US primaries: Sanders challenges Clinton to debate on home turf

[keemapoot]

^I know you would like to treat FBI director's powers as de minimis in this instance because of your support of Clinton and Comey's history of going after her.

However, after checking the definitive online legal source, Wikipedia, I found the following:

Information obtained through an FBI investigation is presented to the appropriate U.S. Attorney or Department of Justice official, who decides if prosecution or other action is warranted.

So, of course, the Obama Cabinet AG, Lynch will decide if prosecution is warranted, but believe me, the cat will be out of the bag once the boys at FBI makes their determination, and I stand by my position that Comey is still the most powerful person in America at this moment, because if Lynch does not follow his recommendation it will be perceived as rigged for the Clintons and the fix is in. Sanders desire for shakeup is proven right and probably nabs the nomination. That's assuming Comey recommends indictment or something similarly ominous.

Same impact if Comey clears her.

Clinton trots to the White House. Got it yet?

Edited April 3, 2016 by keemapoot

[lannarebirth]

^I know you would like to treat FBI director's powers as de minimis in this instance because of your support of Clinton and Comey's history of going after her.

However, after checking the definitive online legal source, Wikipedia, I found the following:

Information obtained through an FBI investigation is presented to the appropriate U.S. Attorney or Department of Justice official, who decides if prosecution or other action is warranted.

So, of course, the Obama Cabinet AG, Lynch will decide if prosecution is warranted, but believe me, the cat will be out of the bag once the boys at FBI makes their determination, and I stand by my position that Comey is still the most powerful person in America at this moment, because if Lynch does not follow his recommendation it will be perceived as rigged for the Clintons and the fix is in. Sanders desire for shakeup is proven right and probably nabs the nomination. That's assuming Comey recommends indictment or something similarly ominous.

Same impact if Comey clears her.

Clinton trots to the White House. Got it yet?

What are your thoughts on the four State personnel being represented by the same attorney. Unified defense clearly, but wouldn't the AG insist on separate representation if they were going to be coming in with something heavy? Or maybe a scapegoat fall guy has already been selected by the Clinton gang.

Edited April 3, 2016 by lannarebirth

[keemapoot]

^I know you would like to treat FBI director's powers as de minimis in this instance because of your support of Clinton and Comey's history of going after her.

However, after checking the definitive online legal source, Wikipedia, I found the following:

Information obtained through an FBI investigation is presented to the appropriate U.S. Attorney or Department of Justice official, who decides if prosecution or other action is warranted.

So, of course, the Obama Cabinet AG, Lynch will decide if prosecution is warranted, but believe me, the cat will be out of the bag once the boys at FBI makes their determination, and I stand by my position that Comey is still the most powerful person in America at this moment, because if Lynch does not follow his recommendation it will be perceived as rigged for the Clintons and the fix is in. Sanders desire for shakeup is proven right and probably nabs the nomination. That's assuming Comey recommends indictment or something similarly ominous.

Same impact if Comey clears her.

Clinton trots to the White House. Got it yet?

What are your thoughts on the four State personnel being represented by the same attorney. Unified defense clearly, but wouldn't the AG insist on separate representation if they were going to be coming in with something heavy? Or maybe a scapegoat has already been selected by the Clinton gang.

Yeah, that's a bold but dangerous legal strategy. Divide and conquer, good cop, bad cop, and all the things we see on cop shows. Personally, I think it's a courageous and bold proactive strategy, perhaps with a fall guy already selected. For sure, the most brilliant legal strategists have put this together, so we can only conjecture at this point.

[sirineou]

^I know you would like to treat FBI director's powers as de minimis in this instance because of your support of Clinton and Comey's history of going after her.

However, after checking the definitive online legal source, Wikipedia, I found the following:

Information obtained through an FBI investigation is presented to the appropriate U.S. Attorney or Department of Justice official, who decides if prosecution or other action is warranted.

So, of course, the Obama Cabinet AG, Lynch will decide if prosecution is warranted, but believe me, the cat will be out of the bag once the boys at FBI makes their determination, and I stand by my position that Comey is still the most powerful person in America at this moment, because if Lynch does not follow his recommendation it will be perceived as rigged for the Clintons and the fix is in. Sanders desire for shakeup is proven right and probably nabs the nomination. That's assuming Comey recommends indictment or something similarly ominous.

Same impact if Comey clears her.

Clinton trots to the White House. Got it yet?

" if Lynch does not follow his recommendation it will be perceived as rigged for the Clintons and the fix is in. "

What do you mean it will be perceived, After Obama got the nomination, and he asked for Clinton's support, dont you think a quid pro quo arrangement was negotiated?Do you really think Hillary was the best person Obama could think of for his Secretary Of State?

or was it an arrangement to pad her qualifications for POTUS

and don't you think the DNC promised her her turn if she played nice? IMO the fix is in and the Obama administration will do their best to obstruct.

[Publicus]

Are you really sure that Bernie thinks the investigation will go nowhere or is that an assumption? That's not a rhetorical question. I am really not sure. During an early debate when pressed about this, I recall that Bernie basically thinks, as I understood it, he should stay out of it and let the process take its course. That's not the same as what you have stated. So, has Bernie stated something stronger than that since that debate?

Also, Hillary may be exonerated, but I don't think this issue comes only from her right-wing critics (I normally roll my eyes when I hear of yet another Clinton "scandal."). It's not just about the emails; it's also about the server. Again, maybe she will be exonerated or the FBI will conclude that there was but a minor transgression; nevertheless, common sense dictates that you have to suspect that she found a possible loophole that allowed her to decide on her own which emails to delete (is she hiding anything?) and also there's a security risk issue. I don't know what the investigation's conclusion may or should be, but there seems to me to be good grounds to at least investigate especially considering the sensitivity of the communications.

I think you have accused the DOJ of living in some kind of ivory tower, unlike the Clintons. Please do correct me if I misunderstood. Yes, there's no doubt that the Clintons are very smart and savvy people. However, I personally cannot make the sweeping conclusion that you have seemed to have made of the many members of the DOJ.

Finally, I was never an investigator or a prosecutor and I am, of course, not privy to how the investigation is being handled. So, I am not about to tell or even suggest to the FBI when and who they should interview. Perhaps they have very good reasons for their actions that they cannot at this time reveal.

And again, I can understand being sensitive about a Clinton "scandal." I don't blame you for that. I think some of those critics had gotten out of hand.

Bernie is nominally a political independent who in his real politics is a Democrat.

Bernie is moreover the antithesis of a Republican.

In the Senate Bernie caucuses with the Democratic party, i.e., conferences and votes with it. So in turn, the Senate Democratic leadership with the consent of the D senators assigns Bernie seats on committees. Until the 2014 midterm election when R's took majority control, Bernie had risen to become chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee, where he'd led the Democratic members in steering the committee in all respects.

