Sanders transforms into contender, still pitches revolution

[Publicus]

Publicus how is Bernie looking in the lead up to New York Primary's.

Last I looked Hillary had 18 point lead on him. Just wondering if Bernie has managed to cut her lead a little?

Bernie's going to run out of primaries before he runs out of voters or momentum.

It's the nature of the beast.

Bernie will probably still be getting money after the primaries have concluded despite donors knowing he hasn't any more delegates to get. He can sustain his campaign beyond the voting and continue in his messaging, but he'll go into the convention with more money and enthusiasm than delegates.

While Republicans loaded their primary schedule to include winner take all later as in the present phase, the Democrats are proportional in delegate assignments from start to finish.

So despite Bernie doing so well in Iowa and getting a blowout in New Hampshire, he quickly fell behind in delegates from primaries and caucuses right after that. He's stayed behind....a bit more and a bit more yet. This is not including super delegates, i.e., elected senators, elected US House members, elected governors and other elected state officials to include legislators and judges, party officials many of whom are elected in the party and to public office; some party hacks.

Bernie's blowouts have been almost all in low delegate total states, such as Utah, Washington state, Hawaii, Alaska. Although Bernie won decisively in some bigger delegate states such as Michigan and Wisconsin, HRC still got her delegates in each too. Hillary's blowouts have been in delegate rich states, such as South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Ohio, Massachusetts, Florida.

Bernie needed winner take all in Michigan and Wisconsin and he needs it in California, but WTA does not exist in the D nominating process.

Nate Silver gives Hillary a 98% probability to win New York state. Given the polls in New York state, the fact voters in the state twice elected her to the US Senate, twice voted for Bill for Potus and that Bernie is a Vermonter since age 15, Hillary in this one will very likely hold her decisive lead. Even if Bernie somehow makes New York state closer or close, he needs a blowout and that won't happen.

Bernie bless him will bring down the house in his fire and brimstone speech at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia but Hillary will close the convention with her nomination acceptance speech. Her choice of vp will be sandwiched between 'em.

There's no doubt Bernie will campaign for HRC and sometimes with her, and that he'll campaign for the D in key Senate takeover races where he undoubtedly will make a difference. He'll be a huge help to Russ Feingold to regain his Senate seat in Wisconsin and for US Rep Tammy Duckworth to take the R Senate seat in IL, to help the D nominee to win Rubio's vacant seat in FL and to keep Harry Reid's vacant seat in NV. Given Bernie did so well in Iowa, now a Blue state, he probably will help the D there challenging Sen Grassly who is the chief R schemer with the spies on the emails.

In January Bernie will return to the Senate to caucus again with the D party and as the newly premier US Senator Bernie will get what he wants. If the D's win control of the Senate, increasingly likely, he'll have his own select committee to pursue whatever issue of his that he chooses to inflict ever so magnificently on the one percent.

Madam president will want to be seen with Sen Sanders instead of vice-versa.

[sgtsabai]

Bernie has had the corporate Democratic Party against him from the git-go. I'm surprised somebody that shows so much intelligence most of the time would support a neoliberal/neocon tool of Wall Street criminals/banksters as Clinton. While she may be 1/100th of a step above the right wing wackos on the Republican side, she is a lying, contriving, scheming, no good bitch that bodes evil for the US and the world. She will renege on all her "populist" stances she copied from Bernie as soon as the general election starts. She will cost the Dem's not only the house but the Senate as many just will not vote. I'll vote, but damn sure not for her and many others feel the same. She could even loose the general she is so disliked. The majority of the people are starting to learn just what she is, a power hungry bitch that wants to be the 1st woman president and could give a damn less about the working people, hell she doesn't even know any. http://www.opednews.com/articles/Hillary-Clinton-Represent-by-Ray-Smith-Hillary-2016_Hillary-Clinton_Hillary-Clinton-160412-444.html

[Publicus]

...It was thus that the Republican controlled congress and the Republican Potus GW Bush combined to prohibit Scotus citing foreign laws in its opinions in any way. ...

