neighborhood, then in your community.
 
 
-12 # Robbee 2016-06-29 13:52
Quoting economagic:
Another approach is to recognize the near certainty that the current system will collapse in the not-too distant future, with AGW the result of one unstable and over-stressed sub-system among many. Assume that, and start building the foundations of systems that might help some of us survive the resulting bottleneck. Start in your own neighborhood, then in your community.


we have a 2party system - by constitution - so decrees the 12th amendment! so forth!

everyone can piss and moan! - but every vote for anyone but hill - is a vote for rump!

now you can go ahead! - piss and moan!
 
 
+7 # dsepeczi 2016-06-29 14:08
Quoting Robbee:
Quoting economagic:
Another approach is to recognize the near certainty that the current system will collapse in the not-too distant future, with AGW the result of one unstable and over-stressed sub-system among many. Assume that, and start building the foundations of systems that might help some of us survive the resulting bottleneck. Start in your own neighborhood, then in your community.


we have a 2party system - by constitution - so decrees the 12th amendment! so forth!

everyone can piss and moan! - but every vote for anyone but hill - is a vote for rump!

now you can go ahead! - piss and moan!


Any vote for a third party actually is a vote for the return of democracy. Any vote for Hillary or Trump is a vote to strengthen the entrenched "pay for play" politics that have led us to this point.
 
 
-3 # Robbee 2016-06-30 11:46
Quoting dsepeczi:
Quoting Robbee:
Quoting economagic:
Another approach is to recognize the near certainty that the current system will collapse in the not-too distant future, with AGW the result of one unstable and over-stressed sub-system among many. Assume that, and start building the foundations of systems that might help some of us survive the resulting bottleneck. Start in your own neighborhood, then in your community.


we have a 2party system - by constitution - so decrees the 12th amendment! so forth!

everyone can piss and moan! - but every vote for anyone but hill - is a vote for rump!

now you can go ahead! - piss and moan!


Any vote for a third party actually is a vote for the return of democracy. Any vote for Hillary or Trump is a vote to strengthen the entrenched "pay for play" politics that have led us to this point.

- for not pissing and moaning! thanks!
 
 
+4 # lfeuille 2016-06-29 17:59
I just read the 12th amendment. It says nothing at all about parties. It doesn't address the issue. In fact, the constitution is partyless since the founders did not believe in them.

You are spreading lies. I think by now most people know this, but I just wanted to emphasize it.
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-06-29 18:26
Lies are all it's got.
 
 
-12 # Robbee 2016-06-29 13:53
Quoting grandlakeguy:
If "we the people" know that our elections are being rigged (and they are!) and we do nothing about it... do we deserve any better?

Are we forfeiting our freedom?

If Bernie is as great a leader as so many of us believe he is...will he also stand by and do nothing?

The entire world is watching...what happens next will define our future.


we have a 2party system - by constitution - so decrees the 12th amendment! so forth!

everyone can piss and moan! - but every vote for anyone but hill - is a vote for rump!

now you can go ahead! - piss and moan!
 
 
-5 # Robbee 2016-06-30 16:48
Quoting grandlakeguy:
If "we the people" know that our elections are being rigged (and they are!) and we do nothing about it... do we deserve any better?

Are we forfeiting our freedom?

If Bernie is as great a leader as so many of us believe he is...will he also stand by and do nothing?

The entire world is watching...what happens next will define our future.


- for not pissing and moaning! thanks!
 
 
+16 # Mainiac 2016-06-28 22:32
IMHO, the sit-in in DC last week was a stunt to make us Bernie supporters believe that the revolution had succeeded and to hope we would go along with how the Democratic Congress wants us to vote. Forget about Bernie; we are the ones who are taking a stand was the message.
 
 
-13 # Robbee 2016-06-29 13:52
Quoting Mainiac:
IMHO, the sit-in in DC last week was a stunt to make us Bernie supporters believe that the revolution had succeeded and to hope we would go along with how the Democratic Congress wants us to vote. Forget about Bernie; we are the ones who are taking a stand was the message.


we have a 2party system - by constitution - so decrees the 12th amendment! so forth!

everyone can piss and moan! - but every vote for anyone but hill - is a vote for rump!

now you can go ahead! - piss and moan!
 
 
+27 # Farafalla 2016-06-28 22:33
There is hardly anything progressive in this platform. As Robert Reich pointed out today, Hillary's lack of a progressive vision is going to give this election to Trump. Get your passports in order.
 
 
+3 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-06-29 01:08
Or buy more guns :(
 
 
-12 # Robbee 2016-06-29 13:51
Quoting Farafalla:
There is hardly anything progressive in this platform. As Robert Reich pointed out today, Hillary's lack of a progressive vision is going to give this election to Trump. Get your passports in order.


we have a 2party system - by constitution - so decrees the 12th amendment! so forth!

everyone can piss and moan! - but every vote for anyone but hill - is a vote for rump!

now you can go ahead! - piss and moan!
 
 
+9 # dsepeczi 2016-06-29 14:09
Quoting Robbee:
Quoting Farafalla:
There is hardly anything progressive in this platform. As Robert Reich pointed out today, Hillary's lack of a progressive vision is going to give this election to Trump. Get your passports in order.


we have a 2party system - by constitution - so decrees the 12th amendment! so forth!

everyone can piss and moan! - but every vote for anyone but hill - is a vote for rump!

now you can go ahead! - piss and moan!


I think you're losing it, Robbee. Cut and pasting the same lie over and over again doesn't make it true, no matter how many times Karl Rove said it does.
 
 
+10 # Radscal 2016-06-29 14:49
BINGO!

It cannot be a coincidence that these HRC trolls all follow the Karl Rove guidebook.
 
 
-6 # Robbee 2016-06-30 11:44
Quoting Radscal:
BINGO!

It cannot be a coincidence that these HRC trolls all follow the Karl Rove guidebook.


- for not pissing and moaning! thanks!
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-07-01 01:53
I don't think they have any problem at all getting pointers from Rove, Atwater, McCarthy, Kissinger. Probably Sun Tzu and Macchievelli as well. Ethics? What's that?

Besides, we're 'the enemy', right?

Discussion isn't even considered, let alone compromise or concession or (goodness gracious) actually changing their minds.

It is intellect devoid of morality, greed without limit, an appetite for power willing to trample children, the elderly, minorities, even loyalists eventually -- anyone at all.

I imagine, if HRC achieves her ambition, they'll even find ol' Bill bludgeoned in the Lincoln bedroom one day. Why should a president have to put up with his bu!!shit, right Hill?

It's all strategy and manipulation with never a thought for those who pay the price.
 
 
-6 # Robbee 2016-06-30 11:43
Quoting dsepeczi:
Quoting Robbee:
Quoting Farafalla:
There is hardly anything progressive in this platform. As Robert Reich pointed out today, Hillary's lack of a progressive vision is going to give this election to Trump. Get your passports in order.


we have a 2party system - by constitution - so decrees the 12th amendment! so forth!

everyone can piss and moan! - but every vote for anyone but hill - is a vote for rump!

now you can go ahead! - piss and moan!


I think you're losing it, Robbee. Cut and pasting the same lie over and over again doesn't make it true, no matter how many times Karl Rove said it does.


- for not pissing and moaning! thanks!
 
 
+4 # lfeuille 2016-06-29 18:05
Not unless Trump learns to shut up. He was starting to overtake her but then he had to let loose with more racist garbage and now she is pulling away from him. He really is an idiot.
 
 
+1 # dsepeczi 2016-06-30 10:22
[quote name="lfeuille" ]Not unless Trump learns to shut up. He was starting to overtake her but then he had to let loose with more racist garbage and now she is pulling away from him. He really is an idiot.[/quote

... or, maybe, he's just playing his role in the game.
 
