RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Ash writes: "Bernie Sanders never gave a damn about being president. He wanted to return control of the political process to average Americans. He still wants to do that. No it's not over, far from it."

DeRay Mckesson going to jail to stop the madness in Baton Rouge Lousiana. (photo: dc gazette)
DeRay Mckesson going to jail to stop the madness in Baton Rouge Lousiana. (photo: dc gazette)


No Bernie's Not Going to Be President, Stop Crying

By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News

14 July 16

 

ernie Sanders never gave a damn about being president. He wanted to return control of the political process to average Americans. He still wants to do that.

No it’s not over, far from it.

The U.S. presidency has been reduced to a television production. Having a dedicated, trustworthy leader in the Oval Office might have helped, or not. The air in there is pretty claustrophobic, certainly not a nurturing environment for an honest man. Which is what Bernie is, and incidentally why he lost.

If you supported Bernie you supported fundamental political change for the country. You can continue to embrace that struggle or wait for it to overtake you from behind. Better to embrace it.

There was a surge of energy that carried Bernie and the cause he championed to national prominence. You who supported him were that energy. You have started a revolution. You must not abandon what you began.

The realization in the hearts and minds of common Americans that there is something terribly wrong with the political process is starting to take hold. As it does so, the conviction that something must be done grows with it.

Resolve.

A revolution does not require storming the barricades. It requires, above all, resolve, commitment to an ideal. America is a democracy as long as we the people continue to use the organs of democracy. You have the right to speak – speak!

The authorities believed in 2012 that they successfully crushed the Occupy movement. But they only suppressed the symptom. The disease remained. Utter social and political corruption. Bernie’s campaign and now movement is the re-emergence of the Occupy cause. The objectives are the same. But it’s no longer in a sleeping bag in the park. It’s wide awake, walking down Main Street in Mainstream USA.

What is required is long term commitment to correcting the problem. There’s an old saying: everyone gets knocked down, winners get back up. As often as there are setbacks it is imperative to come back each time with greater resolve.

This movement continues to grow despite everything thrown at it. Conduct yourselves with integrity always. Maintain Pete Seeger’s “chain of hand on hand.” It cannot be broken.



Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.

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

 
+46 # RMDC 2016-07-14 14:33
"What is required is long term commitment to correcting the problem. "

Yes, this is the challenge ahead. The first step is to identify the problem. I think Sanders did that. The problem is the democratic party and its control by the Clinton machine. Smashing the Clinton machine by whatever means necessary ought to be the first priority. This means, Sanders should never give his support to Hillary. He should go to the Greens and bring all his supporters there. He would work for a coalition between the Greens and Libertarians. This coalition party just might win.

Endorsing Hillary is totally the wrong way to go. IT does not solve the problem; it compounds the problem.
 
 
+56 # Radscal 2016-07-14 15:01
You do know that Sanders has endorsed HRC, and committed to campaign for her, right?

As Marc writes, "Having a dedicated, trustworthy leader in the Oval Office might have helped, or not."

I don't know if electing a truly progressive President would automatically result in promotion of progressive policies. I don't know if the elite will ever permit a shift in government policies that benefit the 99% of the world.

But I am quite sure that putting HRC in the White House again will set back progressive policies. Her supporters have always defended even her most egregious actions, and are sure to continue.

I"m onboard to do everything I can to get Jill Stein elected. But having seen the ease with which elections have been flipped, I'm back to not having much faith in progress through the political process.
 
 
+47 # RMDC 2016-07-14 19:27
Sanders can unendorse Hillary any time he wants. Maybe the right time would be just as Hillary swerves hard to the right to pick up republican and conservative voters who can't stomach Trump.

It may appear he has sold his soul to the devil, but he has not.

Hillary in the White House will be just exactly the same as Bush, Obama, Bill Clinton and the rest back to Reagan. She'll have her style just as Bush had his and Obama had his. But the policies will be exactly the same.

Sanders may wake up and realize he made a mistake when he sees his supporters walking away from him.
 
 
+1 # Mako 2016-07-15 08:09
Quoting RMDC:
Sanders can unendorse Hillary any time he wants. Maybe the right time would be just as Hillary swerves hard to the right to pick up republican and conservative voters who can't stomach Trump.

It may appear he has sold his soul to the devil, but he has not.

Hillary in the White House will be just exactly the same as Bush, Obama, Bill Clinton and the rest back to Reagan. She'll have her style just as Bush had his and Obama had his. But the policies will be exactly the same.

Sanders may wake up and realize he made a mistake when he sees his supporters walking away from him.


He would look ridiculous "unendorsing" someone. That's what stupid Repubs do in regards to Trump. If you really think he's that dumb and unaware of who he endorses, then you have a low opinion of his intelligence.
 
 
+1 # rayb-baby 2016-07-15 11:41
Totally disagree! Just like a large part of our nation has evolved on a variety of issues (look at LGBT rights, marriage and other issues that a few years ago who would have thought), Hillary has admitted mistakes she's made and has also evolved. The Bernie revolution has had a significant impact and will only be destroyed if Agent Orange wins this election. Unless Bernie ends up on the Dem ballot, I'm voting Hillary like my LIFE DEPENDS ON IT, because it damn well does. It amazes me how many RSN readers are TOO NAIVE to see that.

OK, load me with the thumbs down. I didn't used to, but I now consider that a badge of honor here.
 
 
+2 # RMF 2016-07-15 13:37
Agree completely. Supporter of Bernie from the get-go -- both cash and advocacy -- and I still support the Bernie revolution, but I refuse to elevate the GOP by tearing down the Clinton-Dem party at voting time, and therefore will be voting Clinton since Bernie won't be on the ballot. With this choice, I won't be making the mistake many of my friends made in 2000 when they voted for Nader. Many of my friends now regret that decision, and I am hopeful many other progressives learned their lesson in 2000 and won't make the same mistake this time around.
 
 
+3 # RMF 2016-07-15 13:48
PS -- the question we have to ask our collective self is "would we progressives rather have Trump/GOP in the White House?"
When phrased that way the question points to only one responsible answer -- and disposes of the issue entirely.
Any responsible view on advancing the progressive agenda going forward demands a vote for Clinton in Nov.
 
 
-10 # rayb-baby 2016-07-15 15:51
The Bernie-BOTS are NOT responsible. Their hatred of Hillary is so deeply ingrained that their capability of a rational thought process has been thoroughly corrupted.
 
 
+2 # CL38 2016-07-16 15:00
rayb's ramping up for a major crockrac, lights, ericlipps, etc. meltdown.
 
 
+9 # Radscal 2016-07-15 16:45
"Hillary has admitted mistakes she's made and has also evolved"

I think a President should have leadership skills. That includes foresight. HRC has consistently "evolved" when her staff triangulates that she'd get more votes by that "evolution."

But even after Obama acknowledges that Libya was his biggest error, HRC continues to defend our destroying what had been the most prosperous country on the continent, and turning a secular country into a hotbed of Jihadist nut jobs.
 
 
+2 # CL38 2016-07-16 14:59
sorry, I made a 'mistake' -- instead of voting you up, voted you down. wish Clinton's mistakes were as unintentional & harmless.
 
 
+7 # laurele 2016-07-15 11:45
Many of his supporters understand there very likely were threats by the DNC involved in getting him to do this and do not view Bernie as a sellout. At the same time, we will NEVER vote for Hillary.
 
 
+6 # MainStreetMentor 2016-07-15 19:50
It’s the corrupt political machine that I fight – regardless of who stands at its’ helm. HRC is, and always has been, a manipulator – a “string puller” – an “in-the-backgro und” exploiter, waiting for the opportune moment to “jump out” and appear as the “savior” of the political situation at hand, when it is she who planned, created and staged the political situation in the first place. She did, (and does), constantly, consistently and continuously see the political machine is at the apex of its’ working order – for HER benefit, not the party’s, not the people’s. I am sick of the scripted drama created by that machine, which SHE wrote or caused to be written … and I WILL be voting for a write-in candidate, NOT for HRC. I don’t know that my selected candidate will have a chance to win – but I know that it lessens HRC’s political machine to win – and that’s MY goal. I want to send a message to HRC and both major political parties: Your methods of “crow-barring” a candidate into office will no longer work – and that mind set came from none other than Senator Bernie Sanders’ efforts. To those who say: “Your method helps the opposition win.” I reply: Then the people who oiled and greased the political machines should have taken that into consideration when they started their inner manipulations.
 
 
+1 # CL38 2016-07-16 14:58
here. here.
 
 
+41 # jimallyn 2016-07-14 23:05
Quoting Radscal:
You do know that Sanders has endorsed HRC, and committed to campaign for her, right?

And you do know that Bernie Sanders has not dropped out of the race, and is planning to show up at the convention with 1900 delegates in tow, right?
 
 
+31 # Radscal 2016-07-14 23:18
Yep. His campaign manger, Weaver did say he would not fight against TPP, or really any more of his policies though.

But I'm glad he's hanging in there, and if somehow HRC ends up not getting the nomination, I'm still anxious to work for getting Sanders elected.
 
 
-4 # rayb-baby 2016-07-15 11:51
"and if somehow HRC ends up not getting the nomination,"
Yeah, tons of us would love to see that happen and Bernie get the nod. Unfortunately, that's not likely to happen and if it doesn't, I'll be TOTALLY on board with Hillary because consequences of Agent Orange getting in are FAR worse than Hillary. In fact, with the impact that Bernie has had on the platform and Hillary's evolved postions, she could possibly be better than we ever thought possible.
 
 
-3 # rayb-baby 2016-07-15 15:53
Nah! Nothing's possible according to you thumbs down fools.
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-07-15 16:51
As the Clintons clearly have the Attorney General bagged, HRC may get away with her crimes.

Although, Comey is still working on the Clinton Foundation scams, and that could be too big NOT to jail.

Also, with her numbers continuing to slide, the Democratic Party may come to its senses and nominate the candidate who handily beats ANY Republican who ends up on the ballot.
 
 
+5 # Capn Canard 2016-07-15 19:57
rayb, I don't think Agent Orange will get elected because those who control the votes don't seem to like the color orange. The vote counters, like all wealthy people, want Hillary. Hence cool your jets, you can worship at the throne of Queen Hillary... presuming there is an election. No guarantee.
 
 
+3 # Caliban 2016-07-17 15:45
No election? Get real, Captain or you may get busted down to Seaman Apprentice. There is a difference between realism and paranoia, and the latter gets you the sick bay.
 
 
0 # Mako 2016-07-15 08:08
Quoting jimallyn:
Quoting Radscal:
You do know that Sanders has endorsed HRC, and committed to campaign for her, right?

And you do know that Bernie Sanders has not dropped out of the race, and is planning to show up at the convention with 1900 delegates in tow, right?


That's right. He earned them. He should show up with them. But they aren't enough to win. And he's going to happily endorse THE WINNER at the convention. Did you not hear his own words? He hasn't dropped out of the race because he's using the race as a means of continually advocating for his ideas and ensuring they're out there and enshrined in the platform.
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-07-16 14:55
don't count on a 'happily' endorsement.
 
 
+15 # EternalTruth 2016-07-15 08:46
"I don't know if the elite will ever permit a shift in government policies that benefit the 99% of the world. "

Of course they won't "permit" it. But if the rest of us decide to make it happen, there's not a damn thing they could do about it. I don't think we will, as most of the "we" in question are firmly tuned in the the MSM brainwashing machine, but in theory, if we could break through the fog and rouse the 99% currently getting screwed by the system, overthrowing that system would be a cakewalk.
 
 
+10 # Radscal 2016-07-15 16:54
We certainly outnumber the elite.

And non-violent revolutions have succeeded. Only when the military/police refuse to kill their "fellow" citizens, though and I'm not so confident one way or the other on that.

BTW: is there a non-gendered replacement for "fellow citizens?"
 
 
+4 # economagic 2016-07-15 17:54
"Sisters and brothers"? :-)
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-07-15 20:21
:-)

But I'm looking for a term that encapsulates all citizens of a specific country.

Back in the 1980s, I wrote the newsletter, brochures and ad copy for the sailing school where I worked, and largely because I was committed to encouraging more women to become skippers, I sought gender-neutral terminology. I like to think I'm pretty good at it.

But "fellow citizens" or the even more blatantly gender-biased "countrymen" has me stymied.
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-07-16 11:31
When I see the word 'fellow' in a phrase like 'fellow citizens' or 'fellowship', I don't think of it as a male word, and the dictionary says not only that it can be used as a gender-neutral term but that etymologically it does not carry the sense of masculinity but rather of partnership.

The neutral perception might not hold if we used the word 'fellow' more often but when is the last time you did? And what is the female counterpart to 'fellow'?

Otherwise I haven't thought of a replacement but if I do I'll let you know.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-07-16 16:44
Thanks librarian. I'll try not to feel so self-conscious when I use it, but will continue to look for a replacement, too.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-07-16 19:47
Quoting Radscal:
We certainly outnumber the elite.
And non-violent revolutions have succeeded. Only when the military/police refuse to kill their "fellow" citizens, though

So should we all make friends with a cop before the conventions?
 
 
+4 # Capn Canard 2016-07-15 20:01
ET, I agree. If this election actually takes place, it will be a fuggin carnival. I predict Hillary will be crowned, but I feat that there may not even be an election.
 
 
-31 # Mako 2016-07-14 15:11
Quoting RMDC:

Yes, this is the challenge ahead. The first step is to identify the problem. I think Sanders did that. The problem is the democratic party and its control by the Clinton machine. Smashing the Clinton machine by whatever means necessary ought to be the first priority. This means, Sanders should never give his support to Hillary. He should go to the Greens and bring all his supporters there. He would work for a coalition between the Greens and Libertarians. This coalition party just might win.

