US primaries: Sanders challenges Clinton to debate on home turf

[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

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).

Twenty years ago you could probably have refered to me as an economist. Today I am just a hack.

The thing I find hilarious about the Der-con position is they are so virulently nationalist, even to the point they don't like foreigners dissecting and discussing their piints of view.

That would be fine I supose if you were consistent, but they also try and take the position of hating socialism, and you get the little hypocritical 'quotes of the day' from our leading thinkers like Boon Mee above telling us any restraint of trade is bad.

I happen to agree with that point for the most part.

But as nationalist der-con they try and block any interaction with the rest of the world, and in doing so they block the very essence of the unregulated market which (they say) they so dearly want.

Domestically, they say they don't want government to get in the way, yet rail against Wall Street banks trying to ply their trade.

So they go around bagging socialism but the fact is they are closet socialists themselves. You are either a free trader or you aren't.

For me that is an utter hypocracy so I take great joy in pointing it out to them!

Edited April 3, 2016 by samran

[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

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.

The problem for those on the hard right is that 'we the people' either means 'people like us' or 'me myself and I'. Edited April 3, 2016 by samran

[Publicus]

Socialism is government ownership and operation of the means of transportation, communication, production.

The United States does not have socialism. Hasn't ever had it, never will have it.

The issue is of the degree and extent USA implements economic democracy, social democracy, political democracy and the like, as proscribed in the Constitution.

The Constitution provides that...

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble

We do however see Sen Sander's great vulnerability to the ruthless Republican and far right attack machine. It is the word socialist. The whackjob right had already spent eight years trying unsuccessfully to mind-meld Obama/Socialist into one. Their relentless campaign to demonise both served only to legitimise the two. (Whooosshh!)

Bernie is a tough old buzzard who earns my admiration and respect, however, he has not neutered this word in his primary campaigns. Cheerfully Bernie hasn't had to.

But I wonder if he could continue to let its use as a pejorative slide as the D party nominee (theoretically). Millennials who don't fear the word or the concept of a democratic socialism and some others further left can compensate for the blue collar people the R's would target to scare off and away from Bernie as the (theoretical) nominee.

And btw no one out there on the far right needs to point out HRC has her vulnerabilities. I say again, no one out there on the far right needs to point out HRC has her vulnerabilities. Socialism is however not one of 'em.

Bernie is in fact not a socialist as we know the term. Social democrat/Democrat yes, socialist no. Neither am I a socialist. A well-regulated capitalism is both a very good thing and the best thing. False promises from either direction don't cut the mustard either.

[sirineou]

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

Socialism just doesn't work...

Whats up with the ridiculous pictures with Photoshop statements next to them ?

"the problem with socialists like Sanders is they dont believe or understand in economics"

The person who wrote this does not understand what economics is .

Economics is the relationship of transactions, it does not necessarily have to be monetary.,

one can look at a romantic relationship and describe the economics of it. the give and take

All transactions have economics ,even socialist transactions

How can anyone not believe that there is a relationship between transactions??????????

Does Sanders believe transactions happen in a vacuum???

"Socialism is not an economic theory it is a theory of redistribution"

what the heck is this supposed to mean???

Socialism is a political system that governs the transactions, and as such part of an economic system.

that depends on different adjustment than other political systems to achieve the desired output.

System : input :

process :

monitoring:

adjustment : Redistribution is part of the adjustment to achieve the desired output !!!!

output

unforeseen consequences

So I here forth order a cease and desist on the cut and paste of ridiculous graphics

Ridiculous as described by me on page 43693 paragraph 85 of my political manifesto, which I will publish as soon as I come out of my log Cabin in the woods,In a mean time if unsure please PM me , and please allow seven business days for a response as such requests are delivered to me by untraceable carrier pigeon

[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

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.

Gee yes... I'm so stupid and you are so erudite ... Us Lowly peons could never understand you

So do you think political candidate should have immunity to all laws?

Not me... They should be subject to all the same laws as others

Although to be honest, normally we expect more from our political candidates

Most people would never consider running for president under such circumstance

Also he doesn't really have that much power... As he cant prosecute that is some one else..

All he can do is make her political race more difficult ... The reality is this doesn't speak about the constitution or government in general.. As no one else would likely even be running in her shoes

Edited April 3, 2016 by CWMcMurray

[up2u2]

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

Socialism just doesn't work...

I agree Socialism doesn't work it is far too restrictive on human endeavour and ignores free market forces. It isn't what Bernie is advocating anyway so I don't see why his picture is there.