If Bernie were elected he'd positively need to load his cabinet with Democrats, throw in a few odd Republicans and another Independent or two from the Great Lakes States or other commie pinko prevert havens.

Strategically and tactically, Bernie cannot afford to get on the emails bandwagon. It's a rightwing whackjob scheme and operation against Hillary Clinton that Bernie cannot afford to get anywhere near. For Bernie to dabble in It would cost Bernie big time in his campaign. It would soil him among his true supporters.

Bernie would lose Democratic voter and Institutional acceptance, tolerance, credibility. He'd create a huge distraction from his one theme campaign message (Bernie doesn't even want to talk about foreign policy or anything foreign except trade treaties or agreements). He says virtually nothing pertaining to national security. A few words against ISIS blurp blurp.

Further, Bernie would attract the disingenuous who laughably claim political neutrality, i.e., rejection of either party while they simultaneously pretend balance by commending Bernie the rational man and Donald Trump the ignoramous. Bernie would become a powerful magnet to the loose nail Clinton haters, mysogonists, racists, anarchists and nihilists that we see each and every day at work in the society and under our own noses.

Bernie stays out of it because he too could be accused of fueling a rightwing superpatriot silent coup d'etat by the flatfoot spook bureaucracies and their IG's operating in cahoots with Republican senators and their staffs.

Bernie's been around the block a few times and then some, so since becoming a big hit one man and one theme show he's continuing to run with it and more power to him. Bernie got his campaign off on the right foot and he hasn't looked back since. In January Bernie will be back in the Senate to welcome a bus full of newly elected Democratic US Senators.

tin

Are you stating that the FBI investigation of the Hillary emails, etc. is "a rightwing superpatriot silent coup d'etat"? They obviously have spent a lot of time, money and resources on the investigation. Your accusation, if that is the case, is thus quite an accusation. Is that what you are stating? If so, what do you base this on? What credible sources do you have that support this?

Are you stating that the FBI investigation of the Hillary emails, etc. is "a rightwing superpatriot silent coup d'etat"?

No I am not. The question is welcomed because it invites a successful clearing of any ambiguity that may exist in my posts along this line.

FBI and DoJ are doing what they were asked to do.

No doubt some FBI personnel remain who have it in for Hillary (and Bill) but FBI did not initiate this. It began with Republicans in Congress and it quickly moved over to the DepState IG. Then it went to other Intelligence "community" IG officers, then to the super IG himself of the entire intelligence "community" itself.

So I reiterate, this is a serious matter in many respects, but it is at its most serious because the surveillance-intelligence bureaucracy led by its several IG's and its IG Supreme are trying to conduct and to execute a silent and under the radar coup d'etat.

I'd noted what many Americans either welcome or fear, i.e., that Hillary Clinton is on a slow but certain train to the Oval Office. That this has been true since before 2007-08. The current concoction is being exploited as the only way try to stop her and the Democratic Party train.

The "Intelligence Community" has since the start of the Cold War been loaded up with and dominated by super patriot right wingers of the most extreme kind.

So if the spy bureaucracies and their IG's win in their purposes, then they can move right in to rule the country directly by a silent coup. Because if they might succeed in this, they then will have made a great stride toward saving and reviving the far right in US politics and government, to include the "intelligence community's" continued surveillance of anyone and everyone.

[lannarebirth]

Are you really sure that Bernie thinks the investigation will go nowhere or is that an assumption? That's not a rhetorical question. I am really not sure. During an early debate when pressed about this, I recall that Bernie basically thinks, as I understood it, he should stay out of it and let the process take its course. That's not the same as what you have stated. So, has Bernie stated something stronger than that since that debate?

Also, Hillary may be exonerated, but I don't think this issue comes only from her right-wing critics (I normally roll my eyes when I hear of yet another Clinton "scandal."). It's not just about the emails; it's also about the server. Again, maybe she will be exonerated or the FBI will conclude that there was but a minor transgression; nevertheless, common sense dictates that you have to suspect that she found a possible loophole that allowed her to decide on her own which emails to delete (is she hiding anything?) and also there's a security risk issue. I don't know what the investigation's conclusion may or should be, but there seems to me to be good grounds to at least investigate especially considering the sensitivity of the communications.

I think you have accused the DOJ of living in some kind of ivory tower, unlike the Clintons. Please do correct me if I misunderstood. Yes, there's no doubt that the Clintons are very smart and savvy people. However, I personally cannot make the sweeping conclusion that you have seemed to have made of the many members of the DOJ.

Finally, I was never an investigator or a prosecutor and I am, of course, not privy to how the investigation is being handled. So, I am not about to tell or even suggest to the FBI when and who they should interview. Perhaps they have very good reasons for their actions that they cannot at this time reveal.

And again, I can understand being sensitive about a Clinton "scandal." I don't blame you for that. I think some of those critics had gotten out of hand.

Bernie is nominally a political independent who in his real politics is a Democrat.

Bernie is moreover the antithesis of a Republican.

In the Senate Bernie caucuses with the Democratic party, i.e., conferences and votes with it. So in turn, the Senate Democratic leadership with the consent of the D senators assigns Bernie seats on committees. Until the 2014 midterm election when R's took majority control, Bernie had risen to become chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee, where he'd led the Democratic members in steering the committee in all respects.

If Bernie were elected he'd positively need to load his cabinet with Democrats, throw in a few odd Republicans and another Independent or two from the Great Lakes States or other commie pinko prevert havens.

Strategically and tactically, Bernie cannot afford to get on the emails bandwagon. It's a rightwing whackjob scheme and operation against Hillary Clinton that Bernie cannot afford to get anywhere near. For Bernie to dabble in It would cost Bernie big time in his campaign. It would soil him among his true supporters.

Bernie would lose Democratic voter and Institutional acceptance, tolerance, credibility. He'd create a huge distraction from his one theme campaign message (Bernie doesn't even want to talk about foreign policy or anything foreign except trade treaties or agreements). He says virtually nothing pertaining to national security. A few words against ISIS blurp blurp.

Further, Bernie would attract the disingenuous who laughably claim political neutrality, i.e., rejection of either party while they simultaneously pretend balance by commending Bernie the rational man and Donald Trump the ignoramous. Bernie would become a powerful magnet to the loose nail Clinton haters, mysogonists, racists, anarchists and nihilists that we see each and every day at work in the society and under our own noses.

Bernie stays out of it because he too could be accused of fueling a rightwing superpatriot silent coup d'etat by the flatfoot spook bureaucracies and their IG's operating in cahoots with Republican senators and their staffs.