Endorsing Hillary is totally the wrong way to go. IT does not solve the problem; it compounds the problem.


Do you understand how loony you sound?

He just endorsed Hillary Clinton and gave a full-throated endorsement of her, and stated VERY CLEARLY that if you WANT HIS POLICIES ENACTED you put HER in office so that progress can CONTINUE. So that CHANGE can continue. So that the REVOLUTION can continue.

See, you don't want to work. You wanted a messisah who would get it done in November, and let you find some new fad for you to latch onto and incorporate into your virtue-signalli ng identity.

You have no interest or idea of how to actually CONTINUE the work, or even meet with other people and constructively and democratically come to conclusions that we ALL want to happen.

Greens don't win elections. Ever. "Green" stands for "Getting Republicans Elected Especially in November."
 
 
+23 # RMDC 2016-07-14 19:29
Make -- are you on drugs? Have the democrats eaten out your brain. The future needs to be free of the democrat party. One way or another, the democrat party needs to die. Trump may be killing the republican party, so we do not need a messiah. An avenging angel might work.
 
 
-12 # rayb-baby 2016-07-15 11:57
"Make -- are you on drugs?"
I don't think he is, but I think this just might be you and most of the RSN commenters brain on drugs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FtNm9CgA6U
 
 
+1 # RMF 2016-07-15 13:57
RMDC -- With due respect, given the substance of your remarks, I have to ask -- would you rather see Trump/GOP in White house?
As a Bernie supporter (both cash and advocacy) I certainly do not, and for that reason will be voting Clinton.
Bernie is in line for the Senate Budget Committee, and if a Clinton/Dem victory can help restore a Dem majority in the Senate then Bernie will chair the Budget Committee, and exercise scrutiny over the Clinton budget -- he would not have any such authority over a GOP/Trump budget. So anyone who advocates Bernie's program needs to vote Clinton in Nov. It's simply that this is where that half-loaf, common sense decision rule comes into play.
 
 
+29 # wrknight 2016-07-14 21:48
Quoting Mako:
Greens don't win elections. Ever. "Green" stands for "Getting Republicans Elected Especially in November."
Greens (or anyone else) won't win because YOU and your ilk won't allow them to win. By refusing to vote for anyone but the dems or repubs YOU are guaranteeing eternal oppression at the hands of the demorepub duopoly.

You must really like the two party system that holds the vast majority of us hostage to the Deep State.
 
 
+25 # lfeuille 2016-07-14 23:45
Not really. It's the people who don't hang out on left wing sites who won't vote Green in large enough numbers to
get them elected to high office because they

1. Don't know who they are.

2. Assume they are a single issue party

3. Expect people who run for president to actively seek their votes by campaigning around the country and let the people access not only their policies, but their trustworthiness and determination for themselves. Web sites are not enough.

4. Expect presidential candidates to have a record in elective office that they can check out and in most cases have reached the level or governor or senator.
 
 
-15 # Mako 2016-07-15 07:29
Quoting wrknight:
Quoting Mako:
Greens don't win elections. Ever. "Green" stands for "Getting Republicans Elected Especially in November."
Greens (or anyone else) won't win because YOU and your ilk won't allow them to win. By refusing to vote for anyone but the dems or repubs YOU are guaranteeing eternal oppression at the hands of the demorepub duopoly.

You must really like the two party system that holds the vast majority of us hostage to the Deep State.


You're damn right we won't because we live in reality. This is a two party system and the electoral college makes any 3rd party basically DOA. It's a waste of time that you don't seem to get. Instead of chasing unicorns, I'd rather my vote count and actually WORK towards moving the party in a progressive direction.

I like making progress, helping PEOPLE with actual policy, and keeping Repubs out of office. What do YOU like? I'm glad to know MY vote got people health care, protected women's rights, protected LGBT rights, worked towards the strengthening of the middle class, and NOT give Repubs the reigns to govern.

What the did YOUR vote for Stein do? It went down the toilet.
 
 
+12 # DogSoldier 2016-07-15 12:55
I'd rather flush my vote down the toilet than see $hillary Clinton in the oval office. I'll be voting Green, and if that causes Trump to win, tough shit. You should have found a better candidate than neo-con Clinton.
 
 
+2 # CL38 2016-07-16 14:52
Living in Mako's 'reality'?? He refuses to see the democrats are no longer working for or with the 99%. They're 1% GOP/Dems.

Until you see / acknowledge THIS reality, you're just 'spinnin' your wheels'.
 
 
+15 # economagic 2016-07-15 07:13
Please don't feed the trolls. It distracts us from what is at least part of the time a reasoned discussion of serious issues.

Think of these forums as an institution for organizing based on mutual education, somewhat analogous to the Committees of Correspondence of a previous revolutionary era. To keep our eyes on the prize we need to tune out the distractions.
 
 
-16 # Mako 2016-07-15 07:32
Quoting economagic:
Please don't challenge your single-issue mindedness and primary sour grapes! It distracts us from having an echo chamber removed from 90% of other individuals on the left who've moved onto real issues.


Fixed that for you.
 
 
-5 # rayb-baby 2016-07-15 12:09
So, anyone who is not in lockstep with you and the Bernie-bots is a troll? How about those of us who are ACTUALLY in lockstep with Bernie STILL? Sorry, my friend, but I think that makes the majority of commenters and thumbs up and downers here the REAL trolls. THAT MEANS YOU TOO!
 
 
+17 # djnova50 2016-07-15 09:01
"Greens don't win elections. Ever."

Greens have won state and local elections across the country. But, the main reason that they don't win Presidential elections is because of the undemocratic election process. Also, Greens as well as other 3rd party candidates are not included in the debates.
 
 
+15 # laurele 2016-07-15 11:43
Why do you assume we cannot work for the goals of the political revolution without supporting her? Bernie knows his supporters have our own minds and cannot be herded, and he respects that. There is more than one way to accomplish our goals. Many of us will work to get his policies enacted but not through her. And yes, Greens can win elections. They can also win policy victories through advocacy and legislation. Never has there been a better climate for third parties in this country.
 
 
+12 # DaveEwoldt 2016-07-15 14:03
Quoting Mako:
[quote name="RMDC"]
Greens don't win elections. Ever. "Green" stands for "Getting Republicans Elected Especially in November."


I hate to burst your fantasy bubble, but there are over 100 elected Greens around the U.S. and the Green Party shares power in ruling coalitions in other countries around the world.
 
 
+1 # CL38 2016-07-16 14:49
"Do you understand how loony you sound?" Over and over?
 
 
+50 # grandlakeguy 2016-07-14 17:26
Hillary Clinton is no better than a Republican.
I cannot support a corporate owned war loving hand picked servant of the status-quo.
HRC is the epitome of the problem of non-choice in the election process.
To support her only legitimizes what is clearly a corrupt and undemocratic stranglehold on what was intended by the founders of this republic to be a governing system that represents "WE THE PEOPLE".
To forget that ideal and to support such a terrible political hack is to abandon the principle of freedom that so many Americans have fought and died for.
Are we free if our only choice is Clinton or Trump?

I will support Jill Stein and the Green party.

At least after casting that vote I will not have to find the nearest restroom to vomit!
 
 
# Guest 2016-07-15 07:37
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+14 # cymricmorty 2016-07-15 08:30
Quoting Mako:

Hillary Wants to expand access to Health care, raise minimum wage, raise tax rates on the wealthy, protect minorities, protect women's rights, and even has Sanders' endorsement.


And she held up under "sniper fire," too.
 
 
-11 # rayb-baby 2016-07-15 12:12
I'll be happy "to find the nearest restroom to vomit" rather than see Agent Orange win the WH, because that's all you're contributing to.
 
 
+12 # DogSoldier 2016-07-15 12:59
Quoting rayb-baby:
I'll be happy "to find the nearest restroom to vomit" rather than see Agent Orange win the WH, because that's all you're contributing to.


Tough shit! You should have nominated a better candidate. If the only way you can get people to vote for her is through fear mongering, that doesn't leave $hillary in a very good light.
 
 
+9 # cymricmorty 2016-07-15 14:06
Sane Progressive: Democratic Party & Clinton NOT Seeking Unity with Sanders Supporters But Obedience

Watch the goon in the suit, Democratic security, demonstrate how it's "Better Together." (position 1:06)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8svTegZe9UI
 
 
+8 # Radscal 2016-07-15 17:15
Isn't that startling?

Not surprising. After all, we saw the DNC bring in armed agents to shut down the Las Vegas Convention when Sanders supporters insisted on them following their own rules.

But the sort of thuggishness required to push and rip a sign out of the hand of a tiny old lady is startling. But I guess that's HRC's version of "feminism."
 
 
-9 # RMF 2016-07-15 14:09
To crzkat -- rayb-baby was not endowed with the authority to "have nominated a better candidate" -- it was all the other Dem voters who had that power -- and they have chosen Clinton, something I as Bernie supporter regret, but am now prepared to live with and will be voting Clinton/Dem as it's the only remaining responsible action available.
 
 
+9 # DogSoldier 2016-07-15 15:13
Quoting RMF:
To crzkat -- rayb-baby was not endowed with the authority to "have nominated a better candidate" -- it was all the other Dem voters who had that power -- and they have chosen Clinton, something I as Bernie supporter regret, but am now prepared to live with and will be voting Clinton/Dem as it's the only remaining responsible action available.


I won't. Bernie was the only reason I was thinking about voting for a Democrat anyway. I didn't like Clinton in 08, got fooled by Obomber, and after her disastrous State Department soiree I hate her more than ever.
 
 
-7 # rayb-baby 2016-07-15 16:10
Boo Hoo! So what ya gonna do now? Just let the whole fuckin' system crash under Agent Orange? Wise move. N O T !
 
 
-7 # rayb-baby 2016-07-15 16:06
I TRIED to nominate a better candidate, you damn fool. HE LOST TO HILLARY, or didn't you notice! And like BERNIE, I will do ANYTHING I can to defeat Agent Orange, which means voting for Hillary. I'm not the one taking his ball home and leaving everyone behind because he didn't get everything he wanted.
 
 
+24 # ChakraTalk 2016-07-14 22:04
Could be that Bernie's siding with Hillary because he feels he can influence her and her husband from the inside. I don't think he's lost sight of his higher value. Just finding a way that he can sway the activities that will go on, if Hillary wins. How about "BernHillary"?
 
 
+22 # lfeuille 2016-07-14 23:47
I doubt it. I think he is seriously worried about a Trump victory.
 
 
+8 # Annette Saint John Lawrence 2016-07-15 05:28
Quoting lfeuille:
I doubt it. I think he is seriously worried about a Trump victory.


Are you kidding? Our nation is composed of some of the most ignorant uneducated spooled brats who still don't now whose buried in Grant's tomb.
 
 
+6 # Blackjack 2016-07-15 13:13
My Gawd, Annette, don't be talking about ignorance when your writing skills are so horrid!
 
 
+5 # lfeuille 2016-07-15 16:19
Which is relevant to what? I believe Bernie when he says he if afraid of a Trump victory but I am more afraid of a Clinton victory.
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-07-15 17:17
"ignorant uneducated spooled brats who still don't now whose buried in Grant's tomb."

LOL. I do love me some irony.
 
 
-10 # Mako 2016-07-15 07:38
Quoting ChakraTalk:
Could be that Bernie's siding with Hillary because he feels he can influence her and her husband from the inside. I don't think he's lost sight of his higher value. Just finding a way that he can sway the activities that will go on, if Hillary wins. How about "BernHillary"?


Wow, someone who thinks critically and can see the obvious. Thank you.
 
 
+8 # Hey There 2016-07-14 22:07
If I were allowed to click LIKE 100,000 times I would do so.
 
 
+52 # dipierro4 2016-07-14 22:13
Sanders' role is not the same as yours or mine. He is a US Senator, now with considerable influence in the Dem party. Bolting the party probably would only serve to marginalize him.

It may be right for you or me to vote for Stein (I probably will), but that doesn't mean it is right for him to bolt the party.

Staying in the party, he will have influence in certain areas, in particular issues of economic justice. He won't likely be able to stop Hillary from putting neocons in charge of State and Defense, or wield a shred of influence in that area, but he wouldn't be able to if he endorsed Jill Stein or joined her, either.

I don't endorse Hillary, but I do not fault Sen. Sanders for doing so.

If we want change to come about, we need to accept that different people have different roles to play. We do our cause no good by acting otherwise.
 
 
+16 # lfeuille 2016-07-14 23:54
We still will get no more than incrementalism out of a HRC administration. Unless Bernie is able to get a WHOLE BUNCH of new progressives elected HRC will ignore him once in office.

I think it would be much easier for him to do that if he hadn't endorsed her and isn't running around the country trying to get her elected. It really muddles the message. And accepting defeat on TPP is too much for many progressive to abide.
 
 
+20 # tedrey 2016-07-15 05:56
Bernie has never implied he will "run around the country trying to get her elected": he HAS said that he will run around the country trying to get *progressives" elected. Let's help with that.
 
 
-11 # rayb-baby 2016-07-15 07:33
Getting a handful of progressives elected won't make a damn bit of difference if Agent Orange ends up in the WH. The only way they will have any impact is if Hillary is elected. I refuse to flush the whole damn system down the drain with a narcissistic, misogynistic, white supremacist, fascist as president. I'll be holding my nose and voting for Hillary, unless by some miracle Bernie ends up with the nomination.
The rest of you can take your toys and run home because you didn't get everything you wanted and watch as the world burns if Trump wins.