 
-10 # belindacole@gmail.com 2016-06-28 23:06
Egad, you are sooooo annoying! Wake up, the demons are at the gate and all you can do is whine.
 
 
+28 # Shorey13 2016-06-28 23:18
Please, Bernie, please, tell the Democrats to stuff it, and run either on the Green ticket (if Jill Srein is willing to step aside) or as a Progressive. You told me in San Francisco early this year that it was too expensive to file in all 50 states as an Independent. Well, now, you have the money, and if you ask, we will give more. The country cannot survive four more years of business as usual.
 
 
+8 # Ken Halt 2016-06-29 05:28
Shorey: I think it's too late to file for the '16 election, but if someone has better information please chime in here.
 
 
# Guest 2016-06-29 13:50
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+27 # joe_me 2016-06-28 23:23
Sanders supporter will write in Sanders, Stein or even their own name on POTUS race which are better than Clinton or Trump. I would never vote for right leaning $Hillary & her establishment led by DWS they are a joke. Do not believe anything the desperate Dems are saying to get Sanders supporter vote for $hillary there all lies & wont be honored if elected. Establishment can go fly a kite with their BS attached as its tail. DOJ needs to indict $Hillary but Obama will never allow it.
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-06-29 14:08
In one of the videos I posted above, HA Goodman suggests that Obama WILL do as he and AG Lynch promised, and allow FBI to indict HRC.

It's well known in DC circles that Obama hates the Clintons, and vice versa. He was accepting handing over his legacy to her at least publicly, but he did appoint the Republican James Comey to Director of FBI.

Likely, he's implicated in some of HRC's crimes. Was it a threat to Obama when HRC repeatedly said that "EVERYONE knew" she had a private server?

But he could cut a deal to pardon her, thereby avoiding his own entanglements.

So then the question would be, would the DNC still support a candidate who had to get a Presidential Pardon in order to run? Especially knowing that the whole Clinton Foundation money laundering enterprise and other criminal investigations would still tie down a President Clinton II?

I'd rather see her and hubby in prison (along with pretty much everyone from the Bush II Administration) , but I'd trade a pardon to get a President Sanders.
 
 
+4 # lfeuille 2016-06-29 18:09
But when? Unless it is before the convention, it won't solve anything. What happens when the nominated candidate is indicted? Can they still run? I think so. But if she quits what happens then?
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-06-30 00:38
Great questions for which I have no official answers.

There's the additional question of what would happen if HRC actually "won" the election, but was indicted before she was inaugurated.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2016-07-01 19:42
I think if she won the election and was indicted, she'd continue to serve her term until she was convicted. If she were convicted, the vice-president would take over.

I'M JUST GUESSING.

And, if she were indicted, or quit before the election, but after the convention, I think the DNC would be in a bind. Logic would dictate they give it to Sanders, but I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to shove someone else (like Biden, or even Debbie Schultz) down our throats.

Personally, I sincerely hope it happens.

Nothing would please me more.

Having Clinton thrown in jail wouldn't help Trump (he might end up there too!).

It WOULD restore confidence in the government though, and make it believable that it actually can correct itself.

It would also give us a chance to have a great president - even if only by default.
 
 
+8 # dotlady 2016-06-28 23:25
This platform is a limp dick, a shame and a guilt, a denial of almost any forward thinking, an anachronism. Is it still perhaps better than the vast unknowns of the precipitous, provocative Trump?
Going to sleep.
 
 
-10 # Joe Seeman 2016-06-29 02:00
Lots of hatred here of Hillary Clinton & the Democrats. Likely that many of those posing as progressives as they viciously attack Hillary are really Republican trolls.
Do you really think it will be OK to have a president Trump?
I've been actively supporting Bernie for a long time.
I remember in 2000, being so disappointed with Bill Clinton, thinking "how much worse could the Republicans be?" I supported Nader. Then we got Bush & Cheney & found exactly how much terribly worse the Republicans actually are.
Bernie will push his agenda straight through the convention & then unite in supporting Hillary to defeat the fascistic Trump. I plan to follow Bernie's lead & do the same.
 
 
+14 # PeacefulGarden 2016-06-29 05:05
I do not want Trump
I do not want Clinton
I do not want Hitler
I do not want Stalin
I do not want a blue jay

Now what. There is no one for me to vote for...
 
 
+10 # economagic 2016-06-29 07:21
Well, no one with a significant chance of taking office, at least at this moment. Prepare for the worst and hope for the best, then focus on shelter from the former and facilitation of the latter.

Plan to vote -- if possible in your state -- for whoever you would prefer to be president. There will be many slips between now and November, and the "presumptive nominees" could both fall by the wayside.

And lobby your Representative in the House to vote against the TPP. This is important, and it's something everyone can do -- easier than you may think! See my reply to indian weaver near the top.

Then start focusing on shelter from the deluge (hoping it can be averted) and building the local community and economy to survive when the excrement really does hit the ventilator. See my reply to tref and lorenbliss above.

Your biggest contribution is the passion you already revealed. The arts ARE important.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-06-29 14:41
Hi econ,

Relevant to the Mallence Bart Williams Ted Talk, I see that the third largest diamond in history is going to auction. Valued at more than $70 million dollars!

And of course, it came out of an African country. And the European owner of the mine held a contest, giving $2,700 to the person who came up with the best name for the diamond.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-36660076


And pursuant to your request, here's the amazing Ted Talk that EVERYONE should watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwTYvAGwqtA
 
 
+3 # economagic 2016-06-29 17:13
Watch that TED talk, folks. Even as a member of this crowd you will be amazed, and you will be glad. Make sure you have good audio as Ms. Williams sometimes speaks very softly. Watch for her name, and don't let YouTube shift you to the next video or the previous one, which for some reason it kept trying to do for me.
 
 
+10 # Helga Fellay 2016-06-29 09:02
yes, there is, Peaceful Garden. Vote Jill Stein, Green Party.
 
 
+3 # Polisage 2016-06-29 13:20
I don't know whether the blue jay can run. Isn't that a Canadian team?
 
 
+16 # WBoardman 2016-06-29 09:50
Joe Seeman perceives "hate," and that may be true,
but hate is an emotion and there's no way to be sure
someone else is feeling a particular emotion.

In all fairness to those posting here (even Republicans,
if any), they enumerate perfectly reasonable, arguable
objections to Hillary, Democrats, Republicans, the whole
state of our country – that's not hate, that's more like
a mix of analysis and despair.

[And yes, there's no way I can know that anyone, besides me,
is actually despairing ;-))) ]
 
 
+10 # lorenbliss 2016-06-29 11:57
@WBoardman: Well, Mr. Boardman, you can damn sure know I've despaired.

Our capitalist overlords are giving us a choice between two Hitlers -- Hitler Hillary who wants to invade Russia and Hitler Trump who wants to impose a Homeland Holocaust against minorities and Leftists.

To vote for the former is to vote for the extinction of our species and the death of the planet; to vote for the latter is to vote myself and my friends and comrades into concentration camp.

And because I am 76 years old and slowly dying of congestive heart failure, there is no place to which I can flee, no nation that would allow me to immigrate despite the fact that after 50 years in journalism I still have some useful editorial skills.

I have voted in every election since 1961, when I turned 21 and became old enough to vote. Sometimes I cast my ballot more hopefully, sometimes -- especially after Sen. Robert Francis Kennedy was murdered -- less hopefully, but never before with the utterly hopeless recognition of living in a nation that has truly been subverted and conquered by Evil.