Bernie's been around the block a few times and then some, so since becoming a big hit one man and one theme show he's continuing to run with it and more power to him. Bernie got his campaign off on the right foot and he hasn't looked back since. In January Bernie will be back in the Senate to welcome a bus full of newly elected Democratic US Senators.

tin

Are you stating that the FBI investigation of the Hillary emails, etc. is "a rightwing superpatriot silent coup d'etat"? They obviously have spent a lot of time, money and resources on the investigation. Your accusation, if that is the case, is thus quite an accusation. Is that what you are stating? If so, what do you base this on? What credible sources do you have that support this?

Are you stating that the FBI investigation of the Hillary emails, etc. is "a rightwing superpatriot silent coup d'etat"?

No I am not. The question is welcomed because it invites a successful clearing of any ambiguity that may exist in my posts along this line.

FBI and DoJ are doing what they were asked to do.

No doubt some FBI personnel remain who have it in for Hillary (and Bill) but FBI did not initiate this. It began with Republicans in Congress and it quickly moved over to the DepState IG. Then it went to other Intelligence "community" IG officers, then to the super IG himself of the entire intelligence "community" itself.

So I reiterate, this is a serious matter in many respects, but it is at its most serious because the surveillance-intelligence bureaucracy led by its several IG's and its IG Supreme are trying to conduct and to execute a silent and under the radar coup d'etat.

I'd noted what many Americans either welcome or fear, i.e., that Hillary Clinton is on a slow but certain train to the Oval Office. That this has been true since before 2007-08. The current concoction is being exploited as the only way try to stop her and the Democratic Party train.

The "Intelligence Community" has since the start of the Cold War been loaded up with and dominated by super patriot right wingers of the most extreme kind.

So if the spy bureaucracies and their IG's win in their purposes, then they can move right in to rule the country directly by a silent coup. Because if they might succeed in this, they then will have made a great stride toward saving and reviving the far right in US politics and government, to include the "intelligence community's" continued surveillance of anyone and everyone.

Interesting spin you've laid out there, but isn't it true that the State Dept didn't have a confirmed Inspector General for the entire duration of Clinton's tenure there, despite bi-partisan calls for an appointment. Obama delayed 5 years, citing his stringent vetting process, which is kinda laughable if you think about it.

[Boon Mee]

Sanders is so far deep in the Socialist Fever Swamps that to call him what he is - basically a Commie, is the most accurate definition of this abberant individual...

Obviously you don't know the difference between socialism, socialist and communism.

Well, we all are aware of Bernie's 'Free Stuff' and that makes him what Vlad Lenin calls a Socialist on the way to being a Communist.

[lannarebirth]

Are you stating that the FBI investigation of the Hillary emails, etc. is "a rightwing superpatriot silent coup d'etat"? They obviously have spent a lot of time, money and resources on the investigation. Your accusation, if that is the case, is thus quite an accusation. Is that what you are stating? If so, what do you base this on? What credible sources do you have that support this?

Are you stating that the FBI investigation of the Hillary emails, etc. is "a rightwing superpatriot silent coup d'etat"?

No I am not. The question is welcomed because it invites a successful clearing of any ambiguity that may exist in my posts along this line.

FBI and DoJ are doing what they were asked to do.

No doubt some FBI personnel remain who have it in for Hillary (and Bill) but FBI did not initiate this. It began with Republicans in Congress and it quickly moved over to the DepState IG. Then it went to other Intelligence "community" IG officers, then to the super IG himself of the entire intelligence "community" itself.

So I reiterate, this is a serious matter in many respects, but it is at its most serious because the surveillance-intelligence bureaucracy led by its several IG's and its IG Supreme are trying to conduct and to execute a silent and under the radar coup d'etat.

I'd noted what many Americans either welcome or fear, i.e., that Hillary Clinton is on a slow but certain train to the Oval Office. That this has been true since before 2007-08. The current concoction is being exploited as the only way try to stop her and the Democratic Party train.

The "Intelligence Community" has since the start of the Cold War been loaded up with and dominated by super patriot right wingers of the most extreme kind.

So if the spy bureaucracies and their IG's win in their purposes, then they can move right in to rule the country directly by a silent coup. Because if they might succeed in this, they then will have made a great stride toward saving and reviving the far right in US politics and government, to include the "intelligence community's" continued surveillance of anyone and everyone.

Interesting spin you've laid out there, but isn't it true that the State Dept didn't have a confirmed Inspector General for the entire duration of Clinton's tenure there, despite bi-partisan calls for an appointment. Obama delayed 5 years, citing his stringent vetting process, which is kinda laughable if you think about it.

Why a confirmed Inspector General is important:

Having a permanent inspector general, as opposed to an acting or interim IG, is critical. Permanent IGs at cabinet-level departments are appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate and because they do not serve at the whim of department secretaries, they can act aggressively with less fear about losing their jobs.

IGs appointed by the president can only be removed by the president. And while the IGs who are appointed by agency heads can be removed by the agency heads, no IG, no matter who appoints them, can be removed without Congress’ knowledge.

After 5 Years, Is Obama Ready to Fill State Department Vacancy?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-newman/after-5-years-is-obama-re_b_3118975.html

[Publicus]

^I know you would like to treat FBI director's powers as de minimis in this instance because of your support of Clinton and Comey's history of going after her.

However, after checking the definitive online legal source, Wikipedia, I found the following:

Information obtained through an FBI investigation is presented to the appropriate U.S. Attorney or Department of Justice official, who decides if prosecution or other action is warranted.

So, of course, the Obama Cabinet AG, Lynch will decide if prosecution is warranted, but believe me, the cat will be out of the bag once the boys at FBI makes their determination, and I stand by my position that Comey is still the most powerful person in America at this moment, because if Lynch does not follow his recommendation it will be perceived as rigged for the Clintons and the fix is in. Sanders desire for shakeup is proven right and probably nabs the nomination. That's assuming Comey recommends indictment or something similarly ominous.

Same impact if Comey clears her.

Clinton trots to the White House. Got it yet?

Getting out ahead of ourselves here.

Trying to work through possible scenarios is natural and the interaction helps in sorting the mess into a better focus and to assess possibilities, probabilities, personalities, professions, politics and the presidency. Not to mention posting.

Your posts place a proper focus on FBI Director James Comy J.D. because few could disagree about the impact of his communication to the AG, which ever way it may go. Others will make the ultimate decisions, but the view of the Director of FBI will constitute somebody's nuke against the other guyz. Either way It will be the mushroom cloud Americans can't miss.

I quote your statement in a post to the thread:

Right now, FBI Director Comey looks to be the most powerful man in America. His determination on this issue could turn the election, both in Bernie's favor and possibly in the favor of the GOP.

My argument is that no single person in government should have this power. Nor any such power. This is not a power to simply cite then move on. It is a power to stop, to remove, to prevent recurring.

So however this awesome power and reach got to be in one single person, let's start to remove it.