I'll be waiting for a slew of thumbs down. Much appreciated in advance.
 
 
+9 # Helga Fellay 2016-07-15 09:40
rayb-baby - baby indeed. "watch as the world burns if Trump wins" - Trump is not interested in the "world", his focus is domestic. It's Clinton who has delusions about ruling an empire. If Clinton gets into the WH, the world will indeed burn, not only the Middle East, but the next major confrontation she and her minions have been working towards is with Russia, meaning WWIII. Trump (and I agree with all the adjectives you gave him) would not go that route. So if you truly are worried about the world burning, avoid a Hillary victory at all costs. Even a possible Trump victory is less dangerous for us and the world, regardless of how disgusting and repulsive he is.
 
 
-11 # rayb-baby 2016-07-15 11:09
You don't thnk that Agent Orange is interested in the world? How naive can you be? He's plastering his name in whatever country he can. He shifts jobs to the cheap labor nations to maximize profits and have further influence in those countries. In the mean- time, we'll lose SCOTUS for AT LEAST a generation and the Y U U G E implication of that, maybe forever if he gets what he really wants, a fascist dictatorship.

Yeah, I'd rather have Bernie, but as bad as Hillary is, I'll take her over Agent Orange any day.
 
 
-9 # rayb-baby 2016-07-15 12:19
Have you NOT been paying attention? OF COURSE he'll be trying to help Hillary get elected. Does him saying that he'll do anything to defeat Agent Orange not mean ANYTHING to you? YEEEESH!
 
 
-5 # rayb-baby 2016-07-15 16:20
You BOTS are TRULY AS STUPID as a teabagger. Does the truth hurt that much? Can ANYONE prove that what I just said in my comment is wrong? NO YOU CAN'T! All of your thumbs down PROVE my point. TRULY AS STUPID as a teabagger.
 
 
+5 # lfeuille 2016-07-15 16:22
Yes he has. He has said he will actively campaign for her especially if swing states and also try to get progressives elected. The problem is the 2 things just don't belong together.
 
 
# Guest 2016-07-15 07:40
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
-5 # RMF 2016-07-15 14:13
Incrementalism is better than backsliding. As a Bernie supporter, I will vote Clinton to avoid the Trump/GOP backsliding that would immediately ensue.
 
 
+5 # lfeuille 2016-07-15 16:44
Incrementalism amounts to backsliding. The neoliberal grip of gov't thinking drags the 99% down at an accelerating pace and the few sops thrown to progressive are totally inadequate to even maintain the status quo. The middle-class and the poor end up worse off than before just like with Obama.
 
 
-1 # RMF 2016-07-16 12:16
Lets look at this arithmetically.

Incrementalism is a Positive value, moving forward slowly or even remaining stationary, but protecting past gains.

Backsliding is a Negative value, representing the repealing or trashing of past gains, not to mention new right wing proposals waiting for roll-out.

And by the way, the middle-class and poor are not worse off than before Obama, but more importantly they would be a lot worse off under Trump/GOP.

For example, just take a look at the Clinton/Trump responses in latest AARP magazine about protecting Soc Sec. The Trump response is the same old worn out story about a vigorous economy raising all boats (straight out of the Laffer Curve playbook) and does not even lend conceptual support to Soc Sec as an institution, and thus betrays a desire to privatize the entire Soc Sec program.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-07-17 09:37
But I believe HRC ALSO intends to privatize SS.
 
 
-1 # RMF 2016-07-20 10:01
Read the AARP responses -- you will find strong support for Soc Sec from Hillary.
 
 
+2 # Caliban 2016-07-17 15:54
dipierro4 -- Well said.
 
 
-15 # Robbee 2016-07-15 07:48
Quoting RMDC:
(bernie should) work for a coalition between the Greens and Libertarians. This coalition party just might win.

- nonsense! greens and libertarians have nothing in common - except that they are both irrelevant! - at the same time striving to become less relevant!

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

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

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

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

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

after 16 years of post-nader hangover in american policy - stein is too full of herself!

- go bernie! and go dem!
 
 
-8 # rayb-baby 2016-07-15 12:26
Many of us are totally in favor of the idea of building a third party. However, many of us are also not stupid enough to just throw away our votes in such a critical time as now. Go Bernie and continue to help build a political revolution. Go Jill to continue to build a party ........ AFTER THE ELECTION, because I ain't gonna vote for ya now.
 
 
-1 # DogSoldier 2016-07-15 13:03
Don't worry, the Greens will become known after this election as the people who destroyed $hillary and the Dumbocrats. Be prepared to lose, I'm not afraid of Donald Trump, we've survived lots of assholes in the White House.
 
 
-1 # Mako 2016-07-15 14:54
Quoting crzkat:
Don't worry, the Greens will become known after this election as the people who destroyed $hillary and the Dumbocrats. Be prepared to lose, I'm not afraid of Donald Trump, we've survived lots of assholes in the White House.


No. WHITE RICH PEOPLE have survived lots of assholes (i.e. Republicans) in the White House.

People of color, women, LGBT, the poor, and the sick get fucked over and forgotten. As long as you have your shit and can feel "pure" as a liberal, who fucking cares, right?

God, your hypocrisy is sickening. No, a lot of people DIDN'T survive. Pretty sure the guy who got shipped to Iraq in 2002 and came back in a box, fucking didn't.
 
 
+2 # DogSoldier 2016-07-15 15:18
$hillary voted to send him there. She was behind the Afghan surge, and has threatened a no fly zone in Syria, which will bring the Russians into the war, and threatens Iran too, because it's good for Bibi. That bitch will have us in WWIII in no time flat. Hope you don't have any kids of draft age. But then that probably wouldn't matter in WWIII after the nukes start flying.
 
 
-5 # rayb-baby 2016-07-15 16:24
Guess what? Putin isn't ANYWHERE NEAR that stupid to start flying nukes and neither are we. But you, on the other hand, are a damn fool.
 
 
-4 # Mako 2016-07-15 17:03
Quoting crzkat:
$hillary voted to send him there. She was behind the Afghan surge, and has threatened a no fly zone in Syria, which will bring the Russians into the war, and threatens Iran too, because it's good for Bibi. That bitch will have us in WWIII in no time flat. Hope you don't have any kids of draft age. But then that probably wouldn't matter in WWIII after the nukes start flying.


Racist AND misogynist. A two for one special.

And you know what, you don't get to use war or loss of life as your justification for not backing Hillary anymore. Fuck that.

Because you don't give a FUCK about the poor, the sick or the old who'd DIE if the ACA was taken from them. You don't give a FUCK about the black people who'd get shot or killed under Trump and his racist Justice Dept. You don't give a FUCK about the Mexicans or Muslims who would be deported, beaten, or killed thanks to Trump sowing more racism.

Trump gets backing from the KKK, David Duke, /pol, nativists, Evangelicals, and EVERY RIGHT WING HATE GROUP.

And you don't care if he's thrust upon US at all.

You don't fucking care about life at all. So ANYTIME you bring up some BS lies about "that bitch" and her starting WWIII, you're a hypocrite who gives no fucks about the LIVES LOST in the VERY FUCKING COUNTRY THEY'RE LIVING IN. Lies AND hypocrisy.
 
 
+5 # lfeuille 2016-07-15 16:46
That happen under the first Clinton as well. I do not expect more from Clinton II.
 
 
+2 # Vardoz 2016-07-15 12:05
Bernie had to endorse HRC to make it to the convention & to continue to promote his very important message. Even FRD endorsed his opponent. Many hopes & dreams have been dashed. But I have urged people on Facebook & on the blogs to call their Super delegates & tell them if they don't endorse Bernie they will not be getting your vote.
I am sure there will be a mass exodus from the DNC. Also I have been urging Bernie supporters to vote for
Progressives that support Bernie's agenda in every town, city and state, as well as to the house & senate. Bernie is recruiting many to run. If Jill Stein gets on the ballot, I believe, that millions will flock to vote for her because the choices people are faced with are so repugnant. But we must change the house and senate & we have already contacted many establishment reps to tell them we will be voting Bernie Progressive next round. The more that call the better. 202-224-3121, dial zero and ask for your rep. We also tell them that we know HRC stole the election & that Bernie is the true winner & could beat Trump tomorrow. But this ruthless Oligarchy that is holding us hostage hates a Democracy & the reps that are serving them are taking bribes to support the status quo. Bernie has a plan. He has been fighting for decades. We have just begun! We must stick with him and beyond. They depend on our apathy.
 
 
# Guest 2016-07-15 19:44
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+2 # kasta626 2016-07-17 18:31
Endorsing Hillary is totally the wrong way to go. IT does not solve the problem; it compounds the problem.

Was Bernie Sanders threaten by assassination by the CLINTON Maffia?
 
 
+9 # DogSoldier 2016-07-14 15:05
Working through the Democrat Party as Bernie suggests is not going to change anything. Having $hillary as Commander in Chief certainly won't change anything, at least not for the better. The authorities did destroy the Occupy Movement in 2012, and if you try to work with the Democrats, they'll destroy Bernie's revolution too. Bernie may be an honest man, but he's not very bright if he joins the Democrats. They'll chew him up, and spit him out. He needs to grow a pair and join the Greens.
 
 
-13 # Mako 2016-07-14 15:15
Quoting crzkat:
Working through the Democrat Party as Bernie suggests is not going to change anything. Having $hillary as Commander in Chief certainly won't change anything, at least not for the better. The authorities did destroy the Occupy Movement in 2012, and if you try to work with the Democrats, they'll destroy Bernie's revolution too. Bernie may be an honest man, but he's not very bright if he joins the Democrats. They'll chew him up, and spit him out. He needs to grow a pair and join the Greens.


No, crzkat. Bernie Sanders will NEVER be your Green Party candidate. Get over it.

Bernie has enough sense to know that the Green Party would get all of jack and shit done. They're not even on the ballot in all the states. They're not winning. At best they'll be irrelevant. At worst they'll be spoilers that get a Republican elected.

Grow the hell up. His revolution is not destroyed, it's been incorporated into the party by people who've come into the party, given it new blood, and are actively working to move the party in a leftward direction.

Stomping your feet like children and taking your toys home with you, doesn't help black people get their voting rights protections back. It doesn't protect women and their bodily autonomy. It doesn't move us towards repealing Citizen's United. It doesn't protect us from having more death and destruction. Grow. Up.
 
 
+24 # grandlakeguy 2016-07-14 17:32
In other words Mako, what you are saying is:
"Resistance is futile! You will be assimilated"

(Quote courtesy of Star Trek Voyager as spoken by the Borg Collective.)
 
 
-22 # Mako 2016-07-14 17:43
Quoting grandlakeguy:
In other words Mako, what you are saying is:
"Resistance is futile! You will be assimilated"

(Quote courtesy of Star Trek Voyager as spoken by the Borg Collective.)


Exactly. And if you're lucky, you'll even get to turn out sexy just like 7 of 9 did.

....

Sorry... I couldn't pass up a good Star Trek reference.
 
 
+2 # Jim Rocket 2016-07-15 06:44
Bernie has proved that resistance is NOT futile. He has done better than anyone ever thought possible. He's opened up a beachhead in the Democratic Party of people who understand that the party is the problem. I thought he would never raise any money and he raised 200 million dollars from small donations. Contrast that with the other people launching effective political movements... Oh yeah, there's really no other people. Yes, Hillary is odious but endorsing her is just how the game is played. I'm sure Hillary would love it if Bernie stormed off and took a few people to the Green Party. Think of how much she must hate him. I know it gives me some comfort.
 
 
+16 # AshamedAmerican 2016-07-14 22:56
Who are these "people who've come into the party"? There are bound to be a few young people who were not involved before. How are they going to make the change? How are they different than all of those whose votes didn't count in the primaries?

If it is "death and destruction" that you fear, and you insist on working against the Green Party, you would be better off advocating Trump, as HRC is most known for her record of "death and destruction".
 
 
-10 # Mako 2016-07-15 08:29
Quoting AshamedAmerican:
Who are these "people who've come into the party"? There are bound to be a few young people who were not involved before. How are they going to make the change? How are they different than all of those whose votes didn't count in the primaries?

If it is "death and destruction" that you fear, and you insist on working against the Green Party, you would be better off advocating Trump, as HRC is most known for her record of "death and destruction".


God you're a stupid tool. HRC eats babies too, I bet. I think I even heard she killed Christ. Your hyperbolic smears are so pathetic. You definitely should feel ashamed.
 
 
+5 # DogSoldier 2016-07-15 13:32
She may not eat babies, but Bill and her killed a whole load of them in Iraq, Libya and Syria.
 
 
-6 # Mako 2016-07-15 17:04
Quoting crzkat:
She may not eat babies, but Bill and her killed a whole load of them in Iraq, Libya and Syria.


And you don't give a damn about ANY loss of life in those countries you where you probably couldn't even find on a map with the names taken off, hypocrite.
 
 
+12 # economagic 2016-07-15 07:15
Please don't feed the trolls. It distracts us from what is at least part of the time a reasoned discussion of serious issues.

Think of these forums as an institution for organizing based on mutual education, somewhat analogous to the Committees of Correspondence of a previous revolutionary era. To keep our eyes on the prize we need to tune out the distractions.
 
 
-9 # Mako 2016-07-15 07:44
Quoting economagic:
Please don't feed the trolls. It distracts us from what is at least part of the time a reasoned discussion of serious issues.