Indeed -- though I will probably vote Green as a last gesture of defiance -- my best hope is my bad heart will kill me before either the terminal thermonuclear flash or the midnight knock on my door.

That is precisely where we the people are at, whether as individuals or as a nation, and anyone who does not recognize this obscene truth is either a moron or in dementia.
 
 
+9 # Radscal 2016-06-29 14:19
Loren, that is not where we are at today.

We are STILL at the place we were months ago, despite the consistent badgering that HRC is the one.

HRC does NOT have 2,383 pledged delegates. Between the 2 FBI criminal investigations she's already under, and the numerous legal cases to expose the election fraud we just witnessed, there is still a good chance that Sanders will be our nominee.

And we all know he'd crush Drumpf, and pull Congress in a more progressive direction than it's been headed in decades.
 
 
+7 # lorenbliss 2016-06-29 15:11
@Radscal: Of course I hope you are right, but -- speaking frankly -- the murder of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy was also the murder of any and all faith I ever had in our political system.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-06-29 17:16
I completely understand and agree. In fact, political assassination is a truth I generally do not speak of, probably out of some leftover superstitious nonsense from my Christian upbringing.

The night that RFK was shot, I was driving through Chicago's "inner city," and heard about it on the radio. With tears streaming down my cheeks, a couple of cops pulled me over.

They roughed me up and shook me down, clearly taking delight in their act of torture, especially after I told them why I had red, swollen eyes.
 
 
+4 # jimmyjames 2016-06-29 18:12
Quoting lorenbliss:
@Radscal: Of course I hope you are right, but -- speaking frankly -- the murder of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy was also the murder of any and all faith I ever had in our political system.

Followed by the murder of JFK Jr. which allowed HRC to run and win the Senate seat in New York.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-06-30 00:46
Speaking of deaths "convenient" for the Clintons, John Ashe just died from either his bar bells choking him to death or a heart attack (depending on which source one prefers).

He was about to go to court in a fraud case in which he vacuumed up money tied to a Chinese Clinton donor.

http://pagesix.com/2016/06/26/disgraced-ex-un-officials-death-conveniently-timed/
 
 
+4 # Salus Populi 2016-06-30 16:26
"our political system" never deserved our admiration, let alone faith. In these dark times, I still cling to Gramsci's formulation: "Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will."

That, and the example of A.J. Muste, who when asked if he really believed his lonely vigil in front of the halls of power against WWII would change the policies he objected to, replied that he didn't demonstrate to change the world, but to keep the world from changing him. [Courtesy of one of Chomsky's transcribed talks]

And that's really all we have, in the end. Whether it's enough is a meaningless question. We do what we have to do, and despair, at least existentially, is not in our vocabulary.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-07-01 13:28
Or as Christopher Hedges has said:

"I do not fight the fascist because I know I will win. I fight the fascists because they are fascists."
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-07-01 19:51
Gee loren, I hear you with all my heart. And I know things have been tough on you lately. I think my darkest moments may have been when I was 80% through a move -- and I've moved a fair few times.

I feel rage when I think of the violence that's taken the left's leaders away.

It's difficult, and heartbreaking too, but we have to ask -- what would they do if they were here -- and we have to do it ourselves.

We can't let the a-holes win. The odds are against us and we need you.

Dude, you probably know more than all the rest of us put together!

I hope you have a FANTASTIC holiday!
 
 
+5 # economagic 2016-06-29 12:25
"In all fairness to those posting here (even Republicans, if any), they enumerate perfectly reasonable, arguable objections to Hillary, Democrats, Republicans, the whole state of our country – that's not hate, that's more like a mix of analysis and despair."

Well said as usual, Mr. B. Of course you're mostly preaching to the choir here, and secondarily to lost choristers from some other churches.

FWIW, I'm not despairing. I see the likely Third Transformation as being at least as great an opportunity as it is a danger, counting the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions as the two earlier great transformations in the way that humans live upon Planet Earth (or Eaarth, as McKibben says), or the fourth if we count use of fire and/or tools as the first.

I never expected to live this long (70), so I can afford to think of the longer run. I see great opportunities in the global movement of movements that has for some time been laying the foundations for a better world, and there may be time to get enough of it built before the old one implodes (or explodes, even money) for the next couple of generations to have a chance to consolidate it. It begins literally in our own back yards and out neighborhoods (slow food), then in our communities (slow money), then whatever we can do to survive and thrive regardless of what becomes of Global Megacorp.

Given the political situation that leads many to despair, we've got nothing to lose by looking that far forward.
 
 
+8 # lorenbliss 2016-06-29 12:41
@economagic: Do you really believe the One Percent and its Ruling Class -- with their secret police given infinite power and true omnipotence by surveillance technologies against which we are utterly defenseless -- will allow "laying the foundations for a better world"?

Laying such foundations was the intent of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, of Martin Luther King Jr. and of President Kennedy's brother Robert, all of whom were murdered -- directly or indirectly -- by the same secret police apparatus that now watches us with such oppressive intensity it literally knows what brand of toilet paper we use and when we use it. We are in fact observed even more closely than the inmates in the Nazi concentration camps -- the very reason our malevolently godlike overlords yet allow us a few illusions of freedom.

Of course I dearly hope your analysis is correct. But my sense of it -- this after decades of (failed) political activism -- is all that "looking that far forward" will do is hasten the moment of our arrest.

In fact -- and I know in discourse with you I need not assert my knowledge of history and prehistory -- I truly believe this is unquestionably the darkest, most hopeless, most Evil time in the approximately 200,000 years of our species' experience.
 
 
+9 # Radscal 2016-06-29 14:25
I share your dread should HRC or Drumpf become President. Especially Surveillance State cheerleader Hillary.

But I'm not ready to surrender to that fate. Sanders can still win the nomination. And if not, I will be pushing my physical limits to the max to get Dr. Stein votes.
 
 
+4 # economagic 2016-06-29 19:26
@lorenbliss:
Your knowledge of history and aspects of anthropology dwarfs mine, also your knowledge of leftist theory and history. So I am glad, in a way, that your take on our present age confirms my own.

And I do not doubt that on occasion (;-)) some of our overlords act for the sake of pure meanness, with no benefit to themselves.

Every generation claims that the age in which it exists is unlike any other, but I am convinced that the wolf has finally arrived. Many empires and many cultures have come and gone, especially in the past 5,000 years, but this is not merely the end of a major empire and a major phase in civilization.

What makes the age in which we are living different from any other in history or prehistory is that at least a couple of dozen critical global systems are stressed to the breaking point. I can rattle off well over a dozen such systems without stopping to think or take a breath, and I check myself every few months to make sure I'm not just making it up.

Gaia really IS "self-correctin g" in ways that classical-tradi tion economists only pretend industrial market economies to be. But Gaia has been beaten and poisoned in an exponentially increasing fashion for the past 200-plus years, and the jig is up.

(continued)
 
 
+3 # economagic 2016-06-29 19:52
(continued)

(I've had about enough of these continuation comments. I intend to go back to severe editing soon.)

In principle we could probably avert the worst if the US president who takes office next January were a climate hawk, and also a hawk on all of the human institutions that are driving the juggernaut toward the cliff. Since that does not appear to be about to happen, I expect that we will see the beginning of a cascade of actual collapses in critical systems such as the "North Atlantic Conveyor" (heat and salt), or (heaven forbid) the precarious balance of nuclear armaments or that of nuclear power generation.

The "better world" that I envision bears little resemblance to those envisioned by politicians. To begin with, it will be dealing with systems collapse while barely out of its infancy if that. By definition it will not be able to depend more than incidentally on Global Megacorp or whatever political entities it may still control. By definition it will be a world of increasingly isolated local communities and economies.