Did congress really pass such a law? I can't find any references saying there is. Lots of discussion and papers, but nothing about Congress limiting the power of the Supreme Court.

TH

English common law is accepted in US and state courts of law as an exception to the discussions and debates over whether there are merits or a need to apply foreign laws in American courts. (English common law is foreign in name only.)

Just about everyone agrees British jurisprudence is vital to US jurisprudence because without English common law in the US, a term such as habeas corpus would have no meaning or only some little or recent significance.

Same for anything we have derived from Roman law, such as that of the Justinian Code and, also, to render unto Caesar et al. These two systems are at the locus of American law so they're readily accepted and not disputed in their applicability to the Constitution.

As to the question, no, there actually isn't any such law, so my post in this particular respect needs to stand corrected at this time. Lots of bills in Congress during the past ten years, lots of Resolutions filed and proposed by Senators and Members of the House, some hearings by committees, but no action to adopt anything.

I'd heard several years ago a Resolution had been passed in this respect, so I remembered that at this time in writing the post. However, your question sent me specifically to an expert source from which I learned there has not been any Congressional or White House action in the matter (Prof Eugene Volokh at UCLA Law School).

FOREIGN LAW IN AMERICAN COURTS

By EUGENE VOLOKH

http://www.law.ou.edu/sites/default/files/files/FACULTY/01%20volokh-foreign%20article%20blu1.pdf

Also Justice Breyer last year summarised the case for foreign law in US courts...

“I would say 15 to 20 percent of the cases require the judges to know something about what happens abroad,” he said

“Sometimes facts, sometimes law, sometimes decisions.” At the same time, there is an ongoing “political argument that people say the court shouldn’t refer to or cite cases from foreign courts.

“So when I compare that to what I actually see, I think something important is happening, and I think those who are talking about not citing foreign case law are basically barking up the wrong tree,” he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/breyer-says-understanding-foreign-law-is-critical-to-supreme-courts-work/2015/09/12/36a38212-57e9-11e5-8bb1-b488d231bba2_story.html

The French legal system for example is certainly different from the Anglo-American one, however, a good number of the principles and precepts of French law and jurisprudence overlap with ours. It is in fact a broad and deep western civilisation thingy.

[up2u2]

Just curious, as a global citizen of the world are you an American citizen and eligible to take part in US presidential elections?

Since all the liberal Democrats are dancing around an answer, let me interject that up2u2 is most definitely NOT an American.

He has no dog in the fight. Take his opinions for what they are worth.

Every person on this planet has a 'dog in this fight'. The world is tiring of having to waste their citizens lives and money attempting to fix Republican Presidents idiotic ventures into foreign affairs and stupid Presidents like GWB who destabilized the Middle East and put global financial markets into meltdown. Elect an idiot like Trump and America will be down in the playground corner looking like 'noddy no friends' and when you come 'cap in hand' looking to form a military coalition of support the answer will be no. Just try and get a resolution through the UN Security Council no one will support you. Fact is the world knows that American democracy, justice system, Congress is corrupt and that America is effectively broke swimming in debt, crumbling infrastructure, social inequality, dysfunctional health care and education system. Elect any of these Republican idiots and there will be consequences.

[keemapoot]

...It was thus that the Republican controlled congress and the Republican Potus GW Bush combined to prohibit Scotus citing foreign laws in its opinions in any way. ...

Did congress really pass such a law? I can't find any references saying there is. Lots of discussion and papers, but nothing about Congress limiting the power of the Supreme Court.

TH

English common law is accepted in US and state courts of law as an exception to the discussions and debates over whether there are merits or a need to apply foreign laws in American courts. (English common law is foreign in name only.)

Just about everyone agrees British jurisprudence is vital to US jurisprudence because without English common law in the US, a term such as habeas corpus would have no meaning or only some little or recent significance.