Think of these forums as an institution for organizing based on mutual education, somewhat analogous to the Committees of Correspondence of a previous revolutionary era. To keep our eyes on the prize we need to tune out the distractions.


No, they're a battleground of ideas where people's conceptions SHOULD be challenged, and the person expected to defend them intelligently and logically. Not falling back on CT crap. Fucking wake up. Anyone too scared to face opposition towards their position is intellectually weak and their ideas, brittle.
 
 
-8 # rayb-baby 2016-07-15 12:37
EXACTLY! He would be correct if those he is accusing of being "trolls" here were like those I see on other sites who just jump in, make some stupid attack with ABSOLUTELY NO substance and just disappear.
 
 
+8 # economagic 2016-07-15 13:04
Quoting Mako:
Quoting economagic:
Please don't feed the trolls. It distracts us from what is at least part of the time a reasoned discussion of serious issues.

Think of these forums as an institution for organizing based on mutual education, somewhat analogous to the Committees of Correspondence of a previous revolutionary era. To keep our eyes on the prize we need to tune out the distractions.


No, they're a battleground of ideas where people's conceptions SHOULD be challenged, and the person expected to defend them intelligently and logically. Not falling back on CT crap. Fucking wake up. Anyone too scared to face opposition towards their position is intellectually weak and their ideas, brittle.


"a battleground of ideas where people's conceptions SHOULD be challenged, and the person expected to defend them intelligently and logically."

Precisely, and NOT insults, profanity, platitudes, and dogmas admitting of no challenge. I come from an academic background so take challenge in stride. I also come from a working class background so take profanity in stride, and yours is pretty thin. In both milieus I expect coherence, respect, complete sentences, willingness to listen and discuss points of disagreement, and at least a little substance, all of which are lacking in the comment to which I am replying.
 
 
+10 # DogSoldier 2016-07-15 13:13
Quoting Mako:
Quoting economagic:
Please don't feed the trolls. It distracts us from what is at least part of the time a reasoned discussion of serious issues.

Think of these forums as an institution for organizing based on mutual education, somewhat analogous to the Committees of Correspondence of a previous revolutionary era. To keep our eyes on the prize we need to tune out the distractions.


No, they're a battleground of ideas where people's conceptions SHOULD be challenged, and the person expected to defend them intelligently and logically. Not falling back on CT crap. Fucking wake up. Anyone too scared to face opposition towards their position is intellectually weak and their ideas, brittle.


That seems to epitomize your attitude Mako. You're the one calling people names because they don't buy your bullshit.
 
 
+12 # economagic 2016-07-15 07:22
To attack an adversary from a single point is seldom a winning strategy. As with most issues, an "either/or" approach is counterproducti ve. The Democratic Party, corrupted and divided as it is, has a role to play, and power to Sanders (and a few others) for their willingness to undertake it. But to say that organizing and acting outside the Party is foolish is itself foolish, as is the dismissal of the quality of evil in the lesser evil.
 
 
-10 # Mako 2016-07-15 07:45
Quoting economagic:
To attack an adversary from a single point is seldom a winning strategy. As with most issues, an "either/or" approach is counterproductive. The Democratic Party, corrupted and divided as it is, has a role to play, and power to Sanders (and a few others) for their willingness to undertake it. But to say that organizing and acting outside the Party is foolish is itself foolish, as is the dismissal of the quality of evil in the lesser evil.


Organizing outside the party is a waste of time because THEY DON'T WIN and have no means of even appearing on ALL 50 STATE BALLOTS. Do you understand that they're DOA? It's a dead end, damnit. What the fuck do you think is gonna happen?

And your dismissal of "lesser of two evils" is fucking immature. Because real damage DOES happen when Repubs get in office. But for some reason you want to ignore that.
 
 
+9 # economagic 2016-07-15 11:50
"What the fuck do you think is gonna happen?

. . .

Because real damage DOES happen when Repubs get in office. But for some reason you want to ignore that."

I think -- in fact I'm pretty sure -- that what is going to happen this November is that some serious evil is going to be named President. Some people will see the selection as the "greater" evil and some as "lesser," even though we won't know until someone rewinds and runs the election over again with the opposite outcome.

Real damage DOES also happen when Democrats get in office. I am not ignoring either, by any stretch of imagination; we simply have different preferences regarding what poison to consume and how. You and I also seem to disagree on more basic points of ethics and what constitutes "fact," with me believing this business of what is "fact" is a great deal less clear than is often assumed. That comes from my scientific training, which doesn't make me right but it's one of my points of reference.
 
 
-6 # Mako 2016-07-15 14:30
Quoting economagic:

Real damage DOES also happen when Democrats get in office. I am not ignoring either, by any stretch of imagination; we simply have different preferences regarding what poison to consume and how. You and I also seem to disagree on more basic points of ethics and what constitutes "fact," with me believing this business of what is "fact" is a great deal less clear than is often assumed. That comes from my scientific training, which doesn't make me right but it's one of my points of reference.


I would like you to name specific examples of real damage that Democratic presidents have knowingly done and do NOT use examples that were done because of right wing pressure or imminent threat of their legislative reprisal, please. I want to know where you're coming from before I further get enraged at your detached, obtuse and detachment from the real life consequences this election will have.
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-07-15 17:28
LBJ: Turning Vietnam into a real war.

Jimmy Carter: Arming, funding and training Afghanistan's Mujahideen.

Billy Clinton: NAFTA. Various Crime Bills. Welfare "Reform." Telecommunicati ons Act. Repealing Glass-Steagal and the promoting and signing the Commodities "Modernization" Act.
 
 
+6 # economagic 2016-07-15 18:10
Yeah, I forgot the Telecom Act and CFMA, significant contributor to the Crash of 2008 over the objections of Brooksley Born. Carter was also the president who started the deregulation of corporations and entire industries, beginning as I recall with trucking, forcing many small firms out of business. Of course I suspect Mako would not consider any of those to be "real life consequences."
 
 
+7 # economagic 2016-07-15 18:05
NAFTA et al, "end of welfare as we knew it," Libya, now Syria, "the former Yugoslavia," support for Palestinian genocide, repeal of Glass-Steagal, decade-long bombardment of Iraq. . . . The full list could take the entire 1500 characters. I am becoming enraged at YOUR "detached, obtuse [and?!?] detachment from the real life consequences this election will have."
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-07-15 20:25
GMTA. ;-)
 
 
+11 # DogSoldier 2016-07-15 13:10
$hillary is the queen of chaos, death and destruction. Look what she did for Iraq, Libya and Syria. I'll vote for the Jill Stein, and I don't care if that helps Trump. We need change, and neither the asses nor the elephants are capable of it.
 
 
-6 # rayb-baby 2016-07-15 16:42
They've ALREADY adopted a lot of Bernie's platform and Hillary approves most of it. So does most of her base! It's beyond your comprehension that anything can change. Just a few years ago nobody thought we'd be where we are on LBGT rights and same sex marriage. That's just one example. You don't WANT to believe it. You'd rather crash the whole damn system f you don't get EVERYTHING you want. Just like a spoiled child.
 
 
+28 # RicKelis 2016-07-14 15:38
For those who are still stuck somewhere in the Five Stages of Grief, it would behoove you to rise up to the level of understanding quickly. The democratic side is going to win both the presidency and the Senate - there’s a very high probability of this occurring [65 to 80%). Time to focus on securing our future in a new political world.
Bernie has triumphed in our own super-potential and powerful Cyberspace world. He’s established himself as the Founder of the new democratically socialized Democratic Party.
We are the Power of the People that can support this new democratic dimension.
I’m sure Bernie will be there and will shepherd us through the development of this democratization process — and through the horizontal organization already in progress.
Let’s continue to come together and do it.
 
 
+16 # Anonymot 2016-07-14 22:01
If Hillary got a Congressional majority all of our conversation would be beside the point, because nothing would be left of anywhere by 2020.
 
 
-9 # rayb-baby 2016-07-15 13:00
Are you afraid to say the words "vote for Hillary"? Are you afraid of all the red thumbs you'd get? That's what it sounds like because the only way we're going to continue on is if we now support Hillary, which is EXACTLY what I'm doing now.
If Agent Orange were to win, he could undermine what we've achieved so far and his potential fascist dictatorship could possibly render our use of the Cyberspace mute. I'm certainly not willing to take that chance.
 
 
-8 # rayb-baby 2016-07-15 13:05
Are you afraid to say the words "vote for Hillary"? Are you afraid of all the red thumbs you'd get? That's what it sounds like because the only way we're going to continue on is if we now support Hillary, which is EXACTLY what I'm doing now.
If Agent Orange were to win, he could undermine what we've achieved so far and his potential fascist dictatorship could possibly render our use of the Cyberspace mute. I'm certainly not willing to take that chance, are you?
 
 
+7 # DogSoldier 2016-07-15 13:36
Quoting rayb-baby:
Are you afraid to say the words "vote for Hillary"? Are you afraid of all the red thumbs you'd get? That's what it sounds like because the only way we're going to continue on is if we now support Hillary, which is EXACTLY what I'm doing now.
If Agent Orange were to win, he could undermine what we've achieved so far and his potential fascist dictatorship could possibly render our use of the Cyberspace mute. I'm certainly not willing to take that chance, are you?


Oh yes. Evil is evil.
 
 
-6 # rayb-baby 2016-07-15 16:54
WOW! Evil is evil! What a profound observation. Hillary has made some big mistakes and takes some positions I don't agree with. She has also done some very humble work and has helped, or attempted to help millions of people, so I disagree that she is "evil". On the other hand, the man that you are helping to be president is MUCH CLOSER to the definition of evil than Hillary could ever be.
 
 
+26 # RMDC 2016-07-14 19:33
I saw on the national news that Hillary and Trump are even in the polls -- 40% each. 67% of voters don't trust Hillary any farther than they can throw her. Trump is coming up; Hillary is going down. 60% think Trump would do a better job handling the economy.

I don't like Trump at all but it seems that the hillary supporters and the DNC are paving the way for him to the White House. Trump has the ability to recover from his screw ups. Hillary does not. She's got only one way to go and that is down.

Hillary's only chance in November is the Clinton machine which can rig the voting process and voting machines as good as the Bush family. After all, the Bushes and Clintons are the same political family. Trump does not have this machine and it is not likely any republicans who have this inside power will use it for him. So Hillary may win, but it will be very, very ugly. And then it is likely the congressional republicans will impeach her.
 
 
+19 # Radscal 2016-07-14 23:27
Yes, assuming that Drumpf is for real, I fully expect him to beat HRC. We've been trying to warn the DNC for more than a year that she is the least electable candidate in decades.

But, like in 1968, they are insisting on nominating the weak, establishment candidate.
 
 
+11 # economagic 2016-07-15 07:28
Good comparison, and a reminder that part of what constitutes an establishment is a self-imposed constraint to behave as if tomorrow will be like yesterday. That certainly applies to the Economics establishment, the reason it is increasingly on the defensive.
 
 
-16 # Mako 2016-07-15 07:49
Quoting Radscal:
Yes, assuming that Drumpf is for real, I fully expect him to beat HRC. We've been trying to warn the DNC for more than a year that she is the least electable candidate in decades.

But, like in 1968, they are insisting on nominating the weak, establishment candidate.


The DNC didn't nominate her. The voters did. Your undead smears and conspiracy theory needs a stake through its heart and then exposure to the rays of sunlit truth.
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-07-15 17:31
You clearly failed to read the sources I provided you earlier.

Ignorance can be fixed. Willful ignorance cannot.
 
 
-13 # Mako 2016-07-15 07:47
Quoting RMDC:
I saw on the national news that Hillary and Trump are even in the polls -- 40% each. 67% of voters don't trust Hillary any farther than they can throw her. Trump is coming up; Hillary is going down. 60% think Trump would do a better job handling the economy.

I don't like Trump at all but it seems that the hillary supporters and the DNC are paving the way for him to the White House. Trump has the ability to recover from his screw ups. Hillary does not. She's got only one way to go and that is down.

Hillary's only chance in November is the Clinton machine which can rig the voting process and voting machines as good as the Bush family. After all, the Bushes and Clintons are the same political family. Trump does not have this machine and it is not likely any republicans who have this inside power will use it for him. So Hillary may win, but it will be very, very ugly. And then it is likely the congressional republicans will impeach her.


God does it get fucking old saying the same fucking Hillary Hate Tropes? You're so far up your own ass it must smell nice there. Trump can't even break the blue wall of the electoral colleges but you want to buy into polls this early out. Because it feeds your narrative of Hillary Hate. God, get a clue and look beyond your bubble.
 
 
+19 # guomashi 2016-07-14 21:49
I think the sentiment of Mr. Ash's essay has merit.
The problem is that there will be a president, and it is important to tie his/her hands in matters that are of sufficient import.

There is zero that anyone in the country can do about military adventurism on the part of the president. As commander in chief, the president can order anything he or she wants and no amount of protest can cause the slightest amount of change. Given Clinton's openly avowed hawkishness, this is a very serious problem which would be out of control in her presidency.

Domestic policy, on the other hand, can be influenced by popular pressure. Therefore it would appear Trump is a far less dangerous President than Clinton.

Already the ACLU is gearing up to short circuit Trump's initiatives, and no congress (democrat or republican) will ever vote to authorize the 'wall', etc. The fact that he is equally disliked by democrats and republicans means he begins the job with his hands already tied behind his back.

Therefore, in order to further the political revolution it is most important to ensure that Hillary does not become president. If she does, her inner hawk will bankrupt the country at least and annihilate it at worst.
 