By definition it will be a world of which we cannot give more than a very tentative description because it will be in a constant state of adaptation to rapidly changing conditions. Some of those changes will likely wipe out some communities that are unable to adapt fast enough.

(continued)
 
 
+3 # economagic 2016-06-29 20:16
(continued)
What may be lost is all too easily calculated. How much of the transportation and communication networks would remain is impossible to know, likewise modern medical care. And Cheetos!

What may be gained, besides survival, is what has been lost in our haste to urbanize, sub-urbanize, automate, and depersonalize our lives. That depersonalizati on is really the RESULT of the trappings of Modern Life that are actually our own lives, stolen from us then homogenized and commodified and sold back to us in a plastic bubble pack.

There is nothing idyllic about that future, except "blood, toil, tears, and sweat." Few people, much less humankind as a whole, have ever chosen to lead a harsher life, although we often fetishize those who did. Furthermore, as Gar Alperovitz says, we are going to lose some battles, including some big ones. A local leader of both the localist movement and the fight to stop TPP pointed out several years ago that the oligarchs could make all of it very difficult. Even gardening could become difficult in areas where even the retention of water in ponds or cisterns is prevented, and Big Energy is already pushing back on rooftop solar on many fronts.

I have said little about what the "Better World" would consist of, because I don't know. I think it starts with slow food and slow money (local food and business in general). Beyond that is hard to say. But I haven't heard of any better prospects that are actually within our power to attempt.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-06-30 00:59
Wait. No CHEETOS? OMG, I had no idea things were so dire. ;-)

We certainly have been treated to a constant onslaught of "entertainment" based on some post-apocolypti c world or another. It could well be that TPTB have been warning us. Or threatening us.

But no matter what the future holds, your call for (and work towards) localized self-sufficienc ty has no down side I can see.

I've been reasonably happy that the community in which we live has its own reservoir and well system. But I just realized we have a "smart meter" for our water. That means it could be turned off in a microsecond, either by TPTB or a hacker. There's no way I could afford to drill a well, and we have a 6 to 8 month dry season. So, I'm less confident than I was just a few days ago.
 
 
+4 # economagic 2016-06-30 15:43
They've been telling us for more than a decade that water would be the oil of the 21st century, and already we are seeing many manifestations.

My wife and I have an acre within the city limits and are gardening pretty intensively and hoping to scale up. We had thought about underground cisterns, but we can't afford them and there may not be a workable place to put one on this property. We've recently learned of smallish plastic tanks (1,000 gal and under) for above-ground use. Between the house and the shop/garage we have about 2,400 SF of collection capacity in principle.

But issues could arise in the not-too-distant future around interrupting the flow of runoff. At this point my defense would be that if anything we would be reducing loss of water to evaporation (by putting it in a container temporarily), with no significant difference in the runoff in the long run. Whether authorities would buy that is not clear.

So-called "smart" technology is at best a mixed blessing, distracting us from the very stuff we need to be attending to. At worst, as you have found, it is another means for the Lords of Chaos to control US.
 
 
+9 # Radscal 2016-06-29 14:13
# Joe Seeman

Some of us have caught on to the long-planned charade of a Clinton v. Drumpf election. The leaked documents show this was the HRC/DNC plan since months before any candidate had announced.

We're not playing into that devious plan. We're taking back the Democratic Party and nominating an actually democratic candidate.
 
 
+14 # Ken Halt 2016-06-29 05:47
It is of paramount importance that citizens get to the polls and vote this election. Vote for the candidate of your choice. It ain't over 'til it's over, and there is a long-shot chance that Bernie may be on the ballot. If not, and you prefer him as a candidate, write him in (if allowed in your state) or vote for Jill Stein. Not voting is an indication that you are not engaged and is what the deep state oligarchy wants above all, a passive 99%. A vote for HRC will tell the DNC that we are willing to give them a pass on their vote rigging and blatant, anti-democratic favoritism, that voters didn't notice or don't care how corrupt the DNC is. If there is a large write-in vote or Green party vote, it will show the Dem party that there is a large body of voters who are engaged, aware, and ready to make some changes, perhaps even create a third party that represents the 99%. I suppose I am a silly optimist and believe the system is capable of being changed from the inside, but other nations have done it, and other nations have gov'ts that are responsive to the needs and welfare of their citizens. We can do it here if we keep this movement going, the one that Bernie has spearheaded, whether or not Bernie is on the ballot this Nov.
 
 
-13 # Robbee 2016-06-29 13:46
Quoting Ken Halt:
It is of paramount importance that citizens get to the polls and vote this election. Vote for the candidate of your choice. It ain't over 'til it's over, and there is a long-shot chance that Bernie may be on the ballot. If not, and you prefer him as a candidate, write him in (if allowed in your state) or vote for Jill Stein. Not voting is an indication that you are not engaged and is what the deep state oligarchy wants above all, a passive 99%. A vote for HRC will tell the DNC that we are willing to give them a pass on their vote rigging and blatant, anti-democratic favoritism, that voters didn't notice or don't care how corrupt the DNC is. If there is a large write-in vote or Green party vote, it will show the Dem party that there is a large body of voters who are engaged, aware, and ready to make some changes, perhaps even create a third party that represents the 99%. I suppose I am a silly optimist and believe the system is capable of being changed from the inside, but other nations have done it, and other nations have gov'ts that are responsive to the needs and welfare of their citizens. We can do it here if we keep this movement going, the one that Bernie has spearheaded, whether or not Bernie is on the ballot this Nov.


we have a 2party system - by constitution - so decrees the 12th amendment! so forth!

everyone can piss and moan! - but every vote for anyone but hill - is a vote for rump!

now you can go ahead! - piss and moan!
 
 
+13 # djnova50 2016-06-29 06:39
There is a party which we can help build. It's called the Green Party. This page lists the differences between the Green Party and the Democrats and Republicans: http://www.gp.org/120591/the_real_difference

I had considered writing in Bernie's name if he was not the nominee. But, after reading about Jill Stein and the Green Party, I am planning on voting for her, instead.

The best way to send a message to the DNC is to vote. Instead of voting for the lesser evil, vote for the greater good.
 
 
-14 # Robbee 2016-06-29 13:45
Quoting djnova50:
There is a party which we can help build. It's called the Green Party. This page lists the differences between the Green Party and the Democrats and Republicans: http://www.gp.org/120591/the_real_difference

I had considered writing in Bernie's name if he was not the nominee. But, after reading about Jill Stein and the Green Party, I am planning on voting for her, instead.

The best way to send a message to the DNC is to vote. Instead of voting for the lesser evil, vote for the greater good.


we have a 2party system - by constitution - so decrees the 12th amendment! so forth!

everyone can piss and moan! - but every vote for anyone but hill - is a vote for rump!

now you can go ahead! - piss and moan!
 
 
-20 # Robbee 2016-06-29 07:26
lie! - # Billy Bob 2016-06-12 19:05
The "Bernie or Bust" movement is bigger than Bernie.

- rather! The "Bernie or Bust" movement is *smaller! much smaller!* than Bernie. - opposes bernie! - is opposed by bernie! - is bernie's biggest nightmare! - powered by fools! FULL OF THEMSELVES!

lie! # Billy Bob 2016-05-25 12:45
If (warren) isn't sure, or picks Clinton, we'll know the whole "fighting Wall Street" thing is just a ruse.