Same for anything we have derived from Roman law, such as that of the Justinian Code and, also, to render unto Caesar et al. These two systems are at the locus of American law so they're readily accepted and not disputed in their applicability to the Constitution.

As to the question, no, there actually isn't any such law, so my post in this particular respect needs to stand corrected at this time. Lots of bills in Congress during the past ten years, lots of Resolutions filed and proposed by Senators and Members of the House, some hearings by committees, but no action to adopt anything.

I'd heard several years ago a Resolution had been passed in this respect, so I remembered that at this time in writing the post. However, your question sent me specifically to an expert source from which I learned there has not been any Congressional or White House action in the matter (Prof Eugene Volokh at UCLA Law School).

FOREIGN LAW IN AMERICAN COURTS

By EUGENE VOLOKH

http://www.law.ou.edu/sites/default/files/files/FACULTY/01%20volokh-foreign%20article%20blu1.pdf

Also Justice Breyer last year summarised the case for foreign law in US courts...

“I would say 15 to 20 percent of the cases require the judges to know something about what happens abroad,” he said

“Sometimes facts, sometimes law, sometimes decisions.” At the same time, there is an ongoing “political argument that people say the court shouldn’t refer to or cite cases from foreign courts.

“So when I compare that to what I actually see, I think something important is happening, and I think those who are talking about not citing foreign case law are basically barking up the wrong tree,” he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/breyer-says-understanding-foreign-law-is-critical-to-supreme-courts-work/2015/09/12/36a38212-57e9-11e5-8bb1-b488d231bba2_story.html

The French legal system for example is certainly different from the Anglo-American one, however, a good number of the principles and precepts of French law and jurisprudence overlap with ours. It is in fact a broad and deep western civilisation thingy.

As Breyer states in that interview, decisions from foreign courts are not precedents, but should be considered in the same way as any good law review analysis.

The point about using foreign laws to interpret our constitution should not scare anyone. There are huge global movements at harmonization of trade laws, contract laws and other laws. Countries borrow better constructed and reasoned laws from each other all the time.

Regarding the borrowing of common laws between and among all such countries such as the US and UK, that is a long off topic discussion but generally US law is more highly developed because of the larger volume of litigation in the US. However, with respect to Const. Law, that is not as true, so sure I agree with Breyer.

Sent from my GT-N5100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[hawker9000]

...It was thus that the Republican controlled congress and the Republican Potus GW Bush combined to prohibit Scotus citing foreign laws in its opinions in any way. ...

Did congress really pass such a law? I can't find any references saying there is. Lots of discussion and papers, but nothing about Congress limiting the power of the Supreme Court.

TH

Yes, please. What law was that?

[Boon Mee]

Sanders is toast, boys. Dead man walking...

[chuckd]

Just curious, as a global citizen of the world are you an American citizen and eligible to take part in US presidential elections?

Since all the liberal Democrats are dancing around an answer, let me interject that up2u2 is most definitely NOT an American.

He has no dog in the fight. Take his opinions for what they are worth.

Every person on this planet has a 'dog in this fight'. The world is tiring of having to waste their citizens lives and money attempting to fix Republican Presidents idiotic ventures into foreign affairs and stupid Presidents like GWB who destabilized the Middle East and put global financial markets into meltdown. Elect an idiot like Trump and America will be down in the playground corner looking like 'noddy no friends' and when you come 'cap in hand' looking to form a military coalition of support the answer will be no. Just try and get a resolution through the UN Security Council no one will support you. Fact is the world knows that American democracy, justice system, Congress is corrupt and that America is effectively broke swimming in debt, crumbling infrastructure, social inequality, dysfunctional health care and education system. Elect any of these Republican idiots and there will be consequences.

Then do something about it besides posting anonymously on a Thailand centered forum to other anonymous posters.

Get on a plane, fly to the US and join the protests against Trump, Cruz or whomever you wish to protest at whatever whim overtakes you.