 
-16 # carytucker 2016-07-14 22:39
The ACLU is your bulwark against Mr Trump? This 'analysis' is arrant nonsense, Palin-speak with better grammar. You've swallowed whole the Clinton legend bred and nurtured for a generation by the right-wing agit-prop organs. Who needs the Olins or Scaifes when you've got RSN carrying their water?
 
 
+16 # guomashi 2016-07-14 22:42
You have nothing to say and you are not even saying it very well.

Back to the programmers with you.
 
 
-14 # Mako 2016-07-15 07:51
Quoting guomashi:
I have nothing to say and I'm not even saying it very well.

Back to the realm of reality where other people reside and I don't have to interact with them.


Fixx'd.

God, is this the extent of the intellect of the posters here now? The extremists of our left are just as brittle as the tea party repubs of the right. This is fucking sad.
 
 
# Guest 2016-07-14 22:43
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
# Guest 2016-07-14 22:43
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+16 # Radscal 2016-07-14 23:29
I agree, but remember that Congress already voted to build a "fence" across the Mexican border.

In fact, Senator Hillary Clinton voted FOR it.
 
 
+23 # lfeuille 2016-07-15 00:25
The problem is that ever expanding war sucks up all the time, money and media attention that should go fixing domestic problems. Even if you are not concerned about the moral implications of Hillary's "vision" (and to my dismay there are a lot of people who are just too blasé about it. I had a screaming argument with a friend on the phone last night who didn't seem to have a problem brushing it off) you should be concerned about it's effects here at home. The anti-war movement had better gear up pretty quick.
 
 
+4 # kasta626 2016-07-15 02:59
YES, AND NOT MUCH ROPE WILL BE REQUIRED SINCE HIS HANDS ARE VERY SMALL JUST LIKE HIS BRAIN.
 
 
+15 # RMDC 2016-07-15 06:12
guo -- good thinking. Both of them will be very seriously hamstrung by opposition in Congress.

Right now to me the important thing is to move beyond the Dem and Repug parties. This is an important moment. The two parties are hopelessly broken and out of touch with people. THey have been taken over by billionaires, banks, corporations, and foreign governments like Israel.

Voting for a third or fourth party seems most important right now. In 1992, Ross Perot got a little more than 20% of the vote. He had no organization and was only a personality. That is the risk. An organization in the Greens or Libertarians has to develop following the Nov. elections. It is quite possible that other parties will take better than 20% of the vote.
 
 
-14 # Mako 2016-07-15 07:52
Quoting RMDC:
guo -- good thinking. Both of them will be very seriously hamstrung by opposition in Congress.

Right now to me the important thing is to move beyond the Dem and Repug parties. This is an important moment. The two parties are hopelessly broken and out of touch with people. THey have been taken over by billionaires, banks, corporations, and foreign governments like Israel.

Voting for a third or fourth party seems most important right now. In 1992, Ross Perot got a little more than 20% of the vote. He had no organization and was only a personality. That is the risk. An organization in the Greens or Libertarians has to develop following the Nov. elections. It is quite possible that other parties will take better than 20% of the vote.


I'm not even gonna bother refuting this nonsense other than point out how Greens have never won and still won't. Again. Not even on all 50 state ballots. You're beyond help, at this point. Delusional and unproductive.
 
 
+6 # DogSoldier 2016-07-15 13:41
It must scare you that all these ex Bernie supporters are moving to the Greens, otherwise you Dumbocrat trolls wouldn't be working so hard to convince people not to.
 
 
-6 # Mako 2016-07-15 14:39
Quoting crzkat:
It must scare you that all these ex Bernie supporters are moving to the Greens, otherwise you Dumbocrat trolls wouldn't be working so hard to convince people not to.


It doesn't scare me, it infuriates me. Because such hypocritical, selfish liberals, who claim to have believed in Bernie's real message of protecting the lower and middle class, have corrupted his message and now would rather PISS all of his work and efforts away, and leave those at the bottom to fucking face the hell that would result.

You and others who hope for Trump to win are about as bigoted, and hateful as his own followers.
 
 
+2 # DogSoldier 2016-07-15 15:33
Good! I'm glad your infuriated. Hopefully, you'll have a heart attack because of high blood pressure.
 
 
-4 # Mako 2016-07-15 16:41
Quoting crzkat:
Good! I'm glad your infuriated. Hopefully, you'll have a heart attack because of high blood pressure.


So wishing DEATH on a person of color who supports Hillary is what you're doing now. Wow. Real classy.

THAT'S the position you and your ilk are coming from. I want this comment to be seen loud and clear so I can see where everyone stands. Because it's proof that you give no fucks at all about people who are not privileged. Who are vulnerable. This is behind the philosophy of rooting for him to win just to satisfy yourself. You've revealed yourself, thank you.

EDIT: And I also hope all those who up vote his wish of death on me feel proud knowing that they stand for that type of hate and erasure for those types of people too. Feel proud, my white liberal allies. You're real fucking classy. People of color DEFINITELY will want to stand shoulder-to-sho ulder with you.
 
 
-2 # RMF 2016-07-16 12:25
Polling indicates that about 85 percent of Bernie supporters will be voting Clnton. I am among them, and will be following Bernie's lead in voting Clinton, something the 15 percent or so seem to conveniently forget, not to mention blocking out the Nader disaster of 2000.
 
 
-11 # rayb-baby 2016-07-15 13:27
"....develop following the Nov. elections. "

Yes,..... FOLLOWING! But the smartest thing they could do right now is to get behind Hillary and at least get some of their agenda enacted. The danger is Agent Orange taking us back decades and maybe never recovering.
 
 
+15 # Lloyd Wagner 2016-07-14 22:47
He had more votes than Hillary, but the count was as dishonest as in 2000, and in 2004.
How playing the rigged game as if it were real and honest does anything at ALL to "return control of the political process to average Americans" is beyond me to understand.
Go for it, though. Vote real hard.
 
 
+7 # fuzzbuzz 2016-07-14 22:52
Anyone noticing comments being deleted?
Third time today I can't find my comments or other comments I've read.
 
 
+10 # fuzzbuzz 2016-07-14 22:56
Granndlakeguy's comment from "2016-07-15 00:14:21" about Honduras and Libya was deleted, so were all its responses.

I've been noticing this for a couple of days at least.
 
 
+7 # fuzzbuzz 2016-07-14 23:08
They don't even leave a "comment has been deleted" comment. They're just being "silently" removed.

I've sent a question to RSN about it. I'll add a reply here if I get a response. Remember this comment so you can look for it in case it gets deleted too.
 
 
+5 # fuzzbuzz 2016-07-15 09:55
update: no response yet.

This is a troubling development for sure. I'll be holding off on my RSN donations until hopefully I get a satisfactory response.
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-07-15 17:34
Please keep us "posted" on other articles as this one gets old.
 
 
+3 # fuzzbuzz 2016-07-15 17:38
Sure, will do.
 
 
+7 # DaveEwoldt 2016-07-15 14:09
I've had a few of my replies to rochead deleted, and received a private e-mail from another contributor the other day that some of his comments had been deleted as well.

I've also sent mail to Marc, but haven't received a response.
 
 
-1 # fuzzbuzz 2016-07-15 15:11
I suggest ceasing donations to RSN until you receive a response. If this is truly "our" news site, and we're the ones paying for it, then we deserve answers.

It is a shame though. I usually try to donate to RSN as much as I can.
 
 
+20 # grandlakeguy 2016-07-15 00:12
I guess that someone was not comfortable that I posted a short list of some of Hillary's greatest crimes.

Has the well documented truth about Hillary Clinton's record become so threatening?
 
 
-13 # Mako 2016-07-15 07:54
Quoting grandlakeguy:
I guess that someone was not comfortable that I posted a short list of some of Hillary's greatest crimes.

Has the well documented truth about Hillary Clinton's record become so threatening?


They're probably getting sick of Republican memes floating here and how it's just cyclical, negative nonsense. Cheer up. They've got a much more receptive audience at worldnetdaily for you.
 
 
+2 # DogSoldier 2016-07-15 13:46
Quoting grandlakeguy:
I guess that someone was not comfortable that I posted a short list of some of Hillary's greatest crimes.

Has the well documented truth about Hillary Clinton's record become so threatening?


This has been happening quite frequently lately. It appears that RSN is acting just like MSM. The editor, Scott Galindez, is now a Hillary supporter, and I believe he is purposefully deleting negative statements regarding $hillary, especially those that have a basis in fact and can be sourced.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-07-15 17:38
I hope that's not the case. RSN has always been quite tolerant of varying opinions.

The first time I can recall RSN deleting comments and banning avatars was when Billy Bob got fed up with the sudden swarming by Corrupt the Record Hil-Bots posting really disgusting stuff under screen names meant to appear to be RSN regulars.

I hope that didn't start a bad trend.
 
 
-4 # rayb-baby 2016-07-15 14:07
I'm not saying that Hillary hasn't done anything wrong and I am a Bernie supporter that's following his advice to vote for her, but just maybe they saw some of your post as some outright lies and didn't want to play that game. You may not want to believe it, but not everything she has done is a crime and some of it is just not true. Just sayin'!
 
 
+5 # fuzzbuzz 2016-07-15 15:09
And who gets to decide what's true and what's a lie? "Scott Galindez" will decide for us?

Why not let CNN or Fox decide for us, then?
 
 
+3 # lfeuille 2016-07-15 17:06
Marc Ash is the editor. Not Scott Galindez. Scott is on the staff.
 
 
-1 # fuzzbuzz 2016-07-15 17:24
Ok, but the point remains.
 
 
+11 # AshamedAmerican 2016-07-14 23:02
My first, better and longer reply to Mako is gone.
 
 
+7 # cymricmorty 2016-07-15 00:49
When the original post is deleted, all replies get deleted along with it, sadly.
 
 
+7 # economagic 2016-07-15 07:39
Yes, I received a back-channel query earlier this week about that phenomenon. Cymricmorty is undoubtedly correct that the deletion of a comment also deletes all replies, which simply generate an error message within the software that does not appear in the display.

I am especially concerned that this is being done surreptitiously , although I have realized for some time that a comment deleted by the person posting it shows up as "deleted by Administrator."

And I don't understand the nature of the offense, given certain specific vitriol and politically incorrectness that does NOT get removed, including Clinton's many offenses, although referring to them as "crimes" gives the trolls ammunition.
 
 
+6 # cymricmorty 2016-07-15 08:53
Update 7/15 a.m.: I just left a "reply with quote" to a comment that was deleted. My reply is still there though the quotee's handle is missing from the quote. (Handle restored when I added the close quotation mark. Doh.)
 
 
+11 # dipierro4 2016-07-14 22:57
guomashi: You have given a strong argument in favor of the bad hair guy, and it has a great deal of merit. Yet I am not quite ready to share your conclusion with certainty.

Certainly, counting issue by issue, there is much reason to favor HRC: Treatment of immigrants, Supreme Court appointments (and all the federal judiciary!), race relations, etc., etc. Yet her association with the Neocons terrifies me. After all, a world war overwhelms a lot of other things.

And, as you said, there is reason to believe that Trump's Wall either is just talk or that it can't happen even if he wants it.

BUT, OTOH --

The bad hair guy is dangerous, and he is doing a frighteningly good job of mobilizing large segments of the people to act on their ugliest instincts based on fear, resentment,and bigotry, a la Hitler or Mussolini. The long-term consequences of this, should he become Prez, we don't know.

And even though he is not historically committed to the Neocons like HRC is, he is pandering so hard to the Far Right that we have to wonder where he really is at.

Which one can do the most harm? Maybe Clinton with a world war. Is Trump as dangerous in that area? There is reason to think Yes, and reason to think No.

It is a bad time indeed.
 
 
+14 # Majikman 2016-07-14 23:25
Consider this, dipierro, Clinton has the "machine" on her side, MSM, Wall St, corporations, military, AIPAC, necons etc.

Who has the Donald got....a bunch of pissed off nobodies who vote. If he wins he faces obstruction big time from congress. Talk of him becoming a dictator is groundless except to intimidate fence sitters and non thinkers.

If HRC wins, she has the knowledge, experience and backing to really become a dictator.
 
 
+15 # lfeuille 2016-07-15 00:54
Right. And she has people in place in the State Dept. who agree with her vision and will help her implement it.
 
 
+10 # economagic 2016-07-15 07:46
I agree, but I would frame that idea in a slightly different way:

Trump is a master of inflammatory rhetoric and other aspects of demagoguery. But The Establishment has a plethora of propaganda tools at its disposal that are far more sophisticated. They are largely subliminal for most people, so more insidious and therefore effective with people who would never be taken in by Trump's blatant pandering.

One very dangerous idea that The Establishment (in the broadest sense) has successfully reinforced in much of the populace is the idea summed up in TANA (Thatcher's "there is no alternative"). There are ALWAYS alternatives (minimum of one). Even the Jews and others in the camps had alternatives, and many used them very effectively. The insidious strategy is to convince the public that the alternatives are all so vile that they should not be considered. This is the underpinning of the LOTE argument, and the reality that makes LOTE false in most cases.
 
 
-11 # Mako 2016-07-15 08:35
Trump's a "master of inflammatory rhetoric?" It's not just rhetoric. It's what he says he's going to DO. He's even listening to Chris Koback, goddamnit. Newt Gingrich is now calling for a "deportation test" for Muslims. IT'S NOT JUST FUCKING TRUMP. It's ALL of the Republicans now. STOP DOWNPLAYING WHAT'S AT STAKE.