- billy, you're just full of lies, aren't you?

lie! - # Billy Bob 2016-05-22 09:48
"... Clinton's voters are Republicans ..."

signed in blood! - says - # Billy Bob 2016-05-09 12:00
"... The actual left, on the other hand, has had enough and won't vote for another Clinton - PERIOD ... IF Hitlery manages to get the nomination anyway, vote for Sanders in the general election."

lie! - the actual left would vote for hill over rump every day!

the fake-left, as in GOP trolls! would visit rsn every day! - fighting to sew dissent! - fighting to stop progressives from voting hill! - at any cost! - even a rump presidency!

billy bob is a GOP troll! - who urges us to throw-away our progressive vote in the general election!

listen to bernie! reich! and warren! - down with GOP/rump/billy bob! - go bernie! - and in the general, go dem!

p.s. billy bob! you can take your PERIOD! and stick it up your SENTENCE!

still in denial! after all these years! proudly! - says - # Billy Bob 2016-05-16 18:15
I - DID - NOT - VOTE - FOR - CHENEY
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-07-01 02:08
Don't you think Bernie or Bust gives Sanders leverage at the moment? It's too early to abandon that stance, even for those who will. Right now the platform is being negotiated. This is EXACTLY the time for Sanders' supporters to hold their position.

The more people who are B-or-B, the more the DNC must concede to Sanders' agenda. At the moment Bernie or Busters serve an important purpose.

Did BB run over your dog or something?
 
 
-21 # Robbee 2016-06-29 07:28
silly bob, pt. 2

- but you got him anyway? - didn’t you?

here's how it works! -

1st, leader of the rat pack says - # pat riot 2016-05-15 20:58
"... I will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton ... The calamity that follows will not be my fault, nor the fault of my vote …"

- so says king herod! - who washes his hands! of a rump presidency!

what will we do if bernie does not win the dem's nod? quit voting? riot? throw away our vote by voting 3rd party? or by writing in bernie?

jerk-offs admire you udealists - that you never compromise anything? - except that, by not voting dem, you never accomplish anything useful either? do you? - forgotten cheney already? in what? 10 seconds?

bernie says hill would make an "infinitely better" prez than any gop slime?

bernie thinks he's starting a "political revolution"? - hah! lots of us cannot summon the revolutionary discipline, or solidarity, to compromise "our values" enough to follow his lead!

billy, you are not part of bernie's movement! - you are barely smart enough to break away and start your own movement! - however smart that is? - that's all!

one thing a rump trojan, like billy, will NEVER say here! - The next president will quite possibly name four new justices to the Supreme Court. In other words, she or he can flip the Court to a liberal majority—one that could stay in place for thirty years.

- go bernie! - and in any case, go dem! - trojans for rump! - make rump great again! - go kiss rump!
 
 
+8 # jimmyjames 2016-06-29 18:16
Robbee, I honestly believe you are mentally ill!
 
 
+7 # Billy Bob 2016-06-29 19:52
He's obsessed with me.

Also, isn't an incoherent, rambling communication style symptomatic of some mental illness?
 
 
+4 # cymricmorty 2016-06-29 23:05
Something like logorrhea? (Could be rhetorical, medical, or both.)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logorrhea
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2016-06-30 08:54
Sounds about right.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-07-01 02:26
Aren't 'revolutionary discipline' and 'compromise' contradictory?

Sanders, as a member of the Democratic Party, has promised to support the nominee, but Sanders as the leader of a movement is empowered by supporters who are loyal to that movement. WE haven't promised to accept the nominee based on party loyalty. WE help Sanders by demanding that Clinton EARN our votes.

If we were all to jump on board now, when NEITHER candidate has reached the 2383 threshold, we would undermine Sanders and his surrogates' influence.

I think HRC and DWS are sure they don't need us, but as the election approaches, I believe they'll find they do, and we will make demands.

To capitulate too early is to surrender what leverage we have.

Are you an observer or a strategist by nature? (I don't mean that disrespectfully .)
 
 
-17 # jpmarat 2016-06-29 07:35
Building a 3rd Party is hard work. Taking over the new demographics Rainbow Coalition Party is hard work. Bleating like sheep on RSN is SO EASY. The RSN Fringe continues to brag into the faces of Trump targeted minorities that Fringers will not cast the vote needed to stop Trumpist fascism. No wonder their fanciful fringy "Revolution" popped like a kids' party balloon. Their "movement" is restricted to vowels. The serious Berners are out WORKING. The Bernouts and Bridge Berners just bleat, bleat, bleat. A strange merger of narcissism and mental masturbation.
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-07-01 02:33
I think you are Rain. Who else has that sulfurously potent mix of contempt and derision, with just a soupcon of obscenity? I remember you whining to lights about how tough it is here. waa waa. So I'm guessing you adopted another moniker so you could carry on in secret. Honesty really isn't your style, is it?

I used to live near a stockyard. You could smell the horrors as you drove past. Your posts are like that.
 
 
-16 # Robbee 2016-06-29 08:03
like bernie! - i'm going to focus on inequality! - in income and wealth! - which gov't uuugely fosters by its tax policies!

wm sums - "Multi-Milliona ire Surtax. The platform is long on rhetoric (“ensuring millionaires can no longer pay a lower [tax] rate than their secretaries”), but short on specifics. Wealth disparity, in any form, is not addressed."

“ensuring millionaires can no longer pay a lower [tax] rate than their secretaries” is not tiny! - it's uuuge!

currently our gov't ensures that millionaires pay a FAR LOWER [tax] rate than their executive secretaries! - by paying taxes on "unearned" income at "capital gains" rates!

it ensures that millionaire earners take income as shares of corporations they own, which they then sell - largely escaping taxes - it ensures that every year millionaires become richer! - it ensures income and wealth inequality! - whereby the richest 1% own more capital than the bottom 90%!

sure! - there's alot more that i'd like to see in a dem platform - but this is the big kahuna of income and wealth inequality! - it's uuuge! - it alone will raise hundreds of billions more in taxes! each year! - JUST BY TREATING ALL EARNERS FAIR! - IT IS THE BIGGEST STEP OUR GOV'T CAN TAKE TO END TAX UNFAIRNESS! BETWEEN THE 1% AND US 99%!

what must be watched carefully! - of course! - is that! in the process of raising taxes on millionaires! gov't does not "balance it out" by cutting other taxes on millionaires!

go bernie! and go dem!
 
 
+7 # librarian1984 2016-06-29 10:48
Hey, R. I thought you usually posted at night. You're up early today! Hope it's a good one.
 
 
-11 # Robbee 2016-06-29 13:15
inquires - # librarian1984 2016-06-29 10:48
Hey, R. I thought you usually posted at night. You're up early today! Hope it's a good one.

- no! it's a great one! - in my neighborhood suddenly i am "the man!"

- as robbee! my consumer oppression legally sanctioned thru u.s. supreme court! - i own nothing! - my modest wealth, as married well above the median american having absconded by divorce court one decade ago!

i am being evicted from my family's lakefront cottage my spouse and i once owned outright - i have not made a lease or tax payment for about 5.5 years - lessors are patient with lawyers!

today! after last week breaking one neighbor's old lake pump - and another neighbor's backup pump - i got the new pump my family trust bought - in our drought it was a quest! and adventure! - and got by with a little wiring, plumbing help from my friends!

now my sparse, tragically abused lawn is back on the road to recovery! - in time to sell cottage? - the 2 horse pump sprinkling hardy grass and weeds! furiously!

- according to your posts, you live nearby? - what are you doing? - why don't you visit and watch me move sprinklers every coupla hours? - share some boxed wine? 624 dorbert, munith 49259?
 
 
+9 # jimmyjames 2016-06-29 18:19
Robbee is a sick, sick man. Please get some professional help!
 
 
-4 # Robbee 2016-06-30 12:57
Quoting jimmyjames:
Robbee is a sick, sick man. Please get some professional help!