[keemapoot]

Some Bernie & Hilary jokes on a Sunday night:

"Bernie Sanders says his campaign is trying to appeal now to senior citizens. The problem is, every time Bernie says, 'Feel the Bern,' the seniors think he's talking about acid reflux." –Conan O'Brien

"Someone asked Hillary who her favorite president was, and she said — with apologies to President Obama — 'My husband, Bill. My favorite is Abraham Lincoln.' And then Bernie Sanders said, 'Senator, I knew Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was a friend of mine. And you, ma'am, are no Abraham Lincoln!'" –Jimmy Kimmel

Clinton:

"The Associated Press just announced that they are no longer including Hillary Clinton's maiden name 'Rodham' in articles about her, nor will they call her 'Mrs. Clinton' anymore.

While Republicans have announced that they will no longer call Hillary by the name 'Lady Voldemort.'" –Jimmy Fallon

"In a recent interview, Hillary Clinton said that one of the jobs that prepared her to be president was sliming fish in Alaska. As opposed to Bill, who learned by catching crabs in Cancun." –Jimmy Fallon

[Publicus]

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

Socialism just doesn't work...

The quote comes from a guy the Southern Poverty Law Center long ago identified as a "hate group."

Youse guyz over there like to try to throw the "hate group" tag back at 'em, I know. Nobody is more intense against the SPLC than are the extreme right reactionaries.

Others however need to know how hard core the people being quoted in the post are, especially in their hostility towards the the contemporary USA.

Their opposition to Bernie Sanders shows us how normal and ordinary this extraordinary guy running for Potus is. Bernie speaks to the American future, Mises and the Austrian School of Economics speak to the idyllic and always imaginary past.

An array of right-wing foundations and think tanks support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable.

The Ludwig von Mises Institute, founded in 1982 by Llewellyn Rockwell Jr. and still headed by him, is a major center promoting libertarian political theory and the Austrian School of free market economics, pioneered by the late economist Ludwig von Mises.

It also promotes a type of Darwinian view of society in which elites are seen as natural and any intervention by the government on behalf of social justice is destructive. The institute seems nostalgic for the days when, "because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority [were] likely to be passed on within a few noble families."

But the rule of these natural elites and intellectuals, writes institute scholar Hans-Hermann Hoppe, is being ruined by statist meddling such as "affirmative action and forced integration," which he said is "responsible for the almost complete destruction of private property rights, and the erosion of freedom of contract, association, and disassociation."

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/mainstream

Here's a description of the home planet and the oxygen-deprived environment of Mises and of the Austrian School of Economics and its adherents..

Praxeology is the distinctive methodology of the Austrian school. The term was first applied to the Austrian method by Ludwig von Mises, who was not only the major architect and elaborator of this methodology but also the economist who most fully and successfully applied it to the construction of economic theory.1 While the praxeological method is, to say the least, out of fashion in contemporary economics—as well as in social science generally and in the philosophy of science—it was the basic method of the earlier Austrian school.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/mises-major-writings

Mises and Austrian Institute writers also have promoted anti-immigrant views, positively reviewing Alien Nation.

The Austrian School of Economics, at the most extreme of the extreme right.

[up2u2]

Or more simply put 'Right Wing Nutters' lol

[sirineou]

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

Socialism just doesn't work...

The quote comes from a guy the Southern Poverty Law Center long ago identified as a "hate group."

Youse guyz over there like to try to throw the "hate group" tag back at 'em, I know. Nobody is more intense against the SPLC than are the extreme right reactionaries.

Others however need to know how hard core the people being quoted in the post are, especially in their hostility towards the the contemporary USA.

Their opposition to Bernie Sanders shows us how normal and ordinary this extraordinary guy running for Potus is. Bernie speaks to the American future, Mises and the Austrian School of Economics speak to the idyllic and always imaginary past.

An array of right-wing foundations and think tanks support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable.

The Ludwig von Mises Institute, founded in 1982 by Llewellyn Rockwell Jr. and still headed by him, is a major center promoting libertarian political theory and the Austrian School of free market economics, pioneered by the late economist Ludwig von Mises.

It also promotes a type of Darwinian view of society in which elites are seen as natural and any intervention by the government on behalf of social justice is destructive. The institute seems nostalgic for the days when, "because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority [were] likely to be passed on within a few noble families."

But the rule of these natural elites and intellectuals, writes institute scholar Hans-Hermann Hoppe, is being ruined by statist meddling such as "affirmative action and forced integration," which he said is "responsible for the almost complete destruction of private property rights, and the erosion of freedom of contract, association, and disassociation."

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/mainstream

Here's a description of the home planet and the oxygen-deprived environment of Mises and of the Austrian School of Economics and its adherents..

Praxeology is the distinctive methodology of the Austrian school. The term was first applied to the Austrian method by Ludwig von Mises, who was not only the major architect and elaborator of this methodology but also the economist who most fully and successfully applied it to the construction of economic theory.1 While the praxeological method is, to say the least, out of fashion in contemporary economics—as well as in social science generally and in the philosophy of science—it was the basic method of the earlier Austrian school.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/mises-major-writings

Mises and Austrian Institute writers also have promoted anti-immigrant views, positively reviewing Alien Nation.