I'm sure moveon.org would be happy to have somebody with your verbal skills writing tweets for them. Paragraphs are not required for that sort of journalism

Who knows, you might even become a naturalized citizen and have an impact on elections by actually voting.

As it is now, you are simply a tree in the forest that nobody is heeding.

[Jingthing]

Sanders is toast, boys. Dead man walking...

A rare case that I agree with you.

The main thing I like about Sander's issues is his advocacy for nationalized health care to realize full access and dramatic cost controls.

I don't think Obamacare really works ... the costs are too high and it is basically a welfare problem for the health industry.

Free college tuition for all is not realistic. However, for those who have the aptitude and are in poverty, I think the government does need to step in to make sure all such people can get a higher education without going into major lifetime debt.

As far as extreme economic inequality, yes it does need to be addressed more effectively, but excessively taxing the wealthy wouldn't be enough and would have economic downsides (people would flee), so more creative solutions are needed.

On foreign policy, I find Sanders very weak compared to Hillary Clinton.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Jingthing

[boomerangutang]

A bit of foreign reaction to the Republican primary: http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/diplomats-are-racing-ink-international-agreements?akid=14152.85778.BP1Ton&rd=1&src=newsletter1054179&t=8

Foreign reaction - good or bad - not my concern. Neither is it my concern what people who are not eligible to vote or choose not to vote think about this process, the candidates and/or the results. Their opinions, IMO of course, simply do not matter and have no bearing on the discussion at hand.

Foreign opinions are very important for a presidency. Just one of many levels: If a president is liked and trusted, his/her foreign policy suggestions will be easier to implement. With a prez like Trump or Cruz, neither of whom are liked or trusted overseas, everything will be uphill, and often end badly - Trump in particular. Already, foreign leaders are spooked by the idea of a Trump presidency, and I'm not just referring just to America's enemies. Many of the US's staunch allies will be adverse to the idea of dealing with a man who is immature, not-well-informed, quick-to-name-calling, quick-to-anger and recrimination, and difficult to converse with (always interrupting). Plus, Trump's a flip flopper and not known to stick with deals. Who wants to make a deal with a man like that?

a must-see pardody of Trump's Wall

Sanders is toast, boys. Dead man walking...

He probably won't win, but it is possible. There are a slew of primaries a week after NY. And California cometh in early June.

[helpisgood]

Sanders is toast, boys. Dead man walking...

A rare case that I agree with you.

The main thing I like about Sander's issues is his advocacy for nationalized health care to realize full access and dramatic cost controls.

I don't think Obamacare really works ... the costs are too high and it is basically a welfare problem for the health industry.

Free college tuition for all is not realistic. However, for those who have the aptitude and are in poverty, I think the government does need to step in to make sure all such people can get a higher education without going into major lifetime debt.

As far as extreme economic inequality, yes it does need to be addressed more effectively, but excessively taxing the wealthy wouldn't be enough and would have economic downsides (people would flee), so more creative solutions are needed.

On foreign policy, I find Sanders very weak compared to Hillary Clinton.

No, Hillary is the bad choice with regards to foreign policy, unless you're in the military-industrial complex or a US foreign corporation.

One good example, check out this article (and you can easily find more) about how she handled Honduras as Sec. of State:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-weisbrot/hillary-clinton-needs-to_b_9680642.html

Note the part about how Honduras was edited out from the paperback edition of her recent biography. She's realized that the original passage explaining what she did is damning.

One reason for the Honduras coup was that their president wanted to raise wages, which would affect US foreign corporate interests. That's a recurring theme in the American "Yankee Go Home," Gunboat Central American foreign policy.

I think that many of you Hillary supporters like her for the same reason why in high school you may have liked the "cool kids." She's just a pop star to you, and you close your eyes to the fact that she's just another politician bought and owned by big money.

Hillary supporters need to get out of fantasy land and realize that people like Hillary Clinton put you a far second to power and big money. Just ask Goldman Sachs.

[sirineou]

It has being said in this thread that free tuition college is not realistic.