- for not pissing and moaning! thanks!
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-06-30 01:11
Wow, that is more than I ever knew about you.

Hahaha, can I bring my spouse, kids and dogs? Might not be too good for the lawn.
 
 
+7 # Aliazer 2016-06-29 15:59
I am very pleased reading Mr. Boardman's fine and well thought out article about the Democratic Party. It does point out, up to a tee, what I have been suspecting all along.

The Party is no longer the party of the people in any shape or form. It is, in fact, a corrupt organization unworthy of allegiance or loyalty. It has become, instead, a despicable brokerage outfit offering our votes for sale to special interests, many of which are foreign, no matter the damage being done to us or our country.

As to Hillary Clinton, I have noticed her political modus operandi since she became a senator and later, Secretary of State and her overall activities and decisions have been, in all cases, anathema to the best interests of this country and its people, as well as being a blood thirsty warmonger.

Under the current circumstance, unfortunately, there is only one other person who could extricate this country from the mortal grip of a ruling establishment and that is Trump, unless we vote for Jill Stein and end up giving our vote to Clinton.
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-06-29 18:38
I think I get your frustration.

After RFK was murdered, and then Hubert Humphrey was foisted on us, I briefly considered campaigning for Wallace.

Not because I agreed with him on just about anything, but because I figured a Wallace Presidency would push the country into revolutionary change. But then I decided that the sort of revolution/civi l war that would result would be very bad.

Drumpf actually says some things with which I agree. Not enough for me to vote for him though, largely because of the evidence that he and the Clitnons are working together to pull off a fraud that amounts to a(nother) coup.
 
 
+3 # economagic 2016-06-30 12:40
"unless we vote for Jill Stein and end up giving our vote to Clinton."

Funny, that's what the Hillarybots tell us about Stein and Trump!

I remember 1968 too. Many of us were wishing for a revolution without actually having to go through it. In hindsight it appeared that some progress was being made despite the assassinations, the riots, and The War -- the only one Walter Cronkite talked about.

Traditional revolutions often involve a lot of "collateral damage," even some that begin in the ballot box. Unfortunately a lot of people have less to lose today than was the case 48 years ago.
 
 
# Guest 2016-06-29 17:11
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
0 # dana9 2016-06-29 19:17
So now that Sanders has folded, we're supposedly faced with a choice between a hawk and a mamba snake. ("It can strike very quickly and can also chase its victims at an incredible speed. It chooses to do this quite often without any provocation whatsoever."--C onservation Institute) I anticipate that most progressives will be afraid to vote for Jill Stein lest that split the vote and give Trump the win. What if we could get 50 million people to pledge "I'll vote for Stein if fifty million others will pledge to do so"? Would that get you to vote for Stein? The average voter turnout for presidential elections during this century has been about 122.7 million. So if we could collect close to half that many pledges for Stein, would you take part? Of course, what we really need is ranked-choice voting, so that we could vote Stein for our first choice and Clinton as second choice, which would amount to voting "anyone but Trump." That's not going to happen before November, though, so would you take part in a credible effort to put Stein into the White House?
 
 
+11 # WBoardman 2016-06-29 20:09
Actually Sanders hasn't folded,
that's what makes so many Democrats
and their media fellow travelers (like Wash Post)
so crazy.

How dare that man not play by our rules,
they seem to ask,
how dare he play out the game according
to the game's rules?
 
 
+1 # jimmyjames 2016-06-29 20:38
Yes, and so would many, many others!
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2016-06-29 21:10
I have one important question:

Which one is the mamba snake?

Your description seems to apply to either one of them.

Then again, I love animals.

There must be a 2-headed mythological beast with a forked tongue, a bad toupée and a pants-suit we could evoke instead of an innocent (although venomous) animal.
 
 
+1 # economagic 2016-06-30 12:18
Sure, post it here if you can come up with a way to get anything started. I'll probably be voting for her in November anyway -- unless something unexpected happens in the next four months. ;-) It will probably be on an official write-in line resulting from a [petition drive in the spring, and unless Sanders is actively promoting his own candidacy at that time it would make more sense to vote for someone who is actually running and has an established organization and a sane platform.
 
 
# Guest 2016-06-30 12:19
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+5 # Buddha 2016-06-30 08:16
Quoting Robbee:
every vote for anyone but hill - is a vote for rump!


You know, I'm really tired of the DNC assuming they own my vote. Perhaps I see it as: "by nominating HRC and putting their finger on the scale for her, with aid from the allied corporate media, ignoring her polling negatives and poor historical support of Progressivism, the DNC helped an ass-clown like Trump win the White House".

Witness Hillary platform committee appointees blocking opposition to the TPP from the Democratic Platform. Say good bye to lots of independents for whom opposition to more of these horrible neo-liberal "trade American jobs" bills is a main motivator to vote.

Quoting Robbee:
now you can go ahead! - piss and moan!


Now that's the way to get recalcitrant Progressives to yet again cast aside our principles and vote for a center-right corporatist, demean us just like that. The Establishment DNC has nobody but themselves to blame if the Orange Duche wins in November.
 
 
-4 # Robbee 2016-06-30 11:38
Quoting Buddha:
Quoting Robbee:
every vote for anyone but hill - is a vote for rump!


You know, I'm really tired of the DNC assuming they own my vote. Perhaps I see it as: "by nominating HRC and putting their finger on the scale for her, with aid from the allied corporate media, ignoring her polling negatives and poor historical support of Progressivism, the DNC helped an ass-clown like Trump win the White House".

Witness Hillary platform committee appointees blocking opposition to the TPP from the Democratic Platform. Say good bye to lots of independents for whom opposition to more of these horrible neo-liberal "trade American jobs" bills is a main motivator to vote.

Quoting Robbee:
now you can go ahead! - piss and moan!


Now that's the way to get recalcitrant Progressives to yet again cast aside our principles and vote for a center-right corporatist, demean us just like that. The Establishment DNC has nobody but themselves to blame if the Orange Duche wins in November.


- for not pissing and moaning! thanks!
 
 
+2 # PCPrincess 2016-06-30 10:25
First: I'm done with having to see the posts, scratch that, the SPAM that is relentlessly posted by Robbee. Can we give him a temporary vacation from the replies section until he/she learns to post with some moral fabric?

Second: I again want to reiterate my firm belief that the Trump we've been seeing is not the 'true' Trump. Again, I will also point out that I am NOT a Trump supporter, but I tire of article after article and post after post of people claiming he is the Anti-Christ and in some cases, people who claim they are not fans of Hillary, post that they feel the need to vote for her due to the aforementioned 'Anti-Christ'.

It is a ruse. Trump is playing a card that he himself said he'd play if he ever ran for President. He was asked about any plans to run and he said, "If I did run for President, I'd run as a Republican because their voters are so stupid." He is left of Hillary in truth. I fear him less than I do a Clinton presidency, and, like many here, I will never vote for her. I will write in Bernie Sanders, period.
 
 
-5 # Robbee 2016-06-30 11:39
Quoting PCPrincess:
First: I'm done with having to see the posts, scratch that, the SPAM that is relentlessly posted by Robbee. Can we give him a temporary vacation from the replies section until he/she learns to post with some moral fabric?

Second: I again want to reiterate my firm belief that the Trump we've been seeing is not the 'true' Trump. Again, I will also point out that I am NOT a Trump supporter, but I tire of article after article and post after post of people claiming he is the Anti-Christ and in some cases, people who claim they are not fans of Hillary, post that they feel the need to vote for her due to the aforementioned 'Anti-Christ'.