The Austrian School of Economics, at the most extreme of the extreme right.

well. explained but with too many words, I think the ones on the far right have a problem with words, especially big ones and rely more on pictures

Could you please do it again but with pictures?.

[Publicus]

Next time?

[CWMcMurray]

Bernie now up 49-43 in polls for Wisconsin and he has closed the gap a bit further in New York

If he can continue to close gap in NY ... It is defiantly on..

http://nypost.com/2016/03/31/hillary-is-losing-her-grip-on-new-york/

Edited April 3, 2016 by CWMcMurray

[keemapoot]

^I don't think any expert observers give him any chance of winning the nomination unless the FBI gives a helping hand to him. I've read articles in recent days conceding this and that he can do more good in the Senate anyway. So, either Hoover's hand reaches from beyond the grave to give an assist or layup, or Sanders goes 0-1.

[boomerangutang]

An excerpt from the flaccid attack piece with Sander's picture:

"Only free exchange can coordinate entrepreneurs ....that satisfy consumer needs and wants."

What do Republicans know of 'free exchange' in the marketplace? Rich Republicans are among the first to start screaming for Federal and State hand-outs whenever one of their corporations or banks or money-manipulating schemes starts unraveling. Republicans can talk about 'free exchange' or 'open markets' or 'level playing field' but their actions (and receiving hundreds of billions of taxpayer hand-outs) show the opposite.

Just one of many examples: a slew of the biggest banks, most of which are run by right-wingers, were given tens of billions of dollars by the Feds (actually by a small cadre of Goldman Sach's executives hand picked by GW Bush). They gave tens of billions, not just to the ailing banks, BUT ALSO TO BANKS WHICH DIDN'T NEED OR WANT HAND-OUTS! Of course all the banks took the money shoveled onto their laps. But it gets better: The banks got the money for a very low interest, but they were directed to loan the same money out (average 6 times) FOR HIGH INTEREST. So the right-wing controlled banks got taxpayer money with they didn't deserve or need, and used it to make a heap of money off American consumers. That's worse than socialism!!!! that's the government directly padding the income of select large bankers' personal wealth.

If Socialism is Bernie at the door of the very rich, asking for some trickle down money for the struggling masses, then Republican economic policy is like a wall of mud covering an entire village.

Trusting Republicans with economic policy is like trusting a Republican taking money at a church gathering (a $1 per ticket raffle for a cake), and when no one's looking, the Republican slips out the side door with all the raffle money.

[helpisgood]

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

Where do you get this interpretation of the US Constitution that a common defense is its "primary role" and "little else"? Yes, of course, it is important, but doesn't interstate commerce, the circulation of a currency and the power to tax also play large roles? When the bank bailout was needed, they went to the Feds and not to any of the states.

Also, I think some people would also point to the 14th Amendment as playing an important role, too.

I am getting sleepy now, but maybe there are more like making treaties and alliances as well.

Edited April 3, 2016 by helpisgood

[chuckd]

An excerpt from the flaccid attack piece with Sander's picture:

"Only free exchange can coordinate entrepreneurs ....that satisfy consumer needs and wants."

What do Republicans know of 'free exchange' in the marketplace? Rich Republicans are among the first to start screaming for Federal and State hand-outs whenever one of their corporations or banks or money-manipulating schemes starts unraveling. Republicans can talk about 'free exchange' or 'open markets' or 'level playing field' but their actions (and receiving hundreds of billions of taxpayer hand-outs) show the opposite.

Just one of many examples: a slew of the biggest banks, most of which are run by right-wingers, were given tens of billions of dollars by the Feds (actually by a small cadre of Goldman Sach's executives hand picked by GW Bush). They gave tens of billions, not just to the ailing banks, BUT ALSO TO BANKS WHICH DIDN'T NEED OR WANT HAND-OUTS! Of course all the banks took the money shoveled onto their laps. But it gets better: The banks got the money for a very low interest, but they were directed to loan the same money out (average 6 times) FOR HIGH INTEREST. So the right-wing controlled banks got taxpayer money with they didn't deserve or need, and used it to make a heap of money off American consumers. That's worse than socialism!!!! that's the government directly padding the income of select large bankers' personal wealth.

If Socialism is Bernie at the door of the very rich, asking for some trickle down money for the struggling masses, then Republican economic policy is like a wall of mud covering an entire village.

Trusting Republicans with economic policy is like trusting a Republican taking money at a church gathering (a $1 per ticket raffle for a cake), and when no one's looking, the Republican slips out the side door with all the raffle money.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton voted FOR the Troubled Asset Relief Program (bank bailout). When did they join the Republican party?

