Sanders transforms into contender, still pitches revolution

[Boon Mee]

How's that $15.00 a hour wage working out in California and Seattle?

Small businesses closing by the droves is how.

https://shiftwa.org/more-seattle-restaurants-close-doors-as-15-minimum-wage-approaches/

[thaihome]

How's that $15.00 a hour wage working out in California and Seattle?

Small businesses closing by the droves is how.

https://shiftwa.org/more-seattle-restaurants-close-doors-as-15-minimum-wage-approaches/

Actually the article includes no facts, just opinions, on any correlation between a $15 minimum wage and restaurants closing.

With noting the source:

Welcome to SHIFT Washington a new online platform for shifting the debate in Olympia. Were glad to have you as part of the effort, and hope youll be active in helping SHIFT Washington State in a positive direction.

So why SHIFT now? Frankly, after watching yet another campaign cycle where a wide variety of liberal special interest groups get away with flooding the airwaves, mailboxes and internet with their predictably shrill and inaccurate attacks, it seemed we needed a new way of shining a light on their lies.

TH

[Boon Mee]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/04/the-7-most-dangerous-myths-about-a-15-minimum-wage/#e438b8e2c57b

The 7 Most Dangerous Myths About A $15 Minimum Wage

The facts are out there for y'all to see if not blinded by a Commie point of view

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/272591-restaurants-seattle-closing-alarming-rate-15-minimum-wage-factor/

Edited May 12, 2016 by Boon Mee

[sgtsabai]

Large multi-national corporations often do not pay any tax and in fact some of received millions or billions back. How much money do you make and how much do you receive back? The tax rate for the top under Eisenhower (the last Republican president) was at 90%. It is well past time for the rich and corporations to begin to pay the piper, pay their fair share. The US does not and never has had a "deficit crisis" it has had and does have a revenue crisis because the tax burden has been shifted from corporations and the 1% to the middle/working class who's wages have stagnated under voodoo economics. Right wing Republicans have done their best to destroy government by a death of 1,000 cuts. People like Paul Ryan don't want small governement, they want no government. Bernie wants to fix this, Clinton doesn't and Trump is just a power hungry fascist con man with white, angry, entitled, nativist, bigoted, and racist thugs constituting the base. A good name perhaps would be "Trumpthuglicans".

[jmd8800]

In respect to wealth the answers are simple. Throw away your calculators, economists, pundits and the whole sheeebang... all you need to know is:

The people are broke, the governments are broke... and corporations, banks and the elite are sitting on trillions of dollars in cash.

It is simple.

[up2u2]

One thing I do know is, on Foreign Policy, Trump hasn't the first or second clue.

And Obama + Clinton have/had a 'clue'?

It's been a disaster unfolding since Barry Soetoro was elected.

No they both have a clue but did nothing and you can see as the American taxpayer realised they got shafted Hillary is being held to account for being part of the problem. Fact is if Hillary hadn't sewn up the nomination and it was a fair 'one on one' fight without Superdelegates Hillary would really be struggling to get the nomination. I think Bernie would have beat her fair and square. Probably have to get Publicus to run the numbers on it but I do think Bernie would have taken the nomination.

[up2u2]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/04/the-7-most-dangerous-myths-about-a-15-minimum-wage/#e438b8e2c57b

The 7 Most Dangerous Myths About A $15 Minimum Wage

The facts are out there for y'all to see if not blinded by a Commie point of view

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/272591-restaurants-seattle-closing-alarming-rate-15-minimum-wage-factor/

Why do words scare you so much? If Communism frightens you then Capitalism should frighten you as much.

In Socialism and Communism and Capitalism there are good aspects to each ideology. The trick is to get the balance right. The benefits of each ideology. America demonstrates that pure Capitalism is just as toxic as pure Socialism and Communism to a functioning society.

If someone says the word Socialism and you go running off into the woods screaming it is a little bit difficult to understand the problem and to put appropriate remedies in place.