I don't know what the laws state concerning these powers, but placing all of this legal power in one person is contrary to the Constitution. The spirit of the Constitution if not the letter of it -- likely both. Certainly in the current context.

No one here knows what FBI and the "intelligence community" IG's are doing. Those operating completely out of public view are the only ones who know. Their leaks to media infest us.

I'd anyway think that if down the road push came to shove on this issue of one person in government and a massive summary legal power residing in the one person, the American people would justifiably have a great concern. So should Director Comy, either way, because his decision will go far beyond impacting the specific statutes. It will impact the political system, its processes, the election of a Potus.

Or do we wait for the existing Executive Branch sub-system of internal checks and balances to get set into a motion. That is, Director of FBI to AG, to Potus who consults full Cabinet and (in some way) Congress leaders, at the least, then Potus states his call and decision (assuming all of these processes and procedures had been set in motion).

It is inconceivable that even potentially the fate of the United States could be in the hands of an appointed federal official bureaucrat and lawyer.

[lannarebirth]

^I know you would like to treat FBI director's powers as de minimis in this instance because of your support of Clinton and Comey's history of going after her.

However, after checking the definitive online legal source, Wikipedia, I found the following:

Information obtained through an FBI investigation is presented to the appropriate U.S. Attorney or Department of Justice official, who decides if prosecution or other action is warranted.

So, of course, the Obama Cabinet AG, Lynch will decide if prosecution is warranted, but believe me, the cat will be out of the bag once the boys at FBI makes their determination, and I stand by my position that Comey is still the most powerful person in America at this moment, because if Lynch does not follow his recommendation it will be perceived as rigged for the Clintons and the fix is in. Sanders desire for shakeup is proven right and probably nabs the nomination. That's assuming Comey recommends indictment or something similarly ominous.

Same impact if Comey clears her.

Clinton trots to the White House. Got it yet?

....

Trying to work through possible scenarios is natural and the interaction helps in sorting the mess into a better focus and to assess possibilities, probabilities, personalities, professions, politics and the presidency. Not to mention posting.

....

Johnny Cochran lives !

[CWMcMurray]

Are you really sure that Bernie thinks the investigation will go nowhere or is that an assumption? That's not a rhetorical question. I am really not sure. During an early debate when pressed about this, I recall that Bernie basically thinks, as I understood it, he should stay out of it and let the process take its course. That's not the same as what you have stated. So, has Bernie stated something stronger than that since that debate?

Also, Hillary may be exonerated, but I don't think this issue comes only from her right-wing critics (I normally roll my eyes when I hear of yet another Clinton "scandal."). It's not just about the emails; it's also about the server. Again, maybe she will be exonerated or the FBI will conclude that there was but a minor transgression; nevertheless, common sense dictates that you have to suspect that she found a possible loophole that allowed her to decide on her own which emails to delete (is she hiding anything?) and also there's a security risk issue. I don't know what the investigation's conclusion may or should be, but there seems to me to be good grounds to at least investigate especially considering the sensitivity of the communications.

I think you have accused the DOJ of living in some kind of ivory tower, unlike the Clintons. Please do correct me if I misunderstood. Yes, there's no doubt that the Clintons are very smart and savvy people. However, I personally cannot make the sweeping conclusion that you have seemed to have made of the many members of the DOJ.

Finally, I was never an investigator or a prosecutor and I am, of course, not privy to how the investigation is being handled. So, I am not about to tell or even suggest to the FBI when and who they should interview. Perhaps they have very good reasons for their actions that they cannot at this time reveal.

And again, I can understand being sensitive about a Clinton "scandal." I don't blame you for that. I think some of those critics had gotten out of hand.

Bernie is nominally a political independent who in his real politics is a Democrat.

Bernie is moreover the antithesis of a Republican.

In the Senate Bernie caucuses with the Democratic party, i.e., conferences and votes with it. So in turn, the Senate Democratic leadership with the consent of the D senators assigns Bernie seats on committees. Until the 2014 midterm election when R's took majority control, Bernie had risen to become chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee, where he'd led the Democratic members in steering the committee in all respects.

If Bernie were elected he'd positively need to load his cabinet with Democrats, throw in a few odd Republicans and another Independent or two from the Great Lakes States or other commie pinko prevert havens.

Strategically and tactically, Bernie cannot afford to get on the emails bandwagon. It's a rightwing whackjob scheme and operation against Hillary Clinton that Bernie cannot afford to get anywhere near. For Bernie to dabble in It would cost Bernie big time in his campaign. It would soil him among his true supporters.

Bernie would lose Democratic voter and Institutional acceptance, tolerance, credibility. He'd create a huge distraction from his one theme campaign message (Bernie doesn't even want to talk about foreign policy or anything foreign except trade treaties or agreements). He says virtually nothing pertaining to national security. A few words against ISIS blurp blurp.

Further, Bernie would attract the disingenuous who laughably claim political neutrality, i.e., rejection of either party while they simultaneously pretend balance by commending Bernie the rational man and Donald Trump the ignoramous. Bernie would become a powerful magnet to the loose nail Clinton haters, mysogonists, racists, anarchists and nihilists that we see each and every day at work in the society and under our own noses.

Bernie stays out of it because he too could be accused of fueling a rightwing superpatriot silent coup d'etat by the flatfoot spook bureaucracies and their IG's operating in cahoots with Republican senators and their staffs.

Bernie's been around the block a few times and then some, so since becoming a big hit one man and one theme show he's continuing to run with it and more power to him. Bernie got his campaign off on the right foot and he hasn't looked back since. In January Bernie will be back in the Senate to welcome a bus full of newly elected Democratic US Senators.

tin

Are you stating that the FBI investigation of the Hillary emails, etc. is "a rightwing superpatriot silent coup d'etat"? They obviously have spent a lot of time, money and resources on the investigation. Your accusation, if that is the case, is thus quite an accusation. Is that what you are stating? If so, what do you base this on? What credible sources do you have that support this?

Are you stating that the FBI investigation of the Hillary emails, etc. is "a rightwing superpatriot silent coup d'etat"?

No I am not. The question is welcomed because it invites a successful clearing of any ambiguity that may exist in my posts along this line.

FBI and DoJ are doing what they were asked to do.

No doubt some FBI personnel remain who have it in for Hillary (and Bill) but FBI did not initiate this. It began with Republicans in Congress and it quickly moved over to the DepState IG. Then it went to other Intelligence "community" IG officers, then to the super IG himself of the entire intelligence "community" itself.

So I reiterate, this is a serious matter in many respects, but it is at its most serious because the surveillance-intelligence bureaucracy led by its several IG's and its IG Supreme are trying to conduct and to execute a silent and under the radar coup d'etat.