TARP actually made money, unlike any program that is being proposed by the two Democrats now. All they want to do is spend.

Don't let a few facts get in the way of one of your rants.

[NeverSure]

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...

Dunno. It has three "likes" and is popular. Perhaps you should read it again.

[sirineou]

An excerpt from the flaccid attack piece with Sander's picture:

"Only free exchange can coordinate entrepreneurs ....that satisfy consumer needs and wants."

What do Republicans know of 'free exchange' in the marketplace? Rich Republicans are among the first to start screaming for Federal and State hand-outs whenever one of their corporations or banks or money-manipulating schemes starts unraveling. Republicans can talk about 'free exchange' or 'open markets' or 'level playing field' but their actions (and receiving hundreds of billions of taxpayer hand-outs) show the opposite.

Just one of many examples: a slew of the biggest banks, most of which are run by right-wingers, were given tens of billions of dollars by the Feds (actually by a small cadre of Goldman Sach's executives hand picked by GW Bush). They gave tens of billions, not just to the ailing banks, BUT ALSO TO BANKS WHICH DIDN'T NEED OR WANT HAND-OUTS! Of course all the banks took the money shoveled onto their laps. But it gets better: The banks got the money for a very low interest, but they were directed to loan the same money out (average 6 times) FOR HIGH INTEREST. So the right-wing controlled banks got taxpayer money with they didn't deserve or need, and used it to make a heap of money off American consumers. That's worse than socialism!!!! that's the government directly padding the income of select large bankers' personal wealth.

If Socialism is Bernie at the door of the very rich, asking for some trickle down money for the struggling masses, then Republican economic policy is like a wall of mud covering an entire village.

Trusting Republicans with economic policy is like trusting a Republican taking money at a church gathering (a $1 per ticket raffle for a cake), and when no one's looking, the Republican slips out the side door with all the raffle money.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton voted FOR the Troubled Asset Relief Program (bank bailout). When did they join the Republican party?

TARP actually made money, unlike any program that is being proposed by the two Democrats now. All they want to do is spend.

Don't let a few facts get in the way of one of your rants.

you are not telling us that Republicans are good, you are telling us that democrats are just as bad.

That is why we support Sanders.and you guys support Trump.

IMO both Trump and Hillary would be a disaster for the country, only Hillary might be a little less of a disaster.

[lannarebirth]

An excerpt from the flaccid attack piece with Sander's picture:

"Only free exchange can coordinate entrepreneurs ....that satisfy consumer needs and wants."

What do Republicans know of 'free exchange' in the marketplace? Rich Republicans are among the first to start screaming for Federal and State hand-outs whenever one of their corporations or banks or money-manipulating schemes starts unraveling. Republicans can talk about 'free exchange' or 'open markets' or 'level playing field' but their actions (and receiving hundreds of billions of taxpayer hand-outs) show the opposite.

Just one of many examples: a slew of the biggest banks, most of which are run by right-wingers, were given tens of billions of dollars by the Feds (actually by a small cadre of Goldman Sach's executives hand picked by GW Bush). They gave tens of billions, not just to the ailing banks, BUT ALSO TO BANKS WHICH DIDN'T NEED OR WANT HAND-OUTS! Of course all the banks took the money shoveled onto their laps. But it gets better: The banks got the money for a very low interest, but they were directed to loan the same money out (average 6 times) FOR HIGH INTEREST. So the right-wing controlled banks got taxpayer money with they didn't deserve or need, and used it to make a heap of money off American consumers. That's worse than socialism!!!! that's the government directly padding the income of select large bankers' personal wealth.

If Socialism is Bernie at the door of the very rich, asking for some trickle down money for the struggling masses, then Republican economic policy is like a wall of mud covering an entire village.

Trusting Republicans with economic policy is like trusting a Republican taking money at a church gathering (a $1 per ticket raffle for a cake), and when no one's looking, the Republican slips out the side door with all the raffle money.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton voted FOR the Troubled Asset Relief Program (bank bailout). When did they join the Republican party?

TARP actually made money, unlike any program that is being proposed by the two Democrats now. All they want to do is spend.

Don't let a few facts get in the way of one of your rants.

you are not telling us that Republicans are good, you are telling us that democrats are just as bad.

That is why we support Sanders.and you guys support Trump.

IMO both Trump and Hillary would be a disaster for the country, only Hillary might be a little less of a disaster.

No way Trump could ever get elected, but if by some miracle he did, he would not be able to create an Executive branch government and be able to govern. He'd have to resign within a months time. Hillary, OTOH would continue her support for oligarchs and interventionist war policies. All the while the electorate is waking up to what they have wrought, but there will be no Bernie Sanders to replace her. Now, is a once in a lifetime opportunity to change the destructive and self destructive path America is on. It may never come again.