Capitalism has no Social or Communal conscience or intent. So if you only take on board a Capitalist view you exclude the foundation of a society, which, for it to be healthy and serve the people it requires a Social aspect and a Communal aspect. So if the words Social- ist and Commune -ist frighten you 70% of what makes a successful healthy society is missing. Your Society will eventually self destruct.

[jmd8800]

Some of you will hate this article. Some of you will love it. All of you should read it:

https://thoughteconomics.com/understanding-democracy/

Quote from the article: "The democracies we now have are fully the result of the capitalist revolution, but there is a prey-predator relationship between capitalism and democracy.

In exactly the same way that a predator needs the prey, but at the same time decimates it. By decimating it, the population of prey decimates itself until eventually it starts growing again in numbers. The remaining predator population cannibalises them again, and the dog-eat-dog relationship between capitalism and democracy continues.

Capitalism loathes democracy and at the same time cannot survive without it. You have the financialisation of the economy combined with de-politicisation of monetary policy with so-called central bank independence, and constant attempts to confine democracy to a level where it doesn’t matter. When that happens? Capitalism destabilises and falls into a trap, and we see a surge of democratic activity…."

And another: "Democracy is not an aggregation, it’s dialectical – it’s a dialogue."

[Jingthing]

News today that Hillary has gone more left on Obamacare.

She has indicated support for allowing those over 50 or 55 to buy into Medicare which normally kicks in at 65 with no buy in needed.

She previously stated even when the democrats controlled things, they couldn't pass that, so now, impossible.

She's right on both counts.

It's a good idea for a reform and it will also be impossible to pass, even optimistically assume President HRC and a democratic senate ... but still a republican congress.

Some are suggesting this is a cave to the left to be more like Bernie ... well, I think it's a nice message, but again, can't be passed.

Bernie's universal coverage ... a much better idea, even more impossible to pass.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Jingthing

[chuckd]

The federal government doesn't have a "revenue" problem. It has a serious "spending" problem.

The federal budget for 2016 requested revenue of $3.525 Trillion.

The federal budget for 2016 requested expenditures of $3.999 Trillion.

My guess is the deficit will exceed the anticipated $474 Billion in the end.

[slipperylobster]

I can see where the less intelligent people would vote democratic. Four more years of hell. Wonder if Bernie is pro Israeli.....I mean....really. Might be a concern...but uk has a Muslim in office...so why not.

Edited May 12, 2016 by slipperylobster

[up2u2]

Some of you will hate this article. Some of you will love it. All of you should read it:

https://thoughteconomics.com/understanding-democracy/

Quote from the article: "The democracies we now have are fully the result of the capitalist revolution, but there is a prey-predator relationship between capitalism and democracy.

In exactly the same way that a predator needs the prey, but at the same time decimates it. By decimating it, the population of prey decimates itself until eventually it starts growing again in numbers. The remaining predator population cannibalises them again, and the dog-eat-dog relationship between capitalism and democracy continues.

Capitalism loathes democracy and at the same time cannot survive without it. You have the financialisation of the economy combined with de-politicisation of monetary policy with so-called central bank independence, and constant attempts to confine democracy to a level where it doesn’t matter. When that happens? Capitalism destabilises and falls into a trap, and we see a surge of democratic activity…."

And another: "Democracy is not an aggregation, it’s dialectical – it’s a dialogue."

No not in any way coherent.

The competing interest of Capital-ism is Social-ism. They are both in competition to capture the State and gain control. The article is fundamentally flawed in its understanding of the binary ideologies and their intent. Democracy represents the people and appoints the State to referee the competing interests of Capital-ism and its rival Social-ism.

The article sets up a Capital-ism view that Democracy is the competing enemy to fool the people that Democracy is under threat if successful Capital-ism captures the State by default. Social-ism is defeated.