We're not fucking Great Britain in the 1980s. Why the hell are you attributing her to the Democratic party and its policies? We're in 2016, in the US. You're completely off in left field! What' insidious is people like you espousing conspiracy theory and distracting from the clear and present danger of what's potentially to come, all because you don't want to discuss intelligently the means for making progress.

To you it's a zero sum game, and that's ignorant as hell.
 
 
+4 # Majikman 2016-07-15 13:12
Agree, econo. We have alternatives... write in Bernie, vote for Stein, stay home or vote for whats-hiz-face libertarian. ABC (anyone but Hillary).
If you only had a choice between Hitler or Mussolini, which would you choose?
 
 
-7 # Mako 2016-07-15 14:42
Quoting Majikman:
Agree, econo. We have alternatives...write in Bernie, vote for Stein, stay home or vote for whats-hiz-face libertarian. ABC (anyone but Hillary).
If you only had a choice between Hitler or Mussolini, which would you choose?


You're so fucking ridiculous. What do you even stand for?

Gary Johnson, the *Libertarian* candidate, is an acceptable option for you..? The one who'd rip apart the social safety net, civil rights laws, the functional government, and more?

You're a real fucking ally of people of color, women, LGBT, and anyone who faces discrimination from the white supremacy infused system of our country. You give not a single fuck for the actual people who Bernie was wanting to protect. That's why you feel totally chill with pissing your vote away, and letting those at the bottom face the consequences.

As long as it's not Hillary, right?
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-07-15 17:43
I think if we progressives are to have a chance at winning, we should all vote for the same candidate.

Dr. Stein appears to be the only one capable of winning.
 
 
-15 # Mako 2016-07-15 07:57
Quoting Majikman:
Consider this, dipierro, Clinton has the "machine" on her side, MSM, Wall St, corporations, military, AIPAC, necons etc.

Who has the Donald got....a bunch of pissed off nobodies who vote. If he wins he faces obstruction big time from congress. Talk of him becoming a dictator is groundless except to intimidate fence sitters and non thinkers.

If HRC wins, she has the knowledge, experience and backing to really become a dictator.


Holy CRAP. You are freaking DUMB. So I guess ALEC, the RNC, ALL the right wing mofos in Congress and the Senate who HAVE come out in favor of him, including Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and the rest... Are nobody? He's a republican. He drafted a fucking list of right wing nutjobs he'd elect to the Supreme Court.

GOD. Get a DAMN CLUE and JOIN REALITY. You are a TOOL of the ignorant. Trump wants to war with North Korea, bomb Iraq, bomb Iran, punish women who get abortion, ban trans people in bathrooms, repeal same-sex marriage, and has the backing of Evangelical whackjobs but he's got "nobodies who vote."

God, ignorance must be bliss.
 
 
-8 # rayb-baby 2016-07-15 14:21
Damn! Where do you people come from? Do you really think she's trying to become a dictator? Even her base won't allow that. On the other hand, let's take a look at the TOTALLY, SINCE YOUTH, SELF-SERVING NARCISSIST. He's got his god damn name plastered on buildings in many parts of the world. He has the support of every damn white supremacist in the nation. And he has support of the evangelicals and just picked a god damn Dominionist for VP. And you're worried about Hillary being a dictator?
 
 
-7 # Jim Rocket 2016-07-15 06:52
There is no argument for the bad hair guy. The only possible conscious vote for Trump is as an act of vandalism. If that's the way you're feeling go ahead but don't think voting for him is anything but that.
 
 
+5 # Majikman 2016-07-15 13:18
Get this straight, rocket man. I will exercise my choice to vote--or not vote--as I choose. Neither you nor your foul mouthed HRC suck ups will persuade me differently by heaping abuse on me. Just added you to my list of "Red thumb, do not read".
 
 
-8 # Mako 2016-07-15 14:44
Quoting Majikman:
Get this straight, rocket man. I will exercise my choice to vote--or not vote--as I choose. Neither you nor your foul mouthed HRC suck ups will persuade me differently by heaping abuse on me. Just added you to my list of "Red thumb, do not read".


I'll heap abuse on you because you're a shameful excuse of a liberal. You aren't even fit to say Bernie's name, let alone claim your his supporter. You don't even give a fuck about ANY of his positions and how they were to HELP people.

As long as it's not Hillary, who cares, right? If he tears up the country, fucks over Mexicans, women, Muslims, etc.. It's all good! Cause then you can be smug and satisfied with yourself.

You're as hypocritical as they come. Don't read a damn thing I say, that's cool. Ignoring people of color and everyone else is something you probably do everyday. So that's fine!

Edit: And you proved me right. LOL
 
 
+6 # Joe Blow 2016-07-14 23:40
If, following the conventions this month, Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee and Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, as it appears will be the case, then one of them will be President.
Bernie Sanders has endorsed Hillary Clinton, and the KKK has endorsed Donald Trump.
At this point, when it comes to the presidential election, I trust Bernie's judgement.
 
 
-10 # Mako 2016-07-15 07:58
Quoting Joe Blow:
If, following the conventions this month, Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee and Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, as it appears will be the case, then one of them will be President.
Bernie Sanders has endorsed Hillary Clinton, and the KKK has endorsed Donald Trump.
At this point, when it comes to the presidential election, I trust Bernie's judgement.


God, thank you for this refreshing breath of simple, common sense and reality. Thank you.
 
 
-8 # rayb-baby 2016-07-15 14:26
What the hell's wrong with the readers here? Surprisingly, they loaded Joe Blow with up thumbs, including me, then they give you downs for agreeing with him. Damn people here are fickle, or just plain stupid.
 
 
+14 # lfeuille 2016-07-15 01:01
I am not ready to stop crying. I assume that the way forward will become apparent at some point but right now I do not know what it is and I find that very upsetting. I don't not believe that the Green Party will save us. It will be either Hillary or Trump and both are so bad that they can send us backward. So stop telling me to "get over it".
 
 
+9 # economagic 2016-07-15 08:02
"So stop telling me to 'get over it'".

Sure -- take as much time as you need. The reality you describe is indeed the reality, and things will get worse before they get better, almost certainly a LOT worse. But as indicated by the Chinese character for our word "crisis," with great danger comes great opportunity. At some point you WILL get out of bed, and I believe that the best advice for when you do is "Think globally, act locally."

The quote was popularized by biologist and early environmentalis t Rene Dubos, but it actually originated with scholar of propaganda Jacques Ellul. Google that guy while you're recuperating!
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-07-15 17:47
econ, Here's a quote I bet you know from an economist I bet you abhor:

“Only a crisis - actual or perceived - produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable.”


― Milton Friedman
 
 
+4 # economagic 2016-07-15 18:17
Yep! I could quibble with some of the particulars, but there is certainly some truth in that statement. "Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then." But he may have borrowed from Thomas Kuhn, although I know of very few economists who dabble in science, much less the philosophy of science.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-07-15 20:31
Kuhn was cool. Wasn't Friedman all about pretending that his version of economics WAS "scientific?"

I was reminded of that quote because I'm re-reading Naomi Klein's EXCELLENT "The Shock Doctrine."

You may know she posits (and provides pretty compelling evidence) that Friedman and the Chicago School Boys chose to actually create those crises from which their economic theories could be then forced on a population.
 
 
+4 # fuzzbuzz 2016-07-15 22:10
I haven't read Klein's book, though I've heard only good things about it.


> You may know she posits (and provides pretty compelling evidence) that Friedman and the Chicago School Boys chose to actually create those crises from which their economic theories could be then forced on a population.

I'm not familiar with the details of this, but it seems to fit with a lot of what I know about those "award winning" or policy-affectin g, influential economists. The very discipline of economics seems to have been corrupted by money. One thing a lot of people aren't aware of (but I'm sure you guys know) is that there isn't really a Nobel prize for economics. It was added to the Nobel awards about 70 years after Alfred Nobel died, after the Swedish Academy of Sciences took over management of the Nobel awards, and at the behest of the Swedish Central Bank (which was later revealed to have happened at the urging of US diplomats). This happened against the wishes of the Nobel family, who refuse, to this day, to recognize it as an "official" Nobel prize. It pretty much goes without saying that most (or all?) of the economics laureates were of the neoliberal, trickle-down , "free market" school of thought.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-07-16 02:00
I hadn't heard that about the Nobel Prize before. Thanks.

Yes, all of Klein's books are well worth reading. Here's a great presentation she did on the 10th anniversary of one of her earlier books.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A2FY7t-1a8

She's talking to a group of Libertarians, and she's very much a lefty, which makes for some interesting feedback, but for the most part, she has them totally onboard.
 
 
+2 # economagic 2016-07-16 20:39
All true, except that the story I've consistently heard and seen, from sources that should be reliable, is that the prize was created at the behest of the American Economic Association to honor Paul Samuelson, and that the AEA raised a substantial part of the endowment. It was first awarded in 1979 (to Norwegian Ragnar Frisch and Dutchman Jan Tinbergen), and to Samuelson the next year. Samuelson was responsible for about half of the basis of what came to be called "Keynesian" economics, which was still considered gospel worldwide in 1970.
 
 
+2 # economagic 2016-07-16 20:27
Yes, I was reluctant to say as much when I began studying the discipline, but that is essentially my take on Friedman. I think he invented "theories" for the express purpose of advancing his ideology, and in some cases (such as the "natural rate of unemployment") constructed them in such a way as to make them pure abstractions that could neither be proved nor disproved and for which evidence for or against could not be constructed.

Klein is good; I finally got a used copy of Shock Doctrine, now only a few layers down the stack! I'm not familiar with that particular story, but I wouldn't bet against it. Comparing Friedman to Professor Harold Hill is not a stretch, except that Friedman never undergoes the change of heart.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-07-16 22:39
Thanks for the more detailed info.

I'm betting you're going to find Shock Doctrine.... well, startling, if not "shocking."
 
 
-6 # Mako 2016-07-15 08:03
Quoting lfeuille:
I am not ready to stop crying. I assume that the way forward will become apparent at some point but right now I do not know what it is and I find that very upsetting. I don't not believe that the Green Party will save us. It will be either Hillary or Trump and both are so bad that they can send us backward. So stop telling me to "get over it".


...I actually feel sad and cam empathize with you, and I don't mean that sarcastically or flippantly. If you *genuinely* feel that emotional and attached to his candidacy, and you've revealed that vulnerability and emotion then I won't even ridicule or mock it. I respect you at least being honest about your emotional attachment.

As much as it hurts and he didn't win, November is coming and as much as you don't like it, it really WILL be either Hillary or Trump. The fact is, is that the Green Party isn't on every ballot and have no chance of winning a plurality of electoral college votes needed to win.

Bernie is telling you what needs to be done to carry out his revolution and making the country better. Please listen to him.
 
 
+1 # m s 57 2016-07-15 01:31
What is most remarkable in reading the comments here is the absence of one name -- Trump. This cretin is a 5-alarm fire. He is an ignorant cur who would pour gasoline on the Constitution and on ALL the values my brothers and sisters here hold dear and put them to the torch. He must be defeated at all costs! There is no choice -- he must be defeated here at all costs. This is the one single election in the entire history of the country where the only principled stance is rejecting him. He must be defeated!

To do so means voting for HRH HRC. Take your anti-nausea medicine on the morning of the election and vote for her at all costs. Take comfort in the strength of Bernie and yourselves. Thanks to his run we are in a position to profoundly coerce Hillary at every turn and to pass truly progressive legislation like we haven't been in FIFTY YEARS. It is likely this confluence of events and the power of the Left will never come again in the NEXT FIFTY years.

Just one example: Elect Clinton (God, I can barely write the words)and millions upon millions of minimum workers -- the "working poor" in desperate need of help! -- will see their incomes rise to @ $8 per hour to a minimum of $12 and a max of $15. Elect Trump and that will NEVER happen. Climate Change, wealth and income inequality, a strong check to the power of the "billionaire class" -- ALL of this will be on the table. Split your vote or otherwise contribute to Trump's election and NONE of this will be addressed.
 
 
+8 # economagic 2016-07-15 08:10
False dichotomy: See my replies to Majikman and also to lfeuille not far above.

Furthermore, you are claiming to know the future with certainty. If extensive and reasoned analysis of the two alternative of which you are aware (there are several others) convinces you that either A or B is the better (or best), then you are making a CHOICE based on JUDGMENT. We cannot get around that choice, although we often choose not to exercise informed judgment, because the fact (what would happen under a Trump presidency compared to what would happen under a Clinton presidency) is unknown and unknowable even after one of them -- and only one -- has held the office.
 
 
+13 # kath 2016-07-15 03:21
Every single thing Ms. Clinton wants to do is either outright bad or has a poison pill attached. On immigration, for instance, she says she wants to fix the process and give a path to citizenship to long-time undocumented residents. Okay. Then, to serve her corporate masters, she wants to "streamline" the process for US employers wanting to hire foreign workers.
What difference does it make whether her corporate bosses ship US jobs overseas or give them to foreign workers in our own country? The latter is probably cheaper for them, and the current US workers are then available to train their low-cost replacements. No!
 
 
-7 # Mako 2016-07-15 08:04
Quoting kath:
Every single thing Ms. Clinton wants to do is either outright bad or has a poison pill attached. On immigration, for instance, she says she wants to fix the process and give a path to citizenship to long-time undocumented residents. Okay. Then, to serve her corporate masters, she wants to "streamline" the process for US employers wanting to hire foreign workers.
What difference does it make whether her corporate bosses ship US jobs overseas or give them to foreign workers in our own country? The latter is probably cheaper for them, and the current US workers are then available to train their low-cost replacements. No!


Cite your source please, because I'm not finding this "poison pill."
 