[NovaBlue05]

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton voted FOR the Troubled Asset Relief Program (bank bailout). When did they join the Republican party?

TARP actually made money, unlike any program that is being proposed by the two Democrats now. All they want to do is spend.

Don't let a few facts get in the way of one of your rants.

you are not telling us that Republicans are good, you are telling us that democrats are just as bad.

That is why we support Sanders.and you guys support Trump.

IMO both Trump and Hillary would be a disaster for the country, only Hillary might be a little less of a disaster.

No way Trump could ever get elected, but if by some miracle he did, he would not be able to create an Executive branch government and be able to govern. He'd have to resign within a months time. Hillary, OTOH would continue her support for oligarchs and interventionist war policies. All the while the electorate is waking up to what they have wrought, but there will be no Bernie Sanders to replace her. Now, is a once in a lifetime opportunity to change the destructive and self destructive path America is on. It may never come again.

Agree on both Trump and Hillary. Trump would have a hostile Congress on both sides while Hillary would at least have her party lemmings marching in lockstep to whatever destructive course she chooses

[chuckd]

Lanna, I am curious to know why you believe Trump would be unable to get an executive branch up and running.

Care to expand on that a little?

[sirineou]

An excerpt from the flaccid attack piece with Sander's picture:

"Only free exchange can coordinate entrepreneurs ....that satisfy consumer needs and wants."

What do Republicans know of 'free exchange' in the marketplace? Rich Republicans are among the first to start screaming for Federal and State hand-outs whenever one of their corporations or banks or money-manipulating schemes starts unraveling. Republicans can talk about 'free exchange' or 'open markets' or 'level playing field' but their actions (and receiving hundreds of billions of taxpayer hand-outs) show the opposite.

Just one of many examples: a slew of the biggest banks, most of which are run by right-wingers, were given tens of billions of dollars by the Feds (actually by a small cadre of Goldman Sach's executives hand picked by GW Bush). They gave tens of billions, not just to the ailing banks, BUT ALSO TO BANKS WHICH DIDN'T NEED OR WANT HAND-OUTS! Of course all the banks took the money shoveled onto their laps. But it gets better: The banks got the money for a very low interest, but they were directed to loan the same money out (average 6 times) FOR HIGH INTEREST. So the right-wing controlled banks got taxpayer money with they didn't deserve or need, and used it to make a heap of money off American consumers. That's worse than socialism!!!! that's the government directly padding the income of select large bankers' personal wealth.

If Socialism is Bernie at the door of the very rich, asking for some trickle down money for the struggling masses, then Republican economic policy is like a wall of mud covering an entire village.

Trusting Republicans with economic policy is like trusting a Republican taking money at a church gathering (a $1 per ticket raffle for a cake), and when no one's looking, the Republican slips out the side door with all the raffle money.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton voted FOR the Troubled Asset Relief Program (bank bailout). When did they join the Republican party?

TARP actually made money, unlike any program that is being proposed by the two Democrats now. All they want to do is spend.

Don't let a few facts get in the way of one of your rants.

you are not telling us that Republicans are good, you are telling us that democrats are just as bad.

That is why we support Sanders.and you guys support Trump.

IMO both Trump and Hillary would be a disaster for the country, only Hillary might be a little less of a disaster.

No way Trump could ever get elected, but if by some miracle he did, he would not be able to create an Executive branch government and be able to govern. He'd have to resign within a months time. Hillary, OTOH would continue her support for oligarchs and interventionist war policies. All the while the electorate is waking up to what they have wrought, but there will be no Bernie Sanders to replace her. Now, is a once in a lifetime opportunity to change the destructive and self destructive path America is on. It may never come again.

Not so sure that there would not be a Bernie to replace he. I am not sure she will even complete her first term, before the people rebel

Trump and Bernie a vessel for the underlying hunger, unfortunately for the Republicans they chose a leaky vessel

four more years of the same will not diminish the anger it will only intensify it .

I am sure there are plenty out there who will use that anger, some for the good of the country others for their own good.

Hopefully we will be able to discern between the two

But dont despair, , Bernie is not out yet.let's see what happens in Wisconsin and NY

[lannarebirth]

Lanna, I am curious to know why you believe Trump would be unable to get an executive branch up and running.

Care to expand on that a little?

I think it would be career suicide for most who think of themselves as legitimate executives and experts in their fields. That leaves third stringers, lobbyists, fringe thinkers and charlatans. Many of whom will have to pass Congressional muster. There will be the uncovering of a scandal a day in the backgrounds of these people. Oh, and BTW. Who's the running mate?

[lannarebirth]

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton voted FOR the Troubled Asset Relief Program (bank bailout). When did they join the Republican party?

TARP actually made money, unlike any program that is being proposed by the two Democrats now. All they want to do is spend.