I'd noted what many Americans either welcome or fear, i.e., that Hillary Clinton is on a slow but certain train to the Oval Office. That this has been true since before 2007-08. The current concoction is being exploited as the only way try to stop her and the Democratic Party train.

The "Intelligence Community" has since the start of the Cold War been loaded up with and dominated by super patriot right wingers of the most extreme kind.

So if the spy bureaucracies and their IG's win in their purposes, then they can move right in to rule the country directly by a silent coup. Because if they might succeed in this, they then will have made a great stride toward saving and reviving the far right in US politics and government, to include the "intelligence community's" continued surveillance of anyone and everyone.

Or better yet.. The DNC could back Sanders and then Hillary and all the negativity that comes with her disappears...

Then Sanders in the Whitehouse and a start of a new era begins

[CWMcMurray]

^I know you would like to treat FBI director's powers as de minimis in this instance because of your support of Clinton and Comey's history of going after her.

However, after checking the definitive online legal source, Wikipedia, I found the following:

Information obtained through an FBI investigation is presented to the appropriate U.S. Attorney or Department of Justice official, who decides if prosecution or other action is warranted.

So, of course, the Obama Cabinet AG, Lynch will decide if prosecution is warranted, but believe me, the cat will be out of the bag once the boys at FBI makes their determination, and I stand by my position that Comey is still the most powerful person in America at this moment, because if Lynch does not follow his recommendation it will be perceived as rigged for the Clintons and the fix is in. Sanders desire for shakeup is proven right and probably nabs the nomination. That's assuming Comey recommends indictment or something similarly ominous.

Same impact if Comey clears her.

Clinton trots to the White House. Got it yet?

Getting out ahead of ourselves here.

Trying to work through possible scenarios is natural and the interaction helps in sorting the mess into a better focus and to assess possibilities, probabilities, personalities, professions, politics and the presidency. Not to mention posting.

Your posts place a proper focus on FBI Director James Comy J.D. because few could disagree about the impact of his communication to the AG, which ever way it may go. Others will make the ultimate decisions, but the view of the Director of FBI will constitute somebody's nuke against the other guyz. Either way It will be the mushroom cloud Americans can't miss.

I quote your statement in a post to the thread:

Right now, FBI Director Comey looks to be the most powerful man in America. His determination on this issue could turn the election, both in Bernie's favor and possibly in the favor of the GOP.

My argument is that no single person in government should have this power. Nor any such power. This is not a power to simply cite then move on. It is a power to stop, to remove, to prevent recurring.

So however this awesome power and reach got to be in one single person, let's start to remove it.

I don't know what the laws state concerning these powers, but placing all of this legal power in one person is contrary to the Constitution. The spirit of the Constitution if not the letter of it -- likely both. Certainly in the current context.

No one here knows what FBI and the "intelligence community" IG's are doing. Those operating completely out of public view are the only ones who know. Their leaks to media infest us.

I'd anyway think that if down the road push came to shove on this issue of one person in government and a massive summary legal power residing in the one person, the American people would justifiably have a great concern. So should Director Comy, either way, because his decision will go far beyond impacting the specific statutes. It will impact the political system, its processes, the election of a Potus.

Or do we wait for the existing Executive Branch sub-system of internal checks and balances to get set into a motion. That is, Director of FBI to AG, to Potus who consults full Cabinet and (in some way) Congress leaders, at the least, then Potus states his call and decision (assuming all of these processes and procedures had been set in motion).

It is inconceivable that even potentially the fate of the United States could be in the hands of an appointed federal official bureaucrat and lawyer.

He only has this power as Hillary is running for President

I don't the founders would have considered that some one with such a large issue hanging cover their head and the possibility that they could be indicted would be running for such an office

It is very easy for Dems to avoid this man having any power... Just dump Hillary and he then holds no power over any election

[lannarebirth]

^I know you would like to treat FBI director's powers as de minimis in this instance because of your support of Clinton and Comey's history of going after her.

However, after checking the definitive online legal source, Wikipedia, I found the following:

Information obtained through an FBI investigation is presented to the appropriate U.S. Attorney or Department of Justice official, who decides if prosecution or other action is warranted.

So, of course, the Obama Cabinet AG, Lynch will decide if prosecution is warranted, but believe me, the cat will be out of the bag once the boys at FBI makes their determination, and I stand by my position that Comey is still the most powerful person in America at this moment, because if Lynch does not follow his recommendation it will be perceived as rigged for the Clintons and the fix is in. Sanders desire for shakeup is proven right and probably nabs the nomination. That's assuming Comey recommends indictment or something similarly ominous.

Same impact if Comey clears her.

Clinton trots to the White House. Got it yet?

Getting out ahead of ourselves here.

Trying to work through possible scenarios is natural and the interaction helps in sorting the mess into a better focus and to assess possibilities, probabilities, personalities, professions, politics and the presidency. Not to mention posting.

Your posts place a proper focus on FBI Director James Comy J.D. because few could disagree about the impact of his communication to the AG, which ever way it may go. Others will make the ultimate decisions, but the view of the Director of FBI will constitute somebody's nuke against the other guyz. Either way It will be the mushroom cloud Americans can't miss.

I quote your statement in a post to the thread:

Right now, FBI Director Comey looks to be the most powerful man in America. His determination on this issue could turn the election, both in Bernie's favor and possibly in the favor of the GOP.

My argument is that no single person in government should have this power. Nor any such power. This is not a power to simply cite then move on. It is a power to stop, to remove, to prevent recurring.

So however this awesome power and reach got to be in one single person, let's start to remove it.

I don't know what the laws state concerning these powers, but placing all of this legal power in one person is contrary to the Constitution. The spirit of the Constitution if not the letter of it -- likely both. Certainly in the current context.

No one here knows what FBI and the "intelligence community" IG's are doing. Those operating completely out of public view are the only ones who know. Their leaks to media infest us.

I'd anyway think that if down the road push came to shove on this issue of one person in government and a massive summary legal power residing in the one person, the American people would justifiably have a great concern. So should Director Comy, either way, because his decision will go far beyond impacting the specific statutes. It will impact the political system, its processes, the election of a Potus.

Or do we wait for the existing Executive Branch sub-system of internal checks and balances to get set into a motion. That is, Director of FBI to AG, to Potus who consults full Cabinet and (in some way) Congress leaders, at the least, then Potus states his call and decision (assuming all of these processes and procedures had been set in motion).

It is inconceivable that even potentially the fate of the United States could be in the hands of an appointed federal official bureaucrat and lawyer.