[sgtsabai]

No, wrong again right wing. It is a revenue problem brought about by Republican unfunded wars, tax cuts to corporations and billionaires. No revenue, no government able to do it's job and then blame the government. Right wingers are stupid enough to fall for it. Stop watching faux (not the) news. Only the insane vote Republican right wingnut. They have been destroying American since the regime of Regan. Albeit, aided by the Clinton's. Four years of utter chaos if the Trump is elected. There is a big difference in being pro Israeli and pro Zionist. Bet your bottom satang Bernie is NOT pro Zionist, thankfully. Hillary just panders. BTW, one shouldn't even venture into the realm of IQ, much less sanity, of those that support humanity vs. the redneck thugs that make up the Trump base, Trumpthuglicans I believe is their name. Oh, the US has Muslims in office also, thankfully not stupid rednecks for a change. jmd8800 an excellent article, unfortunately well over the head of the bottom feeder right wingnuts who with luck and the help of a calculator might be able to add 2 + 2.

[up2u2]

The federal government doesn't have a "revenue" problem. It has a serious "spending" problem.

The federal budget for 2016 requested revenue of $3.525 Trillion.

The federal budget for 2016 requested expenditures of $3.999 Trillion.

My guess is the deficit will exceed the anticipated $474 Billion in the end.

yes this is the typical Right Wing defence. 'We have a spending problem"

Republicans can afford Tax cuts for the wealthy, Tax cuts for Corporate America, Billions in Corporate welfare handouts, offshore tax havens for the wealthy, trillions on wars. TOTALLY sending the Treasury broke then the hue and cry is OH WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM!!! time for austerity measured so more funds can be syphoned from the people's treasury to the wealthy elite and Corporate America. They will not stop till every nickel and dime is sequestered to their offshore accounts.

chuckd pull this one it has bells on it.

What America has had for the past 30 years is a revenue problem. The People's revenue being steadily syphoned off by the wealthy elite and Corporate America.

Nice try but no one's buying it just like they aren't buying 'trickle down economics' BS

[up2u2]

You were too quick off the mark for me Sarge lol

If a citizen ever hears a politician say the words "We have a spending problem" dust off your old political 'baseball bat' and walk into the voting booth and beat the political crap out of him. He is a lying thieving wealthy elite Corporate shill.

[sgtsabai]

I better re-read, I didn't in depth, but have a lot of respect for those that contributed. I just re-read, I'm still missing your point. I do know that unfettered capitalism and democracy do not and cannot mix.

[sgtsabai]

And this is what Bernie and real Democrats have been fighting against. Either the Democrat Party gets a complete and real makeover, or it continues as Republican lite. https://theintercept.com/2016/05/11/lobbyists-dnc-2016-convention/

[jmd8800]

Some of you will hate this article. Some of you will love it. All of you should read it:

https://thoughteconomics.com/understanding-democracy/

Quote from the article: "The democracies we now have are fully the result of the capitalist revolution, but there is a prey-predator relationship between capitalism and democracy.

In exactly the same way that a predator needs the prey, but at the same time decimates it. By decimating it, the population of prey decimates itself until eventually it starts growing again in numbers. The remaining predator population cannibalises them again, and the dog-eat-dog relationship between capitalism and democracy continues.

Capitalism loathes democracy and at the same time cannot survive without it. You have the financialisation of the economy combined with de-politicisation of monetary policy with so-called central bank independence, and constant attempts to confine democracy to a level where it doesn’t matter. When that happens? Capitalism destabilises and falls into a trap, and we see a surge of democratic activity…."

And another: "Democracy is not an aggregation, it’s dialectical – it’s a dialogue."

No not in any way coherent.

The competing interest of Capital-ism is Social-ism. They are both in competition to capture the State and gain control. The article is fundamentally flawed in its understanding of the binary ideologies and their intent. Democracy represents the people and appoints the State to referee the competing interests of Capital-ism and its rival Social-ism.