Don't let a few facts get in the way of one of your rants.

you are not telling us that Republicans are good, you are telling us that democrats are just as bad.

That is why we support Sanders.and you guys support Trump.

IMO both Trump and Hillary would be a disaster for the country, only Hillary might be a little less of a disaster.

No way Trump could ever get elected, but if by some miracle he did, he would not be able to create an Executive branch government and be able to govern. He'd have to resign within a months time. Hillary, OTOH would continue her support for oligarchs and interventionist war policies. All the while the electorate is waking up to what they have wrought, but there will be no Bernie Sanders to replace her. Now, is a once in a lifetime opportunity to change the destructive and self destructive path America is on. It may never come again.

Not so sure that there would not be a Bernie to replace he. I am not sure she will even complete her first term, before the people rebel

Trump and Bernie a vessel for the underlying hunger, unfortunately for the Republicans they chose a leaky vessel

four more years of the same will not diminish the anger it will only intensify it .

I am sure there are plenty out there who will use that anger, some for the good of the country others for their own good.

Hopefully we will be able to discern between the two

But dont despair, , Bernie is not out yet.let's see what happens in Wisconsin and NY

The very best thing about the Sanders candidacy is that he comes from within the halls of government. He's been there a long time. Despite his talk about a "political revolution" he's not a revolutionist. That's not to say that some fringe characters that support him aren't. Just like his candidacy it's all got to come from the people and move up, and that takes time. Years. Decades maybe. Bernie understands that, but not a lot on the Left do.

[lannarebirth]

But dont despair, , Bernie is not out yet.let's see what happens in Wisconsin and NY

I'm hopeful but realistic. I contribute to the campaign weekly, voted in the caucus for my state and have canvassed and phone banked for Bernie. I'm encouraged in many ways. Things that discourage me is the relative shunning by the media of his candidacy and how much money he needs to raise to compete. Let's not kid ourselves. Until there is some kind of campaign finance reform it is all about the money. Citizens United while damaging isn't nearly as damaging as "hard money bundlers". To Bernie's credit he eschews all of that, but they are a formidable foe. Much more than Hillary Clinton herself is.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/hillary-clinton-george-clooney-fundraiser-221207

Fundraisers:

https://www.willhillarywin.com/hillary-clintons-events/

Edited April 3, 2016 by lannarebirth

[Publicus]

But dont despair, , Bernie is not out yet.let's see what happens in Wisconsin and NY

I'm hopeful but realistic. I contribute to the campaign weekly, voted in the caucus for my state and have canvassed and phone banked for Bernie. I'm encouraged in many ways. Things that discourage me is the relative shunning by the media of his candidacy and how much money he needs to raise to compete. Let's not kid ourselves. Until there is some kind of campaign finance reform it is all about the money. Citizens United while damaging isn't nearly as damaging as "hard money bundlers". To Bernie's credit he eschews all of that, but they are a formidable foe. Much more than Hillary Clinton herself is.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/hillary-clinton-george-clooney-fundraiser-221207

Fundraisers:

https://www.willhillarywin.com/hillary-clintons-events/

Someone said the other day Bernie is going to run out of primaries before he runs out of money. Unfortunate in many ways but true.

Bernie caucuses with the D's in the Senate, i.e., conferences and votes with 'em. In return the party assigns Bernie to senate committees to sit on the D party side where he regularly votes with the D's. Bernie will be the most prominent senator come January given his campaign and post convention campaigning in and for the D party and of course Bernie's active campaigning to November to elect HRC Potus.

Bernie's voters, donors and supporters need to know this and to realise it, recognise it.

HRC hadn't ever needed all the new Bernie voters who've presto appeared. Nor had the HRC campaign planned on having any of Bernie's newly emerged financial supporters. Neither had existed until after Bernie announced and quickly launched. Now both exist.

Some Bernie voters and supporters will vote for HRC in November. Some of 'em will contribute a certain amount of bucks to the HRC post convention D party campaign. Not all of 'em, perhaps not most of 'em, vous included in that group. Other new Bernie supporters and D party voters will however vote for HRC in November, or they will only donate, or they'll do both.

A number of new D party voters and also of new D party donors are the two things HRC had not had before Bernie got in to the race. It's a windfall for the D party and for the HRC candidacy after the convention in the one on one against the Republican nominee.

Those who meanwhile had been attracted to Bernie as the new flavor of the month will move on in their window shopping. Others will go about their serious business. I'd say 90% of Bernie supporters will not actively assail or verbally assault HRC once she has become the D party nominee. This is because their agenda is a sincere one so they have no personal axe to grind behind any calculated nominal up front support of Bernie Sanders.