He only has this power as Hillary is running for President

I don't the founders would have considered that some one with such a large issue hanging cover their head and the possibility that they could be indicted would be running for such an office

It is very easy for Dems to avoid this man having any power... Just dump Hillary and he then holds no power over any election

Quite right CW. The Clinton's have got a lot of chutzpah and having been in a perpetual state of overlooked scandals they have effectively raised the bar for themselves on what constitutes an offense objectionable enough to bar one from running for elected office. Another person might get drummed out of a campaign for paying their Dominican maid under the table but the Clintons have laid sufficient groundwork for practically anything that might arise.

[Publicus]

^I know you would like to treat FBI director's powers as de minimis in this instance because of your support of Clinton and Comey's history of going after her.

However, after checking the definitive online legal source, Wikipedia, I found the following:

Information obtained through an FBI investigation is presented to the appropriate U.S. Attorney or Department of Justice official, who decides if prosecution or other action is warranted.

So, of course, the Obama Cabinet AG, Lynch will decide if prosecution is warranted, but believe me, the cat will be out of the bag once the boys at FBI makes their determination, and I stand by my position that Comey is still the most powerful person in America at this moment, because if Lynch does not follow his recommendation it will be perceived as rigged for the Clintons and the fix is in. Sanders desire for shakeup is proven right and probably nabs the nomination. That's assuming Comey recommends indictment or something similarly ominous.

Same impact if Comey clears her.

Clinton trots to the White House. Got it yet?

Getting out ahead of ourselves here.

Trying to work through possible scenarios is natural and the interaction helps in sorting the mess into a better focus and to assess possibilities, probabilities, personalities, professions, politics and the presidency. Not to mention posting.

Your posts place a proper focus on FBI Director James Comy J.D. because few could disagree about the impact of his communication to the AG, which ever way it may go. Others will make the ultimate decisions, but the view of the Director of FBI will constitute somebody's nuke against the other guyz. Either way It will be the mushroom cloud Americans can't miss.

I quote your statement in a post to the thread:

Right now, FBI Director Comey looks to be the most powerful man in America. His determination on this issue could turn the election, both in Bernie's favor and possibly in the favor of the GOP.

My argument is that no single person in government should have this power. Nor any such power. This is not a power to simply cite then move on. It is a power to stop, to remove, to prevent recurring.

So however this awesome power and reach got to be in one single person, let's start to remove it.

I don't know what the laws state concerning these powers, but placing all of this legal power in one person is contrary to the Constitution. The spirit of the Constitution if not the letter of it -- likely both. Certainly in the current context.

No one here knows what FBI and the "intelligence community" IG's are doing. Those operating completely out of public view are the only ones who know. Their leaks to media infest us.

I'd anyway think that if down the road push came to shove on this issue of one person in government and a massive summary legal power residing in the one person, the American people would justifiably have a great concern. So should Director Comy, either way, because his decision will go far beyond impacting the specific statutes. It will impact the political system, its processes, the election of a Potus.

Or do we wait for the existing Executive Branch sub-system of internal checks and balances to get set into a motion. That is, Director of FBI to AG, to Potus who consults full Cabinet and (in some way) Congress leaders, at the least, then Potus states his call and decision (assuming all of these processes and procedures had been set in motion).

It is inconceivable that even potentially the fate of the United States could be in the hands of an appointed federal official bureaucrat and lawyer.

He only has this power as Hillary is running for President

I don't the founders would have considered that some one with such a large issue hanging cover their head and the possibility that they could be indicted would be running for such an office

It is very easy for Dems to avoid this man having any power... Just dump Hillary and he then holds no power over any election

He only has this power as Hillary is running for President

That is all we need to know thx.

The point precisely.

Thanks for supporting my argument even if it was without knowing either the point or the argument.

[keemapoot]

CW's point was exactly correct and exactly on point. He only has this power as Hillary is running for President

It is only at this precise alignment of the stars, in this precise point of time and space in our universe that the FBI Director has such a truly awesome power. Failing this confluence and bizarre set of circumstances, he's just another skirt-wearing J. Edgar cop.

Hilary, if she cares about the party & country, would withdraw, because there are going to be years of lawsuits surrounding whatever Comey does probably in any event.

[Publicus]

^I know you would like to treat FBI director's powers as de minimis in this instance because of your support of Clinton and Comey's history of going after her.

However, after checking the definitive online legal source, Wikipedia, I found the following:

Information obtained through an FBI investigation is presented to the appropriate U.S. Attorney or Department of Justice official, who decides if prosecution or other action is warranted.

So, of course, the Obama Cabinet AG, Lynch will decide if prosecution is warranted, but believe me, the cat will be out of the bag once the boys at FBI makes their determination, and I stand by my position that Comey is still the most powerful person in America at this moment, because if Lynch does not follow his recommendation it will be perceived as rigged for the Clintons and the fix is in. Sanders desire for shakeup is proven right and probably nabs the nomination. That's assuming Comey recommends indictment or something similarly ominous.

Same impact if Comey clears her.

Clinton trots to the White House. Got it yet?

Getting out ahead of ourselves here.

Trying to work through possible scenarios is natural and the interaction helps in sorting the mess into a better focus and to assess possibilities, probabilities, personalities, professions, politics and the presidency. Not to mention posting.

Your posts place a proper focus on FBI Director James Comy J.D. because few could disagree about the impact of his communication to the AG, which ever way it may go. Others will make the ultimate decisions, but the view of the Director of FBI will constitute somebody's nuke against the other guyz. Either way It will be the mushroom cloud Americans can't miss.

I quote your statement in a post to the thread:

Right now, FBI Director Comey looks to be the most powerful man in America. His determination on this issue could turn the election, both in Bernie's favor and possibly in the favor of the GOP.

My argument is that no single person in government should have this power. Nor any such power. This is not a power to simply cite then move on. It is a power to stop, to remove, to prevent recurring.

So however this awesome power and reach got to be in one single person, let's start to remove it.

I don't know what the laws state concerning these powers, but placing all of this legal power in one person is contrary to the Constitution. The spirit of the Constitution if not the letter of it -- likely both. Certainly in the current context.

No one here knows what FBI and the "intelligence community" IG's are doing. Those operating completely out of public view are the only ones who know. Their leaks to media infest us.

I'd anyway think that if down the road push came to shove on this issue of one person in government and a massive summary legal power residing in the one person, the American people would justifiably have a great concern. So should Director Comy, either way, because his decision will go far beyond impacting the specific statutes. It will impact the political system, its processes, the election of a Potus.

Or do we wait for the existing Executive Branch sub-system of internal checks and balances to get set into a motion. That is, Director of FBI to AG, to Potus who consults full Cabinet and (in some way) Congress leaders, at the least, then Potus states his call and decision (assuming all of these processes and procedures had been set in motion).

It is inconceivable that even potentially the fate of the United States could be in the hands of an appointed federal official bureaucrat and lawyer.