The article sets up a Capital-ism view that Democracy is the competing enemy to fool the people that Democracy is under threat if successful Capital-ism captures the State by default. Social-ism is defeated.

I disagree with your take on the article. Democracy is a political process. This political process is derived from 'consent of the governend'. Capitalism is an economic system. I suppose capitalism's preferred home would be in state capitalism not a democracy . I don't see where socialism even enters this article.

The article is about how the people in a democracy (most references are to the US but I think the writers were thinking "The West") have lost their voice.

Edited May 12, 2016 by jmd8800

[boomerangutang]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/04/the-7-most-dangerous-myths-about-a-15-minimum-wage/#e438b8e2c57b

The 7 Most Dangerous Myths About A $15 Minimum Wage

The facts are out there for y'all to see if not blinded by a Commie point of view

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/272591-restaurants-seattle-closing-alarming-rate-15-minimum-wage-factor/

Why do words scare you so much? If Communism frightens you then Capitalism should frighten you as much.

In Socialism and Communism and Capitalism there are good aspects to each ideology. The trick is to get the balance right. The benefits of each ideology. America demonstrates that pure Capitalism is just as toxic as pure Socialism and Communism to a functioning society.

If someone says the word Socialism and you go running off into the woods screaming it is a little bit difficult to understand the problem and to put appropriate remedies in place.

Capitalism has no Social or Communal conscience or intent. So if you only take on board a Capitalist view you exclude the foundation of a society, which, for it to be healthy and serve the people it requires a Social aspect and a Communal aspect. So if the words Social- ist and Commune -ist frighten you 70% of what makes a successful healthy society is missing. Your Society will eventually self destruct.

One of the biggest ruses in recent political history is Republicans are capitalists and free-marketers. What a load of hog wash water. They're the opposite of free-marketers. They want to rig the rules of the game to benefit the already fat cats. Remember 'too big to fail' ? Or how about the Goldman Sachs execs that Bush Jr. appointed to control the Federal bail out of too-big-to-fail corps and banks. Besides bailing out their own corporations, the GS execs shoveled tens of billions in to the laps of banks and corps that didn't even want or need federal money. Republicans love to lavish subsidies on all sorts of large corporations, even when those corporations are plainly failing, out-dated, or just plain don't need the grants. There is so much protectionism built-in to US economics, it's almost ludicrous. Looked at objectively, Republicans are more socialist that Bernie.

I usually agree with sgtsabai, but he wrote earlier that Paul Ryan wants no government. Au contraire, I see Ryan as leading the Republican charge to make government ever-more top-heavy. ....with subsidies, bail-outs, favors for the already-rich (Koch Brothers, and many others), favoritism, lavish outlays of money for military and veterans. I believe in helping veterans, but a lot of them are cheating the system. Same with a lot of SS and SSI recipients and double-dippers, but those are taboo topics among politicians. For a politician to mention any of those topics along with the word 'abuse', is political suicide. Ryan and his buddies also like privatization of prisons, which is too big of a can of worms to articulate about here and now.

[up2u2]

Also, I have heard this mentioned several times, wages at the current minimum rate result in workers needing and getting food stamps, etc. Thus, taxpayers are essentially subsidizing some companies' payrolls. Isn't that handing out "free stuff"?

There is also the argument that by giving good wages to workers that helps to stimulate the economy because those workers buy more goods and services. Such ideas were long ago used by such "socialists" as Henry Ford:

http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2014/01/03/history/post-perspective/ford-doubles-minimum-wage.html

In brief, he paid his workers double the minimum wage so that his workers could afford to buy the cars.

So, up2u2 is right that it is not as simple as a childish cartoon.

It is also not as simplistic as he would have us believe that every corporation is evil, every dollar going off shore is horded to avoid taxes, simply tax corporations more and all will be well, bigger government is the solution, every options contract is wrong and should be stopped, whatever the wealthy are taxed it is not enough . . .

Where did I state corporations are evil?