 
-8 # rayb-baby 2016-07-15 14:34
They're low-cost replacements are pretty much the undocumented, unskilled, paid under the table workers. Pretty much not the documented, skilled worker being paid legally by a corp. NEXT!
 
 
+8 # lfeuille 2016-07-15 17:16
Wrong. American tech workers are being fired and forced to train their foreign replacements before they leave. The foreigners work for less with less benefits and this is not under the table. Its all legal. I have forgotten the name of the program.
 
 
+6 # economagic 2016-07-15 18:19
I think the name of the program is "Capitalism," the belief in or worship of capital.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-07-16 02:01
Do you mean the H1B Visa program?
 
 
-7 # Suzy 2016-07-15 06:01
When you have a minute, please google "Historians on Trump."
 
 
+8 # guomashi 2016-07-15 06:17
Quoting Suzy:
When you have a minute, please google "Historians on Trump."


Where were they when Bush violated he Iraq war resolution and started this mess we are in?

Where were they when all evidence of the opening speech by two Buddhist monks during the national memorial service in September 2001 was excised completely from all records of the event? For the record they begged America to please not respond with violence, as violence only begets more violence.

Your historians are ignorant, self important shills. They have nothing to say. If they did we wouldn't bere where we are today.

Trump is an infantile clown. That is his greatest weakness and will render all his posturing impotent.

My biggest worry is that he will take the oath of office, work for a month and then resign for the pension, leaving us with ???? in his place. A politiican the Republicans like would be a catastrophe. That is why we desperately need to elect a democratic senate.
 
 
-11 # Mako 2016-07-15 08:05
Quoting guomashi:
Quoting Suzy:
When you have a minute, please google "Historians on Trump."


Where were they when Bush violated he Iraq war resolution and started this mess we are in?

Where were they when all evidence of the opening speech by two Buddhist monks during the national memorial service in September 2001 was excised completely from all records of the event? For the record they begged America to please not respond with violence, as violence only begets more violence.

Your historians are ignorant, self important shills. They have nothing to say. If they did we wouldn't bere where we are today.

Trump is an infantile clown. That is his greatest weakness and will render all his posturing impotent.

My biggest worry is that he will take the oath of office, work for a month and then resign for the pension, leaving us with ???? in his place. A politiican the Republicans like would be a catastrophe. That is why we desperately need to elect a democratic senate.


You are so damn ignorant. THEY WERE CRITICIZING HIM, TOO. Just because you can't see past your nose doesn't mean no one else can.
 
 
+7 # Annette Saint John Lawrence 2016-07-15 06:32
My vision for the highest good of the Democratic \Convention (which many of us know is not democratic) is : All or the majority of Delegates, the Super Delegates that have been paid off etc, become blatantly aware that way more than half our Nation wanted Bernie Sanders as their our choice for President. That once again we will have the most egregious methods to tamper with the voting outcome that was back by the power hungry Democrats that want to do business as usual. In so realizing that nothing will change unless we the people make it happen, all or the majority that wanted Bernie Sanders will stand their ground as we overthrow a noxious system that os a major source of oppression for our nation. Bernie Sanders will be announced as the legitimate winner. This demonstration is so strong that the only outcome becomes over throwing out the fraudulent Clear that we are sick and tired of being sick and tired and choices for candidates for any office are going to be those who serve the common good of the people - not themselves..
 
 
+14 # walt 2016-07-15 07:43
I am a Bernie delegate and can assure you I have not been "paid off." In fact, I haven't even been able to raise enough funds to attend. But I'm still going, will vote for Bernie, and will continue to work for real change.
 
 
-11 # Mako 2016-07-15 08:06
Quoting Annette Saint John Lawrence:
My vision for the highest good of the Democratic \Convention (which many of us know is not democratic) is : All or the majority of Delegates, the Super Delegates that have been paid off etc, become blatantly aware that way more than half our Nation wanted Bernie Sanders as their our choice for President. That once again we will have the most egregious methods to tamper with the voting outcome that was back by the power hungry Democrats that want to do business as usual. In so realizing that nothing will change unless we the people make it happen, all or the majority that wanted Bernie Sanders will stand their ground as we overthrow a noxious system that os a major source of oppression for our nation. Bernie Sanders will be announced as the legitimate winner. This demonstration is so strong that the only outcome becomes over throwing out the fraudulent Clear that we are sick and tired of being sick and tired and choices for candidates for any office are going to be those who serve the common good of the people - not themselves..


It really isn't healthy being this removed from reality...
 
 
+7 # economagic 2016-07-15 18:20
You know, you sound a lot like Ayn Rand: Everybody but you is crazy, stupid, or malevolent.
 
 
+12 # walt 2016-07-15 07:15
Marc has made his point very well.

It's all about staying involved and demanding change we all know is so badly needed to achieve government of, by, and for the people.

As a Bernie delegate to the DNC, I still hope to see him nominated. However, the more important matter is the political revolution he has so bravely initiated. That's where we all come in.

Speak out!
 
 
0 # jpmarat 2016-07-15 07:20
Demographics are turning the Democratic Party into a Super Party. It would be INSANE to not try to get it in Progressive hands. Bernie & Liz see that opportunity; do not abandon them.
 
 
-4 # jabo13 2016-07-15 07:24
[quote name="RMDC"] Trump may be killing the republican party, so we do not need a messiah.

Or, with a little help from our friends and another terrorist attack or two, he may drag the GOP to land, resuscitate it, and build it into something more monstrous than we can even imagine. It CAN happen here, and and the cooperation of a couple million disgruntled "progressives" who, unlike Senator Sanders, can't bring themselves to do what's necessary [support yet another imperfect candidate] may just make it happen.
Candidates are ALWAYS less than perfect. And one of them is ALWAYS more imperfect than the other. Put emotion aside [it's not REALLY about YOU], figure out which is which, and vote accordingly. Then get involved, or stay involved, in some effort that furthers the political revolution we all agree is needed. THAT Is how we will gradually get better and better candidates, and more of them. Persistence and determination over the long haul is what creates change, not protest voting or withdrawal. Hold your nose, bring your barf bag, do what you have to do. The Ideal is not possible in this moment, so choose from the Possible. Being able to imagine a better future shouldn't disable us from dealing as effectively as possible with the present.

The Nazi party never got more than 37% of the vote. The other 63% were divided among all the better alternatives.
 
 
-9 # Robbee 2016-07-15 08:43
Quoting jabo13:
[quote name="RMDC"] Trump may be killing the republican party, so we do not need a messiah.

Or, with a little help from our friends and another terrorist attack or two, he may drag the GOP to land, resuscitate it, and build it into something more monstrous than we can even imagine. It CAN happen here, and and the cooperation of a couple million disgruntled "progressives" who, unlike Senator Sanders, can't bring themselves to do what's necessary [support yet another imperfect candidate] may just make it happen.
Candidates are ALWAYS less than perfect. And one of them is ALWAYS more imperfect than the other. Put emotion aside [it's not REALLY about YOU], figure out which is which, and vote accordingly. Then get involved, or stay involved, in some effort that furthers the political revolution we all agree is needed. THAT Is how we will gradually get better and better candidates, and more of them. Persistence and determination over the long haul is what creates change, not protest voting or withdrawal. Hold your nose, bring your barf bag, do what you have to do. The Ideal is not possible in this moment, so choose from the Possible. Being able to imagine a better future shouldn't disable us from dealing as effectively as possible with the present.

The Nazi party never got more than 37% of the vote. The other 63% were divided among all the better alternatives.

- salute! rump gets too much denial! here - to "get" his threat is refreshing!
 
 
+14 # Blackjack 2016-07-15 07:24
People don't trust the Clintons. They do trust Sanders. If the Dems are too brain dead to acknowledge that, then Trump wins. End of story!
 
 
-14 # Mako 2016-07-15 08:10
Quoting Blackjack:
People don't trust the Clintons. They do trust Sanders. If the Dems are too brain dead to acknowledge that, then Trump wins. End of story!


3 million more damn voters voted for "the Clintons." "End of story!"
 
 
+6 # fuzzbuzz 2016-07-15 10:18
> 3 million more damn voters voted for "the Clintons." "End of story!"

Cite your source please.
 
 
-6 # Mako 2016-07-15 15:19
Quoting fuzzbuzz:
> 3 million more damn voters voted for "the Clintons." "End of story!"

Cite your source please.


Here you go.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hillary-clinton-clinches-democratic-nomination-according-to-ap/
 
 
+5 # fuzzbuzz 2016-07-15 15:22
I don't want anecdotal evidence or hearsay nonsense. FACTUAL evidence please. I don't buy into stupid CT. You still haven't given any evidence.
 
 
-5 # Mako 2016-07-15 15:35
Quoting fuzzbuzz:
I don't want anecdotal evidence or hearsay nonsense. FACTUAL evidence please. I don't buy into stupid CT. You still haven't given any evidence.


Did you bother to even CLICK the link? Or even READ IT?

The link GIVES YOU the specific data of voter breakdown. It's numerical data. What the hell are you talking about? There's no "anecdotal" or "hearsay" here. If 538 isn't a clear, reputable source for you. Then I'll ask you this. What IS a source that is "factual" enough for you?
 
 
+3 # fuzzbuzz 2016-07-15 15:41
Sorry I just don't buy into conspiracy theory crap. Please provide factual, logical evidence.

Put up or shut up!
 
 
-4 # Mako 2016-07-15 16:44
Quoting fuzzbuzz:
Sorry I just don't buy into conspiracy theory crap. Please provide factual, logical evidence.

Put up or shut up!


Again. Did. You. Read. It? If 538 isn't reputable enough for you, tell me what is and why it's flawed. Don't just mimicking me like a parrot, be a thinking human being and respond to your viewpoint being challenged.
 
 
+4 # fuzzbuzz 2016-07-15 17:19
My viewpoints aren't being challenged, because you haven't provided evidence yet. I don't want Democratic party BS and hearsay conspiracy theories. I need EVIDENCE - do you have any idea what that is? Without evidence you're just making noise.

Try to be a critical thinker - follow the evidence. Where is the conclusive evidence????
 
 
-7 # Mako 2016-07-15 17:45
Quoting fuzzbuzz:
My viewpoints aren't being challenged, because you haven't provided evidence yet. I don't want Democratic party BS and hearsay conspiracy theories. I need EVIDENCE - do you have any idea what that is? Without evidence you're just making noise.

Try to be a critical thinker - follow the evidence. Where is the conclusive evidence????


I've led you to the water. And just like a horse, I can't force you to "drink" it. Either you click the link, open the site, read it, absorb it, and then reach a conclusion based on your understanding of what you've read and tell it to me so I can respond...

Or you'll continue repeating jackshit and NOT have an intelligent discussion. Ball's in your court.
 
 
+7 # lfeuille 2016-07-15 17:23
At least 3 million mostly Sanders supporter were denied the chance to vote. The story continues.
 
 
+12 # Jim Rocket 2016-07-15 08:15
Being in "the bubble" is like being a junkie. Most people are sleepwalking and think/thought voting Democrat was enough. This "Bernie thing" is something totally new to them and it will take a while to percolate through their materialism-add led minds. There was an NYT op-ed the other day from some twit telling progressives to "grow - up" His argument was basically "I am an obedient Democrat. Obedience is good. Bernie is not obedient therefore Bernie is bad." Most of the comments I read agreed with this somnambulist. There is much work to be done in terms of consciousness-r aising and it's going to take a long time. As the election approaches more Dem voters will start to pay attention and Hillary's inevitable gaffs will start to wake them up. Even if she wins, her party will be a different animal thanks to Bernie.
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2016-07-15 17:22
It's possible, but not assured. It depends on which one fucks up the most. He has a racist tantrum and rants at a judge and she rises. Then the FBI all but calls her a liar and he rises. It goes back and forth. I can't forsee where it will end up.
 
 
# Guest 2016-07-15 07:42
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
-8 # Robbee 2016-07-15 09:09
salute! marc! for another fine piece! - for those hungover from bernie not becoming prez! here's residual bernie!

for now bernie gears up to elect whom i call “more-progressi ves” this fall! - when we donate to bernie 2016 now, we fund campaigns of more-progressiv e candidates for office, whom bernie names!

for now bernie also fights a rules committee fight! to make primary/caucus voting more democratic! - to open closed primaries! - to end or reduce the role of super delegates!

in lame duck session bernie vows to fight tpp! - plus, if hill wins, he may ask obama to withdraw garland's nomination!

once he gets around to it! hopefully before end-of-year! count on bernie to move to overthrow plutocracy! - to move for public funding! only! of federal! state! and local! elections! - to overthrow plutocracy! is “political revolutionary!” it is occupy’s holy grail!

public funding! is revolutionary! - ever since our nation was founded! 220+ years ago! we have always had the best gov't corporations could buy! - not without occasional great progress! led by TR, FDR, JFK, LBJ - but for the past 35+ years even dems! got overwhelmed by bribes! - when progressives! don't hear! their hearing got muffled by bribes! - notice? that if an officeholder gets bribed? but didn't INTEND to get bribed? our supremes find no crime? - so we need a constitution! amended! to say that officeholders cannot TAKE money! - or anything of value! from anyone but the public! us! thru our gov't!
 
 
-7 # Robbee 2016-07-15 09:43
bernie, part 2

eventually bernie's loss of the dem nomination - if it happens, it can't until the dem convention! - will free up his time to unite our nation behind public funding! only!

bernie, reich and i maintain here that such a movement - although radically progressive! at least the public funding only! part! - should not be a dem cause alone! - we welcome conservatives and independents! as well as dems!