Why? Why is it realistic in Other countries but not in the US?

Some would say it is too expensive. I would ask, what is more expensive, an educated productive tax paying citizen or an uneducated unproductive, consumer of government services. What costs more, four years in jail or four years in college?

[sgtsabai]

I don't believe Bernie is "toast" but he does have a long row to hoe. He started with little name recognition and the more people see of him the more they like him and the more people see of Clinton the less they like her. The lame stream corporate media has played a large roll in keeping his name and accomplishments out of public view. Note corporate, you know like the corporate Democrats, i.e. Clinton. Here's a bit on Sanders and his chances. http://www.wired.com/2016/04/bernie-sanders-just-scored-powerful-endorsement-nyc/?mbid=nl_41316

http://www.alternet.org/print/labor/watch-bernie-sanders-joins-strikers-new-york-slams-verizons-unfair-labor-practices

http://www.alternet.org/print/election-2016/democrats-have-no-soul-clintons-neoliberalism-and-how-peoples-party-lost-its-way

http://www.alternet.org/print/election-2016/majority-americans-believe-sanders-only-compassionate-and-likable-candidate

http://www.alternet.org/print/election-2016/5-reasons-why-bernie-sanders-only-choice-environment

[up2u2]

Sanders is toast, boys. Dead man walking...

A rare case that I agree with you.

The main thing I like about Sander's issues is his advocacy for nationalized health care to realize full access and dramatic cost controls.

I don't think Obamacare really works ... the costs are too high and it is basically a welfare problem for the health industry.

Free college tuition for all is not realistic. However, for those who have the aptitude and are in poverty, I think the government does need to step in to make sure all such people can get a higher education without going into major lifetime debt.

As far as extreme economic inequality, yes it does need to be addressed more effectively, but excessively taxing the wealthy wouldn't be enough and would have economic downsides (people would flee), so more creative solutions are needed.

On foreign policy, I find Sanders very weak compared to Hillary Clinton.

I agree I think America is too far gone to put in the reforms required. Once a nation proceeds down a certain path it reaches a 'point of no return'. America is so far past that 'point of no return' there really is no way of turning back.

A little like when Cancer metastasises throughout the body. Congress, Supreme Court, Health, Education, Income Equality, Criminal Justice, Pharma, Basic Wage, Tax System, Infrastructure, Financial System, Middle Class.

All issues Bernie's wants to address. I think Republicus is right the democratic system has 'cancer' too so a cure cannot be effected. The only thing to do is make the patient comfortable.

Maybe Trump is the answer. A swift compassionate end to put the patient out of its misery.

[helpisgood]

Sanders is toast, boys. Dead man walking...

A rare case that I agree with you.

The main thing I like about Sander's issues is his advocacy for nationalized health care to realize full access and dramatic cost controls.

I don't think Obamacare really works ... the costs are too high and it is basically a welfare problem for the health industry.

Free college tuition for all is not realistic. However, for those who have the aptitude and are in poverty, I think the government does need to step in to make sure all such people can get a higher education without going into major lifetime debt.

As far as extreme economic inequality, yes it does need to be addressed more effectively, but excessively taxing the wealthy wouldn't be enough and would have economic downsides (people would flee), so more creative solutions are needed.

On foreign policy, I find Sanders very weak compared to Hillary Clinton.

No, Hillary is the bad choice with regards to foreign policy, unless you're in the military-industrial complex or a US foreign corporation.

One good example, check out this article (and you can easily find more) about how she handled Honduras as Sec. of State:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-weisbrot/hillary-clinton-needs-to_b_9680642.html

Note the part about how Honduras was edited out from the paperback edition of her recent biography. She's realized that the original passage explaining what she did is damning.

One reason for the Honduras coup was that their president wanted to raise wages, which would affect US foreign corporate interests. That's a recurring theme in the American "Yankee Go Home," Gunboat Central American foreign policy.