Corporations want smaller Government no problem lets remove the Patent, Copyright and Intellectual Property license departments.

[jmd8800]

If I had to make a guess on one thing that would help resolve the US's political problems I would say the country badly needs a non-partisan referendum to see what the people in the country are really thinking. How you would do this I do not know. The power elite would do everything they could to 'engineer' it to their liking.

But I think if you took out all the misrepresentation from both sides, brought back accepted definitions of words that the media has bastardized and really made an effort to get what Americans really feel... we would all be very surprised how much closer we are together than we are opposed to each other.

The more you fight amongst yourselves..the easier it is to steal your money, liberties and self-worth. The powerful in the world know this, and use this against you.

[sgtsabai]

I can't disagree with much of what you say. What Paul Ryan and his ilk want is no government except to protect the rich and corporations. They would privatize SS, Medicare etc. I will disagree with Veterans, SS recipients etc. cheating the system. Little to zero evidence of that. Yep, the military budget is bloated, thanks to no oversight and accountability. The VA is under budgeted and has been for years, thanks in part to it's own leadership. Obama is part and parcel of the revolving door. He also appointed those that broke the system to "fix" the system, yea, how did that work out. Clinton, who is part of and a direct cause of the broken system will continue the same policies, has already said so, no Glass-Steagall. Bernie would change that.

[jmd8800]

I can see where the less intelligent people would vote democratic. Four more years of hell. Wonder if Bernie is pro Israeli.....I mean....really. Might be a concern...but uk has a Muslim in office...so why not.

Are you saying people who vote for democratic principles are ignorant?

[sgtsabai]

Maybe he was confused, right wingers often are, and meant to say ignorant dumb people vote Republican.

[JDGRUEN]

This topic thread has been going on for months... but it will not matter if Sanders wins most every state. As long the Democrat Primary Race is not really a race but a fixed ending ... it is a non event. Regardless of each state primary Hillary gets the Super Delegates that insures her victory. So the Democrat Primary is a charade - a sham ... People made to feel like they are having a say in choosing the Democrat Primary and well NO - THEY DON'T - unless you want Hillary to win.. Done Deal for Hillary Clinton ... What a joke.

[chuckd]

Also, I have heard this mentioned several times, wages at the current minimum rate result in workers needing and getting food stamps, etc. Thus, taxpayers are essentially subsidizing some companies' payrolls. Isn't that handing out "free stuff"?

There is also the argument that by giving good wages to workers that helps to stimulate the economy because those workers buy more goods and services. Such ideas were long ago used by such "socialists" as Henry Ford:

http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2014/01/03/history/post-perspective/ford-doubles-minimum-wage.html

In brief, he paid his workers double the minimum wage so that his workers could afford to buy the cars.

So, up2u2 is right that it is not as simple as a childish cartoon.

It is also not as simplistic as he would have us believe that every corporation is evil, every dollar going off shore is horded to avoid taxes, simply tax corporations more and all will be well, bigger government is the solution, every options contract is wrong and should be stopped, whatever the wealthy are taxed it is not enough . . .

Where did I state corporations are evil?

Corporations want smaller Government no problem lets remove the Patent, Copyright and Intellectual Property license departments.

You want the economy stimulated? Stop adding government regulations and cancel most of the several thousand that have been added by Obama and his minions.

Here's a one year old US News report on the cost of regulations to the economy.

The article points out one rather astonishing fact...

"If U.S. federal regulation was a country, it would be the world’s 10th largest economy, ranking behind Russia and ahead of India."

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

The Real Cost of Regulation

America's economy is being buried by a flood of red tape and government spending.

By Peter Roff | Contributing Editor

May 16, 2015, at 8:00 a.m.

There's a battle going on in Washington between the two majors parties over the size of government. One wants bigger government in perpetuity, seeing it and the Constitution under which it is organized as kinds of living, breathing entities that can and must be allowed to grow with the demands of the times.