The vast number of Sanders supporters support Sen Sanders, they don't hate HRC. After the convention Bernie's youngest voters will move on to other things. The old and cynical ones who also find (incongruently) a common ground with Trump will stick to the original anti-HRC plan.

[Publicus]

An excerpt from the flaccid attack piece with Sander's picture:

"Only free exchange can coordinate entrepreneurs ....that satisfy consumer needs and wants."

What do Republicans know of 'free exchange' in the marketplace? Rich Republicans are among the first to start screaming for Federal and State hand-outs whenever one of their corporations or banks or money-manipulating schemes starts unraveling. Republicans can talk about 'free exchange' or 'open markets' or 'level playing field' but their actions (and receiving hundreds of billions of taxpayer hand-outs) show the opposite.

Just one of many examples: a slew of the biggest banks, most of which are run by right-wingers, were given tens of billions of dollars by the Feds (actually by a small cadre of Goldman Sach's executives hand picked by GW Bush). They gave tens of billions, not just to the ailing banks, BUT ALSO TO BANKS WHICH DIDN'T NEED OR WANT HAND-OUTS! Of course all the banks took the money shoveled onto their laps. But it gets better: The banks got the money for a very low interest, but they were directed to loan the same money out (average 6 times) FOR HIGH INTEREST. So the right-wing controlled banks got taxpayer money with they didn't deserve or need, and used it to make a heap of money off American consumers. That's worse than socialism!!!! that's the government directly padding the income of select large bankers' personal wealth.

If Socialism is Bernie at the door of the very rich, asking for some trickle down money for the struggling masses, then Republican economic policy is like a wall of mud covering an entire village.

Trusting Republicans with economic policy is like trusting a Republican taking money at a church gathering (a $1 per ticket raffle for a cake), and when no one's looking, the Republican slips out the side door with all the raffle money.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton voted FOR the Troubled Asset Relief Program (bank bailout). When did they join the Republican party?

TARP actually made money, unlike any program that is being proposed by the two Democrats now. All they want to do is spend.

Don't let a few facts get in the way of one of your rants.

you are not telling us that Republicans are good, you are telling us that democrats are just as bad.

That is why we support Sanders.and you guys support Trump.

IMO both Trump and Hillary would be a disaster for the country, only Hillary might be a little less of a disaster.

No way Trump could ever get elected, but if by some miracle he did, he would not be able to create an Executive branch government and be able to govern. He'd have to resign within a months time. Hillary, OTOH would continue her support for oligarchs and interventionist war policies. All the while the electorate is waking up to what they have wrought, but there will be no Bernie Sanders to replace her. Now, is a once in a lifetime opportunity to change the destructive and self destructive path America is on. It may never come again.

Apocalyptic and radical stuff. Not to mention desperate and frantic. Extreme.

For every one who wants to shatter things in the name of Bernie Sanders, there are two who want to demolish everything in the name of Trump. The common ground is the strong individual, as with Sanders, or the outright strongman rightist as in Trump.

The middle continues to hold and the vast moderate and centrist electorate prevails. It always does. Americans inherently reject extremes in the White House. Nor have the extremes ever attained a formal and a literal control of the Congress.

Primary election campaigns are more fun than monkeys. After the conventions however comes the general electorate lion tamer. So when all the dust settles after the November election the extremes remain on the outside looking in. The fact and the reality are empirical and they are written in the country's political history.

[lannarebirth]

But dont despair, , Bernie is not out yet.let's see what happens in Wisconsin and NY

I'm hopeful but realistic. I contribute to the campaign weekly, voted in the caucus for my state and have canvassed and phone banked for Bernie. I'm encouraged in many ways. Things that discourage me is the relative shunning by the media of his candidacy and how much money he needs to raise to compete. Let's not kid ourselves. Until there is some kind of campaign finance reform it is all about the money. Citizens United while damaging isn't nearly as damaging as "hard money bundlers". To Bernie's credit he eschews all of that, but they are a formidable foe. Much more than Hillary Clinton herself is.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/hillary-clinton-george-clooney-fundraiser-221207

Fundraisers:

https://www.willhillarywin.com/hillary-clintons-events/

Someone said the other day Bernie is going to run out of primaries before he runs out of money. Unfortunate in many ways but true.

Bernie caucuses with the D's in the Senate, i.e., conferences and votes with 'em. In return the party assigns Bernie to senate committees to sit on the D party side where he regularly votes with the D's. Bernie will be the most prominent senator come January given his campaign and post convention campaigning in and for the D party and of course Bernie's active campaigning to November to elect HRC Potus.

Bernie's voters, donors and supporters need to know this and to realise it, recognise it.

HRC hadn't ever needed all the new Bernie voters who've presto appeared. Nor had the HRC campaign planned on having any of Bernie's newly emerged financial supporters. Neither had existed until after Bernie announced and quickly launched. Now both exist.