I think that many of you Hillary supporters like her for the same reason why in high school you may have liked the "cool kids." She's just a pop star to you, and you close your eyes to the fact that she's just another politician bought and owned by big money.

Hillary supporters need to get out of fantasy land and realize that people like Hillary Clinton put you a far second to power and big money. Just ask Goldman Sachs.

I had a typo there. I meant her memoir or autobiography, Hard Choices, not her "biography." Sorry!

[Jingthing]

Sanders is toast, boys. Dead man walking...

A rare case that I agree with you.

The main thing I like about Sander's issues is his advocacy for nationalized health care to realize full access and dramatic cost controls.

I don't think Obamacare really works ... the costs are too high and it is basically a welfare problem for the health industry.

Free college tuition for all is not realistic. However, for those who have the aptitude and are in poverty, I think the government does need to step in to make sure all such people can get a higher education without going into major lifetime debt.

As far as extreme economic inequality, yes it does need to be addressed more effectively, but excessively taxing the wealthy wouldn't be enough and would have economic downsides (people would flee), so more creative solutions are needed.

On foreign policy, I find Sanders very weak compared to Hillary Clinton.

I agree I think America is too far gone to put in the reforms required. Once a nation proceeds down a certain path it reaches a 'point of no return'. America is so far past that 'point of no return' there really is no way of turning back.

A little like when Cancer metastasises throughout the body. Congress, Supreme Court, Health, Education, Income Equality, Criminal Justice, Pharma, Basic Wage, Tax System, Infrastructure, Financial System, Middle Class.

All issues Bernie's wants to address. I think Republicus is right the democratic system has 'cancer' too so a cure cannot be effected. The only thing to do is make the patient comfortable.

Maybe Trump is the answer. A swift compassionate end to put the patient out of its misery.

Political nihilism. I think I'll pass. You can keep your river of blood that would bring.

[up2u2]

It has being said in this thread that free tuition college is not realistic.

Why? Why is it realistic in Other countries but not in the US?

Some would say it is too expensive. I would ask, what is more expensive, an educated productive tax paying citizen or an uneducated unproductive, consumer of government services. What costs more, four years in jail or four years in college?

Yes all developed nations other than America have publicly funded health care, pharmaceutical schemes, tuition free higher education, a liveable minimum wage, collective bargaining but for some reason America cannot do these basic things for citizens. It's too difficult apparently.

I think you will find people will vote for 4 years jail option as it is more profitable for the investors in privately run prisons siri.

[up2u2]

Sanders is toast, boys. Dead man walking...

What!!!! No cartoon? What's going on Boon Mee?

[Jingthing]

It has being said in this thread that free tuition college is not realistic.

Why? Why is it realistic in Other countries but not in the US?

Some would say it is too expensive. I would ask, what is more expensive, an educated productive tax paying citizen or an uneducated unproductive, consumer of government services. What costs more, four years in jail or four years in college?

Yes all developed nations other than America have publicly funded health care, pharmaceutical schemes, tuition free higher education, a liveable minimum wage, collective bargaining but for some reason America cannot do these basic things for citizens. It's too difficult apparently.

I think you will find people will vote for 4 years jail option as it is more profitable for the investors in privately run prisons siri.

Yes, ideally.

But we all know the USA culture is different and all phases of such advancement are long struggles.

So taking a step approach is more realistic in the USA political context.

I saw an interview with an author yesterday talking about future job prospects.

Of course rote jobs will be with the robots, but he was saying even semi-rote intellectual jobs (paper processing, etc.) would become robotized as well.

Most future jobs will be for jobs we don't even have labels for yet.

That's what happened to me ... my career sucked until age 30 and then the computer industry boomed and I managed to fit into job labels that didn't exist before and I could have never directly trained for.

So yes those with the right education will be ready. The others ... it will be gloom and doom without even shit jobs to fall back on.

I can see that a European style minimum income even without work will become politically necessary unless people want to see masses rioting and dying in the streets.

The qualified skilled people can work hard and get rich.