It is a ruse. Trump is playing a card that he himself said he'd play if he ever ran for President. He was asked about any plans to run and he said, "If I did run for President, I'd run as a Republican because their voters are so stupid." He is left of Hillary in truth. I fear him less than I do a Clinton presidency, and, like many here, I will never vote for her. I will write in Bernie Sanders, period.


- for not pissing and moaning! thanks!
 
 
-3 # Robbee 2016-06-30 11:35
asks - # librarian1984 2016-06-30 01:11
(C)an I bring my spouse, kids and dogs?

yes! to spouse and adult friends! - no! to kids and dogs!

kids and dogs don't care much about politics!
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-06-30 14:45
Haha, maybe not the dogs, but the kids do! They're for Bernie.
 
 
-3 # Robbee 2016-06-30 17:13
asks - # librarian1984 2016-06-30 14:45
(B)ut the kids (are) for Bernie.

- can they do all the talking? and we just listen? - how long can they hold forth? alone? - how soon can i feel like a babysitter? - bet they're cute? may i record home movies of them talking bernie? - if you bring your laptop you can download my movies onto your laptop and wipe my memory card? - when they want to go for a swim? what do we say? - do you see what just happened here? - am i now your babysitter?

no! on kids! sorry!
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-07-01 20:30
Hey, R. We're getting along fine. Don't creep me out, okay?

Maybe during a family trip we'll stop by, but you're going to have to take whatever's in the car -- kids, dogs, parakeets, coolers or clowns. It's a mess I can tell you.

I can't believe I ever used to travel light. I considered it a f^cking motto for a while -- only have what can fit in one car. We get so bogged down. With things, with baggage, with sh!t. But I wouldn't give any of it up. This earth is so beautiful. This life is so precious and brief. I look at the Clintons and the Kochs and Monsanto and .. almost everything anymore .. and I know it can be better. It wouldn't be that hard really. If we all just felt justice and a longing for peace.

We, as a species AND as individuals, are so amazing. If I were a god I'd be pleased. But, man, have we misused it.

Do you know when the US assembled all those magnificent minds in Los Alamos, to build the bomb? Autobiographies of scientists there tell us that one of the ongoing debates was the possibility that even testing the bomb would destroy the entire planet. One side believed that despite the very nature of the bomb it would limit itself. The other side believed the reaction would carry on, destroying all life. They debated it occasionally back and forth.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-07-01 20:31
The 'other side' wasn't a bunch of blowhard w@nkers like us.

These were A-level scientists, who had some experimental evidence to back up their ideas, but not enough to say conclusively limitless destruction would occur.

And those m-f-s tested it. They took the chance with the whole planet.

Sleep tight!
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-07-01 22:14
And then when they exploded the first hydrogen bomb, and it just kept going and going (I think it ended up 2 or 3 times more powerful than they had predicted), some thought they were watching the entire atmosphere turn into an atomic chain reaction.

Talk about a hot time in the old town tonight!

There was a similar though much smaller chance that when they created that tiny black hole at CERN, that it could continue to suck matter in and expand until the entire solar system was consumed.

The thing about science is that one can never be really 100% certain of anything. It's all about the probabilities.

But in the case of the atomic bombs, the probabilities of things going very wrong were higher than many of us would have found acceptable (well, just that they work is things going wrong on one level).
 
 
-7 # Robbee 2016-06-30 17:40
now back to our lunatic problem here on rsn! - those who think getting bernie to run 3rd party does anything but elect rump? - well! bernie's too wise to fall for that! - sorry! lunatics! - bernie has read the 12th amendment! - knows we are a 2-party system! - sorry! lunatics! so! so! - sorry!

the good news here is that bernie maybe gets to be dem nominee for prez! - and even if he doesn't! he drives the dem party more! - yes! i say more! progressive!

the great news here is that instead of a new party, bernie has promised to lead a new progressive movement! - a "political revolution"! - that restores democracy by public funding! only! federal! state! and local! elections! - while automatically registering and guaranteeing every citizen's right to vote! - in reliable tallies! - and once citizens win the right to have their votes count! - no more private bribery! - overthrows plutocracy! restores democracy!

bernie has always said his revolution is about us 99%! - not him! - bernie's "political revolution" has just begun! - with astounding early success!

bernie, reich and i maintain here that such a movement - although radically progressive! at least the public funding only! part! - it has never been tried in almost 250+ years of america! it will take a constitutional amendment! should not be a dem cause alone! - we welcome conservatives and independents! as well as dems!

if any here cannot revolt? - at least stop 3rd party lunacy! thanks! - go bernie! go dem!
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-07-01 20:38
R, I think you raise some good points but you're ahead of the game. What do we need right now?
 
 
-6 # Robbee 2016-06-30 17:51
lie! - # grandlakeguy 2016-05-30 13:13
The green party could actually win with Bernie!

- sanders, rump and hill would all pick-off various states - assuring that none of them won a majority of the electoral college - throwing the election into our house of repugs - whereby rump's win would be assured!

read the 12th amendment! you do the math! - a 3-way race assures rump victory! - sorry!

a vote for anyone but the dem candidate! is a vote for rump! - sorry!

guy, you can't be stupid enough to accidentally promote a rump presidency! you are a liar! you are a rump trojan! you need to stop peddling your rump garbage here! begone troll! - go bernie! - then go dem! - sorry!
 
 
-6 # Robbee 2016-06-30 18:13
lie! - sitting around waiting for u.s. gov’t to collapse is no solution! - # RMDC 2016-06-15 18:38
Reform is not possible. All we can do is wait for the internal rot to grow and reach the point at which the regime collapses.

- what? r-? are you still here? your usual method is to cut and run? - okay? let's see how you ducked 4 questions? 1. yes (but) 2. yes (but) 3. I don't know 4. Yes (but)

THESE ARE SIMPLE QUESTIONS!!!

1) did obama or clinton torture prisoners?
YOU SAY NOTHING! ABOUT TORTURING PRISONERS! EXCEPT! ARGUING! WITH NO BASIS! THAT "Obama's CIA still runs torture camps all over the world" SO YOU KNOW WHAT NO ONE ELSE DOES? RIGHT?

2) is a generation of repug federal election wins worth 4 years of rump prez?
YOUR 2ND PROGRESSIVE PARTY GUARANTEES THAT CONSERVATIVES WIN NATIONAL ELECTIONS FOR THE REST OF OUR LIVES! HOW IS THAT WORTH 4 YEARS OF RUMP? LUNATIC?

3) does warren's hatred for rump justify her refusal to endorse hill or bernie?
SINCE YOU DON'T KNOW WHY WARREN HATES RUMP, WHY DON'T YOU MAKE IT A POINT TO FIND OUT? see warren’s collected remarks hating on rump and loving on hill and bernie on facebook! or twitter! or google it!

4) have democrats deployed massive efforts to prevent poor people from voting? ON MAY 5TH YOU SAY # RMDC 2016-05-05 12:57 "... There have been massive efforts by both republicans and democrats to prevent (poor people) from voting.” YOU DUCK! YOU QUACK! IT’S A SIMPLE QUESTION!!! THESE ARE ALL SIMPLE QUESTIONS!!!
 
 
-6 # Robbee 2016-06-30 18:28
lunatics do not want to live in a world where someone other than they! makes the world a better place! - the good is not the enemy of the perfect!

here's what rump can do! - what he promises to do as prez! - what, together with a repug congress, he will do!