- i can't wait! until bernie gets every progressive he can! elected to office!

and i can't wait until bernie gets back to bernie's con-am! - public funding! only! UNRIGS our gov’t!

the sooner monsanto, for example, CANNOT bribe an officeholder to do its bidding! - the sooner WE win GMO labeling! - gov’t makes sense again! - gov’t works again! for us! not against us!

win prez or not, bernie's in it to change america forever!

there is nothing repugs and corrupt dems can wreck! - that we! - with publicly funded elections! as a constitutional right! can't fix!

"I fight the fascists not because I will win, but because they are fascists." - hedges

personally i am an existentialist - i would fight on even without hope of winning - as robbee always says - "fuck 'em if they can't take a joke!"

but i don't just love bernie's plan to overthrow plutocracy - what we millions do with the rest of our lives! will be forever remembered! - i pinch myself! that i am here! now! on the move! as bernie happens! - i like our chances!

- go bernie! and go dem!
 
 
+9 # djnova50 2016-07-15 09:45
Here is a list of ballot access for the Green Party as of 7-14-16:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_the_United_States#Presidential_ballot_access

I have watched Donald Trump on Celebrity Apprentice. He always seemed to come across as arrogant; but, I don't know many wealthy individuals to say that arrogance is typical for that financial realm. I did not like him at all. If either he or Hillary Clinton end up winning in November, it will be without my vote.

I like Bernie Sanders and do respect his decisions. I do not agree with all of them; but, he has the right to make his own decisions just as each of us have the right to making our own.

Name-calling and making derogatory remarks do not solve anything.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-07-15 17:56
And in some states that do not have Greens on the ballot, voters can write in Dr. Stein.
 
 
-12 # Robbee 2016-07-15 10:08
how hard is very hard? - # djnova50 2016-07-06 15:24
The Green Party is working very hard to have (stein) on the ballot in all 50 states by the time ballots are printed for the General Election.

- and what does it matter? - greens are a footnote in history! like nader! like perot! the 2nd conservative party leader!

the best greens can hope for is to become the 2nd major progressive party! - guaranteeing that conservatives win presidencies until the green party dies off!

1) a 2nd progressive party is irrelevant!
2) stein is lazy!

milk producers of america are gonna hate d-!

- stein is a 3rd-party candidate for national office, like nader in 2000 - the only thing a green candidate can accomplish in federal elections is to siphon progressive votes from the dem candidate!

didn't stein run in 2012? how did that work out for greens? greens are like a guy who goes to the frig, takes out the milk, opens the top, smells it's yeck! spoilt! puts it back, and every four years takes it out again, just to see if it got fresh again!

the irony is that stein is a competent candidate, but lazy - like bernie, she should run for office as mayor, do a good job, run for office as senator or governor, as bernie proved a 3rd party candidate can win, and only then run for prez as a dem!
 
 
-11 # Robbee 2016-07-15 10:10
irrelevant/lazy , part 2

the greens' mission is to ruin dem candidacies because they maintain that there is ABSOLUTELY NO difference between dems and repugs, which only shows inability to judge, lack of critical thought - when you believe in things that you don't understand, you're gonna suffer! - stevie wonder

greens haven't pulled a nader yet, losing dems an election! - but they won't quit trying!

d- is our "here's how to" champion of progressives throwing away their votes! our champion of spoilt milk!

d-'s is false-flag support for stein! - down with GOP! - in the general election, go dem!
 
 
+9 # laurele 2016-07-15 11:41
Bernie did not "lose," and no one is crying. We are pissed, yes, because Hillary cheated her way through the primary process with massive voter suppression. Yet she did not win because she did not attain the 2,383 pledged delegates needed to clinch the nomination. This is why no one "won" and no one "lost" in the primary process. There will still be a contested convention. The fight goes on. And many of us will NEVER vote for Hillary and plan to continue the fight through support for Jill Stein if Bernie does not get the Democratic nomination.
 
 
-8 # Mako 2016-07-15 14:49
Quoting laurele:
Bernie did not "lose," and no one is crying. We are pissed, yes, because Hillary cheated her way through the primary process with massive voter suppression. Yet she did not win because she did not attain the 2,383 pledged delegates needed to clinch the nomination. This is why no one "won" and no one "lost" in the primary process. There will still be a contested convention. The fight goes on. And many of us will NEVER vote for Hillary and plan to continue the fight through support for Jill Stein if Bernie does not get the Democratic nomination.


So did you miss the part where he endorsed her? Did you miss the part he said to vote for her if you want to continue his push for his policies? Did you miss the part that she REACHED the number of delegates because she won a plurality of the pledged delegates and the super delegates?

Hillary didn't cheat. She won 3 million more fucking votes than him. And FYI, the actual States are responsible for any alleged voter suppression, like in Arizona. The Secretary of State for each State is responsible for the implemented voting and means of getting people registered. NOT the damn candidate. Way to go at shifting the blame.

So yeah, please piss your vote away for Jill Stein, and screw over Bernie and all the vulnerable people he wanted to actually protect. Way to show solidarity.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-07-15 17:58
I agree, but apparently Sanders has agreed not to contest the nomination at the Convention. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
 
 
+6 # djnova50 2016-07-15 12:49
Here is a video all of you might want to watch. Bernie is Playing Chess: https://youtu.be/I3CxD5mQTXg

I will say again that if Senator Sanders is the nominee, I will vote for him. But, if Hillary is the nominee, I will vote for Jill Stein.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-07-15 18:08
Thanks for posting that beautiful and logical video.

I've gone to his site to see Bernie speeches, but don't recall hearing the site owner speak before. Great guy!
 
 
+1 # economagic 2016-07-16 20:02
Yeah, that's a good one. Here's my take:

The guy may be blowing smoke for the entire seven minutes. He may not even be Sanders' cameraman as the caption claims. But if he's not, he's a damn good actor. What he says makes sense, he makes a good case for it, and nothing in his voice or mannerisms suggests otherwise.

The one thing that irks me more than the trolls who say nothing over and over is the cocksure claims of certainty from people I actually agree with, ferpetesake. The "logical positivism" of A. J. Ayer and others -- the idea that no claim that cannot be proved on the basis of logic alone or is not supported by a century of incontrovertibl e evidence even if the claim itself was uttered only yesterday -- has thankfully faded into obscurity. Taking people who appear to be knowledgeable and serious at face value until proved wrong is not a bad idea at all. Neither is ignoring dubious claims offered with little or no substantive evidence other than the claimant's own dogmatic assurances.
 
 
+6 # Blackjack 2016-07-15 12:55
HRC could have secured my vote had her campaign been run ethically, her vote tally been secured honestly, and had she not announced that she had won before it happened. Instead, she assumed that Berners would fall in line behind her even though a lot of her votes were unearned, while Bernie's went uncounted. In essence, she declared victory no matter the tactics used to get there.

She really thinks the rules don't apply to her. The FBI let her off the hook for manipulation of her emails, but when the director said that she had been "very careless" and "should have known better," she couldn't let it go with that. Instead, she came right back in a defensive tone and questioned the director's conclusion. She should have either just shut up or publicly admitted that she had been careless, had learned from the experience, and appreciated that she had been given a chance to prove that by being a good president. Add Bill to the mix and it's easy for most people to see why the Clintons are not trusted. You can't make up that kind of trust in the 3 months left before the election. Like it or not, that's how both Clintons are perceived by voters in BOTH parties and Independents who might vote for her. Trump will hammer away at that untrustworthy moniker, making it even worse before the election. There's no defense for that and Trump knows it. That's all he has to do. The Dems should go with the candidate that people DO trust! That would be Bernie.
 
 
-8 # Mako 2016-07-15 14:51
Except she DID run it ethically, and the vote tally has been DONE. And to show your ignorance, it wasn't SHE who announced she had won.. It was the Associated Press. Cause she reached the threshold of votes to claim the nomination, which also included the superdelegates.

You really just WANT to find something wrong with her, and you've incorporated hating Hillary into your very own IDENTITY. You clearly don't give a fuck about the actual policy or positions that effect the people. You only see the person and your hatred.

It doesn't matter if 3 million more voted for her, you'd rather have Trump than have to swallow the candidate who you don't like.
 
 
+7 # Blackjack 2016-07-15 15:35
Seems to me you're the one wallowing in hatred. I don't hate HRC. I don't like her policies and I don't like her hypocrisy, but I don't hate her. I also don't hate Bill. I just don't like him and don't think he needs to be back in the White House. Don't you realize that this figure you keep stating of 3 million is a bit off the mark? Or do you simply not care? I do NOT want Trump, so please stop using that as your battle ax. I have every right to vote for someone that I can actually vote FOR. My dear, I have worked for 50 years for "policy and positions that affect people." Have you done anything that enhances your belief system other than to denigrate people who don't agree with you?
 
 
-3 # Mako 2016-07-15 17:13
Quoting Blackjack:
Seems to me you're the one wallowing in hatred. I don't hate HRC. I don't like her policies and I don't like her hypocrisy, but I don't hate her. I also don't hate Bill. I just don't like him and don't think he needs to be back in the White House. Don't you realize that this figure you keep stating of 3 million is a bit off the mark? Or do you simply not care? I do NOT want Trump, so please stop using that as your battle ax. I have every right to vote for someone that I can actually vote FOR. My dear, I have worked for 50 years for "policy and positions that affect people." Have you done anything that enhances your belief system other than to denigrate people who don't agree with you?


Wallowing in hatred? Yes, I hate seeing liberals like you not give a fuck about how their "right" effects people like me who have to deal with the blow back of you using said "right."

I hate how you think this election is personal when it's about the POLICIES and the PEOPLE who are genuinely AT RISK when Repubs take over.

I hate how you think chasing Stein somehow inoculates you from being taken to task over the truth that you're NOT actually backing ANYONE because she CAN'T win. And rather than move in the direction where it WOULD be possible to win and move left, you'd rather hang minorities, women, LGBT and the like, out to dry, than DO something and show support. Yeah, I've done A LOT out in the street to help. AND to survive in this country.
 
 
+6 # lfeuille 2016-07-15 17:34
"HRC could have secured my vote had her campaign been run ethically, her vote tally been secured honestly, and had she not announced that she had won before it happened. Instead, she assumed that Berners would fall in line behind her even though a lot of her votes were unearned, while Bernie's went uncounted. In essence, she declared victory no matter the tactics used to get there."

Hillary lost me in the first debate when she claimed Iranians as the enemies she was most proud of making. She cinched the no sale in another performance when she outline her "vision" for the middle east tailor made to Netanyahoo's specifications.


But if she had won honestly I wouldn't be as angry as I am right now.
 
 
-6 # Mako 2016-07-15 17:49
Quoting lfeuille:
"HRC could have secured my vote had her campaign been run ethically, her vote tally been secured honestly, and had she not announced that she had won before it happened. Instead, she assumed that Berners would fall in line behind her even though a lot of her votes were unearned, while Bernie's went uncounted. In essence, she declared victory no matter the tactics used to get there."

Hillary lost me in the first debate when she claimed Iranians as the enemies she was most proud of making. She cinched the no sale in another performance when she outline her "vision" for the middle east tailor made to Netanyahoo's specifications.


But if she had won honestly I wouldn't be as angry as I am right now.


So you're mad at her saying she was proud of making enemies of the Iranian Regime... Even though she was also one of the ones who also aided in the passing of Obama's Nuclear Deal with Iran and thawing or relations with them.

And supporting Israel automatically means being joined with the Likud party?

You've read A LOT into her words.
 
 
+4 # cymricmorty 2016-07-15 21:26
Some of HRC's words on Iran:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-if-im-president-we-will-attack-iran/5460484

Some of HRC's words on "How I Would Reaffirm Unbreakable Bond with Israel - and Benjamin Netanyahu"

http://forward.com/opinion/national/324013/how-i-would-rebuild-ties-to-israel-and-benjamin-neta/
 
 
+6 # Capn Canard 2016-07-15 20:27
Wow, what a brawl... too bad, they just might decide to cancel the election. It depends on what the Banksters want after the dollar goes up in smoke.
 
 
+3 # vicnada 2016-07-15 23:18
I just watched The Truman Show. Something about Mr. Ash's portrayal feels like Everyman Bernie just decided to walk out the door of elaborately contrived democra-set. Is there still time to take back our lives and and win back true Democracy? or will we simply switch channels to the next reality show?
 
 
+3 # BIg Lar 2016-07-16 15:23
Agree. The President comes and goes but the core values are what matter. Build a strong progressive electorate and everything will take care of itself. Still, it sure looks like the Bern was waiting until the FBI spoke before he capitulated.
 
 
+2 # kasta626 2016-07-17 19:34
Endorsing and conceding are not the same thing. It will be a contested ELECTION!
 
 
+1 # vicnada 2016-07-18 11:03
I just watched The Truman Show. Something about Mr. Ash's portrayal feels like Everyman Bernie just decided to walk out the door of elaborately contrived democra-set. Is there still time to take back our lives and and win back true Democracy? or will we simply switch channels to the next reality show?
 
 
-1 # GeraldP 2016-08-07 23:15
This nation has a two party system and that will not likely change in the near future.
The Democratic Party is most receptive to what Senator Sanders is pushing for ....soooo duh ...to those who support him ...join him in making the changes you wish from inside ...vote, participate in your local government and begin the process of getting folks at the table.
And oh yeah ...stop the whinning ...its a complete turn off and Senator Clinton is not evil or as bad as the Republicans ...change takes effort and commitment...as k any African American who is knowledgeable about the decades long Civil Rights movement.
 

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