The unprepared masses can sit in home pods and experience life through VIRTUAL REALITY.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Jingthing

[sgtsabai]

Many that support Hillary are afraid of the future as it should be. A living wage, college paid for, universal health care, oh no it can't be done in America, we're "different". Why can't it be done? The majority of the people support those programs. Oh Hillary's approach is proper and realist, only baby steps, bull. People fool themselves if they think any tiny little bit of that will ever happen unless the people rise up and demand it. It damn sure won't happen under Hillary. But it is possible for Bernie to get the ball rolling. No it won't be easy, the corporations and the rich will finally have to start paying for the damned wars they support and paying their fair share for what America has furnished them. What, what you say, they'll leave. Well hell they are already gone, ah duh. America makes, wait a minute I'll think of it, steel, nope that's Chinese, not it, electronics, yea, ah nope that's not it, ah I've got it, burgers, yep that's it, poison burgers that make you fat, yep way to go "murica". Thanks to the Clintons, Republicans and blue dawg Democrats. Oh hell, I forgot war, damn good at making war, but can't win one.

[Jingthing]

You're forgetting politics and the structure of the U.S. government.

A president isn't a dictator.

She can't snap her fingers and get it done.

It all has to make it through both houses of congress and also not get blocked by the supreme court.

Even crappy compromise Obamacare got seriously damaged by the supreme court, which made it legal for any state to opt out of expanded medicaid and many did just that.

So good luck with the extreme idealism and welcome to the real world in the U.S. where change is SLOW if you get it at all.

Even when the majority of people are on board with a major change, expect to usually wait at least 20 years and sometimes 100 for the legislature to follow suit.

Does that suck? Kind of does when you want the change in question, not so much when you don't.

Insist on all now or nothing, and you'll get nothing.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Jingthing

[Credo]

I would support Bernie in a heartbeat, but I don't think he has the political capital that Hillary has. She may not be able to snap her fingers and get things done, but I think she has enough capital and favors owed to her (and Bill) to get things done. I think she also has some leverage to do some arm twisting.

Obama's biggest problem was that he didn't have this. Nobody really owed him much of anything. I don't know if anyone owes Bernie much, but there are people that owe the Clintons.

[sgtsabai]

You start with all, then if you have to, you compromise. Hillary, like Obama starts with nothing and gives away what was already there. If you wait, wait, wait for something good to happen it never will. On the other hand, the already bad will get worse. Bernie will fight for what he knows is right, Hillary will fight for the power and money as she always has. If, she gets elected. Perhaps you should check Bernie's record on getting things done and then look at Clinton's and see what she has accomplished, not much. Go for broke! Fight for what is right. I've done it all my life and paid the price, gladly and proudly. Maybe a few sheeple should find their hind feet. Bernie outpolls Clinton in every single instance against the Republican wacko's. And remember those southern states she won, don't count 'cause they will go Republican in the general. Perhaps some of you should actually try reading the links I post.

[Credo]

In theory I agree with you, but in practical terms I don't think Bernie could get things done. Hillary knows the political system, and that includes not alienating the Bernie supporters. They are a large and strong vocal group. It may help move her in the right direction. ...One can hope.

[keemapoot]

I would support Bernie in a heartbeat, but I don't think he has the political capital that Hillary has. She may not be able to snap her fingers and get things done, but I think she has enough capital and favors owed to her (and Bill) to get things done. I think she also has some leverage to do some arm twisting.

Obama's biggest problem was that he didn't have this. Nobody really owed him much of anything. I don't know if anyone owes Bernie much, but there are people that owe the Clintons.

This is a good point, and even though I don't like Hilary and think she has a tendency to abuse power and manipulate process, I've often maintained that she would be effective and competent as President. You cite an important reason why.

Lyndon B. Johnson was a President somewhat in this vein, in that he succeeded in getting passage of many major pieces of legislation and was the ultimate old boy backroom deal-maker.