1) torture prisoners!
2) kill spouses and children of enemies whom our "patriot act" says he names;
3) curb press free speech! also protect billionaires from slander!
4) on his first day in office, tear up the iran treaty (that prevents iran from building nukes!)
5) deport 11 million illegals!
6) build a wall clear across mexico!
7) make mexico pay for it (which takes invading and occupying mexico!)
8) nominate to scotus, a "justice", or 3, or 4, just like scalia!
9) abolish the inheritance tax! - our nation's ONLY TAX ON WEALTH! THAT REDISTRIBUTES WEALTH - AS IN SOCIALISM! - PART OF OUR LAW SINCE THE 1890'S - THE AGE OF ROBBER BARONS!
10) cut income taxes almost in half! for the rich only!
11) register muslims! ground muslims from air travel! ban new muslims from entry!
12) "rebuild our military!”
13) “make" america "great! again!”
14) abolish hate crimes!
15) abolish planned parenthood!
16) abolish dodd-frank! and
17) implement his “great”, secret plan to destroy isis!

wake up wm! before you scurry down rump's rat hole!
 
 
-6 # Robbee 2016-06-30 18:30
rump-kissers in denial, part 2

next! 12 things hill consistently promises! to do! - that rump promises not to!

1) equal pay for women!
2) paid family medical leave at birth!
3) raising the minimum wage to $12 per hour!
4) hill beat bernie to 1st proposing a path to citizenship for illegals!
5) civil rights for oppressed minorities - blacks! latinos! lgbt! muslims! and union members!
6) gun control! more progressive than bernie!
7) bernie and hill both endorse obama's iran treaty!
8) in 2006, while in the senate, hill proposed sweeping reform of shadow banking, including jailing banksters and protecting whistle-blowers!
9) while in the senate together, bernie and hill voted together 93% of the time!
10) hill proposes to gradually expand the ACA to cover everyone! - plus add the public option! - hill proposes incremental, but real, progress!
11) support choice! women’s reproductive rights!
12) fund planned parenthood!

note that military spending is not the be all! end all! of hill's campaign! - our choice! is clear! - between a serious conservative and a serious progressive! prez!

rump-kissers? - retreat to rump HQ! - once again! you shun! bernie! warren! reich! scott galindez! marc ash! steve weissman! wm. boardman! and frank rich! - go kiss rump!
 
 
-5 # Robbee 2016-06-30 18:34
oops! errata! - wm. boardman! has gone over to the dark side!

rump-kissers? - retreat to rump HQ! - once again! you shun! bernie! warren! reich! scott galindez! marc ash! steve weissman! and frank rich! - go kiss rump!
 
 
+3 # Timshel 2016-06-30 19:05
I hope Bernie strenuously objects to the platform - it is, for the most part, a vaguely worded piece of garbage that fools no one. The Clintonite arrogance in doing this is both stunning and very stupid. With this platform Trump will win and Hillary will have no one to blame but herself.
 
 
-6 # Robbee 2016-06-30 19:40
Quoting Timshel:
I hope Bernie strenuously objects to the platform - it is, for the most part, a vaguely worded piece of garbage that fools no one. The Clintonite arrogance in doing this is both stunning and very stupid. With this platform Trump will win and Hillary will have no one to blame but herself.


lie! - if the dem platform does no more than “ensuring millionaires can no longer pay a lower [tax] rate than their secretaries” - it is already a solid progressive platform! - well worthy of support by every progressive!

- go bernie! and go dem!
 
 
-6 # Robbee 2016-07-01 07:51
asks - # librarian1984 2016-07-01 02:26
Aren't 'revolutionary discipline' and 'compromise' contradictory?

no! when it's stupid not to compromise! to advance one's cause! it's UNDISCIPLINED not to! - folks here need to show some solidarity with bernie! who is our wise leader! - who is ready to compromise!

once upon a time ted kennedy blew off nixon's plan to do ACA, because ted hoped he could get single-payer! - that's stupid! that's UNDISCIPLINED! - that's lack of 'revolutionary discipline'! to stupidly fail to take what you can get! at a time when you can get no better!

signed in blood! - says stupid! UNDISCIPLINED! - # Billy Bob 2016-05-09 12:00
"... The actual left, on the other hand, has had enough and won't vote for another Clinton - PERIOD ... IF Hitlery manages to get the nomination anyway, vote for Sanders in the general election."

lie! - the actual left would vote for hill over rump every day!

the fake-left, as in GOP trolls! would visit rsn every day! - fighting to sew dissent! - fighting to stop progressives from voting hill! - at any cost! - even a rump presidency!

- this just in! - last year chelsea! yesterday bill! prove that hill is the only smart clinton! - bernie's odds of becoming prez just took a uuuge leap! - follow the bouncing lynch!
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-07-01 09:46
"folks here need to show some solidarity with bernie! who is our wise leader! - who is ready to compromise!"

My understanding is that Senator Sanders said HE would vote for Secretary Clinton but that she has to EARN his supporters' votes. He himself doesn't expect us to change without any effort on HRC's part.

I'm still waiting for ANY sign from HRC that she wants our vote. According to brock-ack we're not needed.

I think, R, that you and rocback are in conflict. You seem to think HRC desperately needs our votes, but rocbuck says that's not true. Which is it?

I agree that compromise is essential in politics, really its raison d'être, but compromise is a negotiation. That is what's happening now, at the platform committee meetings. We'll see what comes out of that process.

Sometimes it seems less that you want compromise than that you want immediate unconditional surrender.

We still have time. You seem like a man of action and urgency, but sometimes waiting and negotiating are what's called for, though it really is more difficult, at least I think so. You're a good fighter, but you also need to be a good planner, if that makes sense.

We have time to discuss, all of us.

And may I say thank you very much for this exchange. I hope even if we disagree we can stay friendly.



SO tell me what you've heard about Bill and Loretta .....

Seriously, what have you heard?

Would you say your sources are reliable? I am beginning to doubt all of them. Geez.
 
 
0 # Robbee 2016-07-09 20:19
asks - # librarian1984 2016-07-01 09:46
I think, R, that you and rocback are in conflict. You seem to think HRC desperately needs our votes, but rocbuck says that's not true. Which is it?

- i can's speak for roc! - often i find he conveys info helpful to get hill's side of what we often get only one side here - i barely read roc other than for info - so i can't comment on whether he says hill doesn't need our votes

to distinguish us from hill - lets call us "more-progressi ves" - our goal is to remake america like us - bernie and i share 2 more goals - 1) to overthrow plutocracy, by imposing public funding, only, of federal, state and local elections; and 2) to remake the dem party like us

in our 2-party system, for us to vote for anyone other than hill, is to vote for a serious conservative - rump

we have never been closer to remaking the dem party in our image - like bernie - who wisely chooses to invest his energy remaking the dem party - we need to do likewise

rsn commenters are largely soreheads pissed off at our decades-long failure to remake the dem party like us - they have quit on bernie - they are pathetic creatures - dying to make us less relevant to politics - the worst thrash around in counter-product ive schemes - like forming a 3rd presidential party - in other words a 2nd progressive one - which, if successful, guarantees conservatives win elections for the rest of our lives
 
 
0 # Robbee 2016-07-09 20:51
reference desk, part 2

i'm the conscience of rsn - who holds up a mirror to our readers - saying the same things as steve galindez, marc ash, frank rich and bernie - so we can, if we want, see ourselves as constructive participants in our serious movement

do we choose to remain pissed-off soreheads? spinning our wheels forever? getting nowhere? - or do we choose to be part of the solution? fixing america? restoring democracy?

- the only thing i noticed roc say that outraged me was that bernie should drop out of the race! - i pray bernie never quits trying to remake the dem party like us! - or for public funding only! - or to remake america! - if i had my way bernie would take our 1900 delegates to the convention! and argue for the most progressive platform we can get!

go bernie! and go dem!
 

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