He only has this power as Hillary is running for President

I don't the founders would have considered that some one with such a large issue hanging cover their head and the possibility that they could be indicted would be running for such an office

It is very easy for Dems to avoid this man having any power... Just dump Hillary and he then holds no power over any election

It is very easy for Dems to avoid this man having any power... Just dump Hillary and he then holds no power over any election

Silent coup d'etat, yes, you've got it now.

The Democratic party has to please the Republican party.

The "intelligence community" and the FBI can then stand down.

The statement is clear: the Democratic party steps out of line, the surveillance and enforcement agencies are gonna put themselves down on the leading Democrat.

And then the next one...

(Does anybody here know how to argue, i.e., to think? To reason?? To consider logic??? Thank me anyway cause this would be good mental practice for youse guyz should this nonsense actually occur. Coz you're completely flatfooted on it.)

[Publicus]

CW's point was exactly correct and exactly on point. He only has this power as Hillary is running for President

It is only at this precise alignment of the stars, in this precise point of time and space in our universe that the FBI Director has such a truly awesome power. Failing this confluence and bizarre set of circumstances, he's just another skirt-wearing J. Edgar cop.

Hilary, if she cares about the party & country, would withdraw, because there are going to be years of lawsuits surrounding whatever Comey does probably in any event.

Carnac indeed.

The issue is a Constitutional one, not a matter of a precise alignment of the stars.

Youse guyz need the thought and argument practice however so keep trying.

Need it 100%.

[keemapoot]

CW's point was exactly correct and exactly on point. He only has this power as Hillary is running for President

It is only at this precise alignment of the stars, in this precise point of time and space in our universe that the FBI Director has such a truly awesome power. Failing this confluence and bizarre set of circumstances, he's just another skirt-wearing J. Edgar cop.

Hilary, if she cares about the party & country, would withdraw, because there are going to be years of lawsuits surrounding whatever Comey does probably in any event.

Carnac indeed.

The issue is a Constitutional one, not a matter of a precise alignment of the stars.

Youse guyz need the thought and argument practice however so keep trying.

Need it 100%.

Haha, coup d'etat, you're speaking as if Clinton is already installed and sworn in at President. The Democrat party is not one person named Clinton. There is another guy named Bernie something.

She should fall on her sword, for the good of the party, and the good of the country. She will never do this, because she is a egotistical selfish wicked witch who wants to rule the kingdom.

[lannarebirth]

CW's point was exactly correct and exactly on point. He only has this power as Hillary is running for President

It is only at this precise alignment of the stars, in this precise point of time and space in our universe that the FBI Director has such a truly awesome power. Failing this confluence and bizarre set of circumstances, he's just another skirt-wearing J. Edgar cop.

Hilary, if she cares about the party & country, would withdraw, because there are going to be years of lawsuits surrounding whatever Comey does probably in any event.

Carnac indeed.

The issue is a Constitutional one, not a matter of a precise alignment of the stars.

Youse guyz need the thought and argument practice however so keep trying.

Need it 100%.

It's a constitutional issue just the same as any private citizen, which is what she is. This isn't an impeachment. She has no political protection from the constitution.

[Publicus]

There are people here now talking political and Constitutional blackmail and intimidation, all of it in the name of the political system, the rule of law, and the Constitution itself.

No one over there should stop now however. Keep it going from over there....

It's all for a good cause y'know.

[lannarebirth]

There are people here now talking political and Constitutional blackmail and intimidation, all of it in the name of the political system, the rule of law, and the Constitution itself.

No one over there should stop now however. Keep it going from over there....

It's all for a good cause y'know.

A one man echo chamber.

[Publicus]

CW's point was exactly correct and exactly on point. He only has this power as Hillary is running for President

It is only at this precise alignment of the stars, in this precise point of time and space in our universe that the FBI Director has such a truly awesome power. Failing this confluence and bizarre set of circumstances, he's just another skirt-wearing J. Edgar cop.

Hilary, if she cares about the party & country, would withdraw, because there are going to be years of lawsuits surrounding whatever Comey does probably in any event.

Carnac indeed.

The issue is a Constitutional one, not a matter of a precise alignment of the stars.

Youse guyz need the thought and argument practice however so keep trying.

Need it 100%.

It's a constitutional issue just the same as any private citizen, which is what she is. This isn't an impeachment. She has no political protection from the constitution.

The Constitutional issue is one appointed person in the bureaucracy having a summary legal power that impacts the candidates, the political parties, the general electorate and the body politic, the election itself; and globally.

It's a presidential election year y'know. It's no coincidence all this.

This FBI director has accurately been described as the "most powerful man in America in 2016."

For sure and all Americans need to address the issue seriously and asap.

The guy is an appointed official bureaucrat. Yet FBI Director has more and greater power than a Cabinet officer has got, than a Member of Congress has (House and Senate) to include any Speaker of the House.

This guy in this position has more power individually than a secretary of state, a secretary of defense, a secretary of the treasury.....more power individually than every one in the Cabinet except the Attorney General.

[Publicus]

There are people here now talking political and Constitutional blackmail and intimidation, all of it in the name of the political system, the rule of law, and the Constitution itself.

No one over there should stop now however. Keep it going from over there....

It's all for a good cause y'know.

A one man echo chamber.

Was that a post?

Hope not...

[lannarebirth]

CW's point was exactly correct and exactly on point. He only has this power as Hillary is running for President

It is only at this precise alignment of the stars, in this precise point of time and space in our universe that the FBI Director has such a truly awesome power. Failing this confluence and bizarre set of circumstances, he's just another skirt-wearing J. Edgar cop.

Hilary, if she cares about the party & country, would withdraw, because there are going to be years of lawsuits surrounding whatever Comey does probably in any event.

Carnac indeed.

The issue is a Constitutional one, not a matter of a precise alignment of the stars.

Youse guyz need the thought and argument practice however so keep trying.

Need it 100%.

It's a constitutional issue just the same as any private citizen, which is what she is. This isn't an impeachment. She has no political protection from the constitution.

The Constitutional issue is one appointed person in the bureaucracy having a summary legal power that impacts the candidates, the political parties, the general electorate and the body politic, the election itself; and globally.

It's a presidential election year y'know. It's no coincidence all this.

This FBI director has accurately been described as the "most powerful man in America in 2016."

For sure and all Americans need to address the issue seriously and asap.

The guy is an appointed official bureaucrat. Yet FBI Director has more and greater power than a Cabinet officer has got, than a Member of Congress has (House and Senate) to include any Speaker of the House.

This guy in this position has more power individually than a secretary of state, a secretary of defense, a secretary of the treasury.....more power individually than every one in the Cabinet except the Attorney General.

Yeah, he's got a lot of power. But only the power to advise in this case. He has no power to act, which as you have said and I agree, resides with the AG. The AG is a political appointee herself and there is greater risk to the nation that she ignore legitimate advice to indict than there is in indicting a candidate in a presidential primary race.