The other wants smaller government, at least smaller than the other guys. Even to them, the idea of limited government along the constitutional model, with power controlled and strictly defined, has given way, replaced by a notion that every problem society faces can and must be addressed by Washington.

Article continues here: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2015/05/16/the-real-cost-of-regulation-is-keeping-america-down

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

Here is a more recent article detailing the current administration plans for year eight.

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

Obama pushing thousands of new regulations in Year 8

The calendar says there are 13 months left to Barack Obama's presidency. But when it comes to exercising executive power, it's more like five.

By TIMOTHY NOAH

01/04/16 05:21 AM EST

Nearly 4,000 regulations are squirming their way through the federal bureaucracy in the last year of Barack Obama’s presidency — many costing industry more than $100 million — in a mad dash by the White House to push through government actions affecting everything from furnaces to gun sales to Guantánamo.

That means a full court press at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to reduce exposure limits for silica, a chemical used widely in construction and fracking that can cause cancer when inhaled; at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, to require more small-scale gun sellers to perform background checks; and at the Food and Drug Administration, to make food manufacturers disclose on product labels how much sugar they add to cranberry juice.

Much of this work will be carried out in the coming months by career bureaucrats working in the bowels of federal agencies, but the cumulative effect adds up to something larger: A final-year sprint by a president intent on using executive power to improve the lives of American workers and consumers — in many instances over loud objections from the businesses that will have to pay for it.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/agenda/agenda/story/2016/1/obama-regulations-2016#ixzz48SAwT2Oj

Read it and weep, America.

[sgtsabai]

More bullcrap from the right wing. And exactly what is wrong with regulation? I will admit to not liking or wanting regulations imposed on the gun manufactures. I like guns, may need them some day against the right wingnuts if I ever have to return to the Corporate Police State of America, formally known as the United States of America. I don't like Obama having to use executive orders, still hasn't used as much as Cheney/Bush et al, but without regulations workers are not safe, do not have protection from employer's, communities are not safe, the environment is not safe. On the other hand I am guessing we have a climate change denier here, ah duh, head in the sand or elsewhere. Screw the business that have to pay for it, they can afford it with the rip off prices they charge and the wage theft on their employees. Had Obama fought from the beginning for the people maybe, just maybe he wouldn't have to be scrambling to fulfill one tiny bit of his "campaign" promises. Only fools don't see the necessity for regulation on excess vulture capitalism. Damn storm did a 180, gotta' shut down.

[SpokaneAl]

More bullcrap from the right wing. And exactly what is wrong with regulation? I will admit to not liking or wanting regulations imposed on the gun manufactures. I like guns, may need them some day against the right wingnuts if I ever have to return to the Corporate Police State of America, formally known as the United States of America. I don't like Obama having to use executive orders, still hasn't used as much as Cheney/Bush et al, but without regulations workers are not safe, do not have protection from employer's, communities are not safe, the environment is not safe. On the other hand I am guessing we have a climate change denier here, ah duh, head in the sand or elsewhere. Screw the business that have to pay for it, they can afford it with the rip off prices they charge and the wage theft on their employees. Had Obama fought from the beginning for the people maybe, just maybe he wouldn't have to be scrambling to fulfill one tiny bit of his "campaign" promises. Only fools don't see the necessity for regulation on excess vulture capitalism. Damn storm did a 180, gotta' shut down.

I don't believe anyone is suggesting an all or none solution when it comes to regulations. Relax.

[Publicus]

I know what you mean Boomer. Hillary meets with Warren about CC debt being exempt from bankruptcy protections and gets Bill as President to Veto the Bill. Then Hillary gets elected to the Senate and Votes YES on the CC Bill. What the hell happened there? Well we know what happened now. Big end of Town donated / bribes into her election campaign and they get a favourable vote on a Bill. Who got screwed over? The people who voted for Hillary to represent them.