The Clintons are different obviously, but one major factor is to get and keep government running, and enact changes. And, having Bill's clout would be important.

[Jingthing]

My attitude is probably because I'm older and I've been passionate about some issues for many DECADES now and the progress on those issues is just not impressive. These are issues where there is significant public support, some strong majorities. So when I say the U.S. system is SLOW, that's from my personal experience. I understand younger people won't have that perspective and that's normal, but that doesn't change the political realities.

[sgtsabai]

I'm not "young" people but I've seen and participated in movements that took years too long but in the end prevailed. We stopped that damned American War in SE Asia and Nixon got kicked out, along with Agnew. They sent me to jail. Then many went to sleep and evil never sleeps. Political realities can and must change if America is to survive. We don't have 50 more years. The American empire is crumbling, as is the world. I've been involved in politics ever since I came back from Vietnam and educated myself. A little on Bernie's plans for organizing. He recognizes that without a new Congress and the people nothing will happen. http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/print/video_heres_how_bernie_sanders_would_rally_local_leaders_as_20160413

[thaihome]

I'm not "young" people but I've seen and participated in movements that took years too long but in the end prevailed. We stopped that damned American War in SE Asia and Nixon got kicked out, along with Agnew. They sent me to jail. Then many went to sleep and evil never sleeps. Political realities can and must change if America is to survive. We don't have 50 more years. The American empire is crumbling, as is the world. I've been involved in politics ever since I came back from Vietnam and educated myself. A little on Bernie's plans for organizing. He recognizes that without a new Congress and the people nothing will happen.

Sorta reminds you of the good old days with Gene, doesn't it.

TH

[boomerangutang]

In theory I agree with you, but in practical terms I don't think Bernie could get things done. Hillary knows the political system, and that includes not alienating the Bernie supporters. They are a large and strong vocal group. It may help move her in the right direction. ...One can hope.

If nothing else, Sanders is prompting Hillary to ease a bit to the left. Both Dem candidates are more in tune with the general electorate and can sense that Americans are leaning to the left on average. Some indications: women in combat, openness to gay marriages, openness to pot. Republicans can see the trends but are trying to slow down the truck of trends by putting their feet out the doors and dragging them on the road surface. Sanders knows and Hillary senses that leaning to the left will still garner a majority of votes in the general election - mainly because the Republican options are bereft. Sanders and Cruz are the most principled and consistent candidates in contention. Sanders on the left, Cruz on the right.

Trump is a waffler and opportunist, the consummate salesman; "I can tell you like blue drapes, they're the greatest. No, not blue? then for sure you'll love my gold colored drapes, they're also excellent. No, not gold? well tell me what color drapes you like, and I'll have my people sew you a set. You'll be so happy. So happy. Everybody loves my drapes. They're the best drapes in human history. The best. Mrs Saddam Hussein outfitted all her castles with my drapes, and that's why I love the Iranians. Not Iranians? ....You say they're Iraqis? What does it matter, eh? They're all rag-head millionaires. As long as they pay me millions of dollars, I'll love any nationality."

Edited April 14, 2016 by boomerangutang

[Publicus]

Sanders is toast, boys. Dead man walking...

Both Bernie and Cruz are in for a tough April.

Delegates for each of 'em are already hard to find up there in the northeast USA where anyone wearing a ten-gallon hat gets a rolling laugh all the way along the sidewalk...and where Bernie needs what does not exist, i.e., winner take all D party primaries the rest of the way. (No WTA in the D party at all.)

Most remaining Democratic party primaries are in states such as New York that have a Democrat-only can vote rule -- no Independents allowed, no Republicans allowed who want to switch party on the spot to vote their own purposes in a D party primary.

Republicans in that corner of the US are used to guyz like Trump the loudmouth moneybags New Yorker but they have little use of Ted Cruz the cowboy who talks the Bible to his horse by the light of the campfire.

Bernie has run out of primaries and Cruz has few if any states left to pronounce upon "God Bless the Great State of ________!"