All that aside, I'm calling bullshit on your inference this was all calculated to come about at this time by right wing actors in intelligence agencies. First of all it would have all come to light years ago if Obama had appointed an IG to the State Dept and if any repercussions were forthcoming they would have come long ago. If one wanted to be conspiratorial one could say Obama gave her just enough rope to hang herself.

Edited April 3, 2016 by lannarebirth

[Publicus]

That is the take of the far right.

It is a presidential election year y'know. All of this is no coincidence.

Regardless, HRC has not been advised by FBI Director Comey she is being investigated. Not Comey, nor has anyone at DoJ advised her lawyers she is being investigated. FBI has said HRC is not a "target" of its work in these respects, which means she is not identified as a person to pursue for the purposes of charges to include indictments.

Accept it and learn to live with it over there on the political fringe.

Meanwhile, let's look at the superpatriot rightwing "intelligence community" and its IG's who are fronting for Republicans in the Senate in this ridiculous charge up the hill.

[JDGRUEN]

and what do you do with provisions agreed and signed in the initial version that were ill advised? Since they are organic, can they be used for fertilizer?

Here is a crazy idea, Crazy enough that it might work, Instead of free trade, how about Fair trade?

The purpose of a Government is to prevent the free movement of unfair practices.

How did protectionism become a negative word? Protection is the purpose of the government.

I've always thought of governments role first and foremost is to promote opportunity and equity of that opportunity, but not necessarily outcome - albeit with a sufficient safety net.

So long as fair trade isn't code for encouraging mediocrity (ie helping lethargic dying industries last a little bit longer behind a tariff wall) then I'm not opposed to it

Under the U.S. Constitution the primary role of the Federal Government is to provide for the common defense and little else ... the rest is the left to the States and to the People

You should try reading it - it is a great guiding document on limiting government... and freedom for the people

[Boon Mee]

You Sanders supporters don't have both oars in the water, boys.

Socialism just doesn't work...

[samran]

and what do you do with provisions agreed and signed in the initial version that were ill advised? Since they are organic, can they be used for fertilizer?

Here is a crazy idea, Crazy enough that it might work, Instead of free trade, how about Fair trade?

The purpose of a Government is to prevent the free movement of unfair practices.

How did protectionism become a negative word? Protection is the purpose of the government.

I've always thought of governments role first and foremost is to promote opportunity and equity of that opportunity, but not necessarily outcome - albeit with a sufficient safety net.

So long as fair trade isn't code for encouraging mediocrity (ie helping lethargic dying industries last a little bit longer behind a tariff wall) then I'm not opposed to it

Under the U.S. Constitution the primary role of the Federal Government is to provide for the common defense and little else ... the rest is the left to the States and to the People

You should try reading it - it is a great guiding document on limiting government... and freedom for the people

Given we are talking the form and nature about trade deals between the U.S. and other countries, I'm sure you have also read Article II, Section 2, Clause 2?

But I am sure as a der-con, consistent with your values, a federal government should not intervene in the undertaking of trade (as Boon Mee's daily contributions have just shown) and there should just be absolutely free trade between countries.

After all, to do otherwise would mean blocking trade and putting up tariffs, which are just another form of tax. And thanks to Boon Mee's little contribution for the day, that would be socialism right?

Edited April 3, 2016 by samran

[keemapoot]

and what do you do with provisions agreed and signed in the initial version that were ill advised? Since they are organic, can they be used for fertilizer?

Here is a crazy idea, Crazy enough that it might work, Instead of free trade, how about Fair trade?

The purpose of a Government is to prevent the free movement of unfair practices.

How did protectionism become a negative word? Protection is the purpose of the government.

I've always thought of governments role first and foremost is to promote opportunity and equity of that opportunity, but not necessarily outcome - albeit with a sufficient safety net.

So long as fair trade isn't code for encouraging mediocrity (ie helping lethargic dying industries last a little bit longer behind a tariff wall) then I'm not opposed to it

Since we seem to have a real economist posting in this thread (and please continue), I thought I would post the conclusion (published in Forbes yesterday) of one of your esteemed brethren (John T. Harvey) on the issue of Sanders' economic philosophy and school of thought alignment. It kind of lays waste to all these uninformed posters on here alleging that he is some kind of Karl Marx commie pinko clone.

...The rest of his platform, however, seems much more capitalistic than socialistic. To be fair, there are some issues where he is recommending a stronger role for government. That said, Adam Smith, too, thought there were functions of society that made more sense left to the public sector. But on the big questions, it is difficult to see where the Father of Capitalism would have taken strong issue with the democratic socialist from Vermont.

Perhaps Bernie Sanders should start calling himself a democratic capitalist instead.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2016/04/01/bernie-sanders-as-democratic-capitalist/#452eae941951

Bio of Forbes contributor Harvey (redacted for relevance):

I am a Professor of Economics at Texas Christian University, where I have worked since 1987. My areas of specialty are international economics (particularly exchange rates), macroeconomics, history of economics, and contemporary schools of thought. During my time in Fort Worth, I have served as department chair, Executive Director of the International Confederation of Associations for Pluralism in Economics, a member of the board of directors of the Association for Evolutionary Economics, and a member of the editorial boards of the American Review of Political Economy, the Critique of Political Economy, the Encyclopedia of Political Economy, the Journal of Economics Issues, and the Social Science Journal. My research consists of over thirty refereed publications, two edited volumes, and one book (with another in process).

[Publicus]

and what do you do with provisions agreed and signed in the initial version that were ill advised? Since they are organic, can they be used for fertilizer?

Here is a crazy idea, Crazy enough that it might work, Instead of free trade, how about Fair trade?

The purpose of a Government is to prevent the free movement of unfair practices.

How did protectionism become a negative word? Protection is the purpose of the government.

I've always thought of governments role first and foremost is to promote opportunity and equity of that opportunity, but not necessarily outcome - albeit with a sufficient safety net.

So long as fair trade isn't code for encouraging mediocrity (ie helping lethargic dying industries last a little bit longer behind a tariff wall) then I'm not opposed to it

Under the U.S. Constitution the primary role of the Federal Government is to provide for the common defense and little else ... the rest is the left to the States and to the People

You should try reading it - it is a great guiding document on limiting government... and freedom for the people

Two Americans read the Constitution and while each you and I have a good deal of precise agreement, we simultaneously have widely varying views of what we have read, both specifically and overall.

Very many variances. You standing to my right, I standing to your left. Quite the difference eh.

Interesting.

Imagine a foreigner reading it. (I guess that's ok for a foreigner to do...it's anyway ok from over on this side and you over on that side did issue a generous invitation to one.)

Btw, I'd like to think that We The People from the Declaration does include moi.