This is the problem mate. Corporate America and the wealthy elite purchasing Congress and Politicians like Hillary putting their vote in Congress up for sale to the highest bidder.

That is why I disagreed with Publicus on Bernie getting stuck into Hillary on her voting record and questioning her qualifications on being a President.

Keep in mind Republicans are far worse they even sell out their own grandmother. They have been selling out America since Reagan. If it isn't nailed to the floor, actually even then they will crow bar it off and sell it to Corporate America and the wealthy elite. When the Democrats get into power they simply look the other way and pretend it isn't happening.

Bernie caucuses with the Democratic party in the Senate just as he'd caucused with the Democratic party in the House.

Bernie is neither a D nor an R and he's never belonged to either party, ever. So Bernie doesn't have any difficulty to harm both in numerous ways.

One great consolation about this is that if Donald Trump were running as a Democrat in the D party nomination campaign, Bernie would have been exposed to criticisms he hasn't been getting of his political philosophy and his own personal history.

Bernie has his axe to grind as it is because he wants very badly to be Potus and to be Potus for what and who he is. Bernie wants it really badly.

These guyz always take these things personally. Yet HRC drives on despite her flaws and because of her great assets. No one had been better qualified for the office since LBJ.

Perhaps we should be grateful Bernie hasn't said HRC is Richard Nixon in drag or somesuch. Trump will probably say it yet despite not having the brains to know who Nixon was or the crimes Tricky Dick committed. R's are still angling to get even for that one although it wuz Nixon himself who did himself in.

Hillary herself invoked Nixon when she embraced Kissinger as a role model who has shaped her foreign policy thinking. IMO, it is Nixon's domestic policies she should have been invoking. That might serve to humanize her as his domestic policies were much more visionary and progressive than her own. As things stand now, she runs to the right of Nixon in every way.

Richard Nixon with the racist Sen Strom Thurmond formulated the "Southern Strategy" which turned white voters in the Old Confederacy who'd voted Democratic party since the civil war in to reliable Republican party voters. The Old Confederacy have been solid Red states since. Racists are among the people who love it.

Kissinger has said on the record Hillary Clinton did the best job of running the State Department he'd seen.

K btw is a CCP sycophant to this day, saying positive things about CCP no matter what so he can keep himself in the good graces of the Dictators of Beijing. CCP Dictators in Beijing detest HRC.

Bernie Sanders would hand the South China Sea over to CCP Dictators on a platter as would Trump.

[Publicus]

She's really not that bad ... and she'll be the ONLY choice left to stop the psychopathic demagogue.

Hillary Clinton speaks to the L.A. Times editorial board about war, women and her ability to navigate partisan obstructionism

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-ol-hillary-clinton-editorial-board-meeting-20160505-snap-story.html

Have a listen:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-hillary-clinton-negativity-20160506-snap-htmlstory.html

How tragic that in a superpower country as big and as wealthy as the USA - a country that has produced a multitude of amazing talent like an Elon Musk, a number of Nobel Prize winners and so many others - that someone can fairly say that the better choice for president might (Bernie's still has a shot) be someone who is "really not that bad." How tragic and how sad that the American political system has failed so badly.

How did we go from choosing between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson for president to choosing between Hillary "the sweetheart of big money" Clinton and Donald "the jokes write themselves" Trump?

Ideally, and yes ideally, the American people should be thinking about a third-party candidate like a Jill Stein or a Gary Johnson. I honestly don't know much about them, but who really does? The mainstream media, sponsored by big money, isn't going to give them any time. This is all about either taking money from big business (Clinton) or generating great ratings for the media (Trump). It's not that much of a true democracy, if at all.

It's hopeless but not serious.

I'm gonna really bring out the flamethrowers when I say this, but Hillary Clinton will be an excellent Potus.

It's just that there are a lot of people on their barstools commiserating about everything Western and things American especially. They find military rule more to their liking, or they find anarchy and its attendant chaos preferable to democracy.

Fear not however cause the world will end soon.