Some Bernie voters and supporters will vote for HRC in November. Some of 'em will contribute a certain amount of bucks to the HRC post convention D party campaign. Not all of 'em, perhaps not most of 'em, vous included in that group. Other new Bernie supporters and D party voters will however vote for HRC in November, or they will only donate, or they'll do both.

A number of new D party voters and also of new D party donors are the two things HRC had not had before Bernie got in to the race. It's a windfall for the D party and for the HRC candidacy after the convention in the one on one against the Republican nominee.

Those who meanwhile had been attracted to Bernie as the new flavor of the month will move on in their window shopping. Others will go about their serious business. I'd say 90% of Bernie supporters will not actively assail or verbally assault HRC once she has become the D party nominee. This is because their agenda is a sincere one so they have no personal axe to grind behind any calculated nominal up front support of Bernie Sanders.

The vast number of Sanders supporters support Sen Sanders, they don't hate HRC. After the convention Bernie's youngest voters will move on to other things. The old and cynical ones who also find (incongruently) a common ground with Trump will stick to the original anti-HRC plan.

This is what I saw at the Democrat caucus I attended. 80% of the caucus goers were for Sanders. perhaps 10% of those were under 30. 90% of the remaining 20% that were for Clinton were 60 years or older, ie: the demographic with all the money, who don't fight in wars, who don't have children to raise and educate and whose healthcare funding is assured. And here I thought it was only Republicans that hated their fellow man.

Luckily, for Clinton, she doesn't need to depend on financing from real people. The "interests" have got all that sorted.

[CWMcMurray]

An excerpt from the flaccid attack piece with Sander's picture:

"Only free exchange can coordinate entrepreneurs ....that satisfy consumer needs and wants."

What do Republicans know of 'free exchange' in the marketplace? Rich Republicans are among the first to start screaming for Federal and State hand-outs whenever one of their corporations or banks or money-manipulating schemes starts unraveling. Republicans can talk about 'free exchange' or 'open markets' or 'level playing field' but their actions (and receiving hundreds of billions of taxpayer hand-outs) show the opposite.

Just one of many examples: a slew of the biggest banks, most of which are run by right-wingers, were given tens of billions of dollars by the Feds (actually by a small cadre of Goldman Sach's executives hand picked by GW Bush). They gave tens of billions, not just to the ailing banks, BUT ALSO TO BANKS WHICH DIDN'T NEED OR WANT HAND-OUTS! Of course all the banks took the money shoveled onto their laps. But it gets better: The banks got the money for a very low interest, but they were directed to loan the same money out (average 6 times) FOR HIGH INTEREST. So the right-wing controlled banks got taxpayer money with they didn't deserve or need, and used it to make a heap of money off American consumers. That's worse than socialism!!!! that's the government directly padding the income of select large bankers' personal wealth.

If Socialism is Bernie at the door of the very rich, asking for some trickle down money for the struggling masses, then Republican economic policy is like a wall of mud covering an entire village.

Trusting Republicans with economic policy is like trusting a Republican taking money at a church gathering (a $1 per ticket raffle for a cake), and when no one's looking, the Republican slips out the side door with all the raffle money.

The problem is not just with the Republicans... The Wall Street Bail out may have started with Bush but Obama was happy to continue and Hillary along with many other Dems also voted for it.

The issue is not a Republican / Democrat thing... As Hillary is bought and paid for by Wall Street as well

http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2015/01/20/sotu-fact-check-obama-bailed-out-banks-on-the-backs-of-the-middle-class-n1945592

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2009/02/obam-f25.html?view=article_mobile

Edited April 3, 2016 by CWMcMurray

[CWMcMurray]

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton voted FOR the Troubled Asset Relief Program (bank bailout). When did they join the Republican party?

TARP actually made money, unlike any program that is being proposed by the two Democrats now. All they want to do is spend.

Don't let a few facts get in the way of one of your rants.

you are not telling us that Republicans are good, you are telling us that democrats are just as bad.

That is why we support Sanders.and you guys support Trump.

IMO both Trump and Hillary would be a disaster for the country, only Hillary might be a little less of a disaster.

No way Trump could ever get elected, but if by some miracle he did, he would not be able to create an Executive branch government and be able to govern. He'd have to resign within a months time. Hillary, OTOH would continue her support for oligarchs and interventionist war policies. All the while the electorate is waking up to what they have wrought, but there will be no Bernie Sanders to replace her. Now, is a once in a lifetime opportunity to change the destructive and self destructive path America is on. It may never come again.

Agree on both Trump and Hillary. Trump would have a hostile Congress on both sides while Hillary would at least have her party lemmings marching in lockstep to whatever destructive course she chooses

And so Hillary would be far more destructive than Trump...

Edited April 3, 2016 by CWMcMurray