Weekend Open Thread

“It belongs to human nature to hate those you have injured.”

–Tacitus

121 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. debbielynnepaint says:

    Chuck Todd has a new name for the Donald's unity for the Republican nomination.  They are called SINO'S (Support in name only).   If you have noticed, not too many of them have come out in support of him over his racial remarks against the Judge who is overseeing the Trump University case or defending his foreign Policy idiotic statements after Hillary's great speech.

    • Duke Cox says:

      It is pretty easy for me to not feel sorry for Republicans who have to figure out what to do with Der Drumpfenfuhrer. It was Republican policy what created the monster, ma'am…and it is them upon which it will first gorge itself….we're next.

  2. James Dodd says:

    A little levity to start the weekend:

    • Voyageur says:

      Yawn, another hate rant by the world's sorest loser.

      • James Dodd says:

        Wow, V, have you  completely lost your sense of humor? Lighten up, dude.

        • Voyageur says:

          Is that an order, herr hatemeister?  No doubt the lighten up goons will enforce it with their truncheons.  Sore loser doesn't begin to describe your daily rants.  And how did that 100,000 rally lie work out for you?

          • Diogenesdemar says:

            Pssst.  I'm sure it's occurred to you that the child acts the way he does, because he craves the attention of being scolded for being a bad boy??

            • mamajama55 says:

              Who's the "child"?indecision

              Plenty of immaturity to go around. I do agree with JD and with our preferred candidate that we could use a lot more policy discussion around here…

              I watched and applauded HRC's takedown of Trump, and it sure sounded like she knew what she was talking about on foreign policy, as she should, I'm damned if I can pick out even one actual policy. I heard keywords like leadership, security, etc, but hardly any actual policies.

              Of course, it's better than Trump's "Let's make a deal!"  "Nukes solve everything!" approach, but that's a low bar.

              WaPo's Drezner had the same problem.

              WESM reported  that HRC is experienced, more hawkish than Obama, more "boots on the ground", and an alliance builder.

              So does that mean she will be supporting strongmen like Assad? Will she continue to support Israel and ignore the oppression of the Palestinians? Will she put more "boots on the ground" with feet in them in Syria and Libya? What happens when Putin invades another sovereign country?

              I still prefer Sanders take:

              The test of a great and powerful nation is not how many wars it can engage in, but how it can resolve international conflicts in a peaceful manner. I will move away from a policy of unilateral military action and regime change, and toward a policy of emphasizing diplomacy, and ensuring the decision to go to war is a last resort.

              Council on Foreign Relations has a fairly neutral site on various world leader's positions. I'm focusing on foreign policy today, since that's HRC's strength – I still think Sanders has better domestic policy. So If anyone else has actual policy info, on the candidates, not stupid name calling, then put it up here.

              • Duke Cox says:

                The policy statement by Senator Sanders you posted above is a study in brevity and meaning. I do not see a promise of some sea change in the way of the world, rather, an undeniably sane point of view.

                There are no more "distant wars" in a galaxy far, far away. We are now a viable target in an unwinnable war. The only way to end war is to create peace. Albert Einstein said, "Peace cannot be kept by force, it can only be achieved by understanding". While the United States of America cannot ignore the world and keep to ourselves, we must discard the policies of war. The bellicose nationalism represented by the Bush administrations' "one percent doctrine" was the set up for the looming fascism of a President Trump.

                Can President Sanders put his thumb on the military-industrial complex that feeds war and has no interest peace? Will he choose to end the CIAs' "assassination by drone" program? Certainly, if any new president will…he will.

                • Canines says:

                  New York Times magazine article:

                  How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk: Throughout her career she has displayed instincts on foreign policy that are more aggressive than those of President Obama — and most Democrats.

                   

                  • mamajama55 says:

                    Thanks, Canines. That's more what I was looking for. Clinton's more of a hawk, believes that military force can solve problems, will send troops in. I don't see how any President of any party can make much difference in the clusterf*ck we've made of the middle east after more than two decades of intervention and war. It may be that containing ISIS militarily will in fact take massive military force at this point; but that doesn't begin to touch the propaganda war or random terrorist outbreaks.

                    The elephants in the room are the corporate interests that impel us to fight for them – the Halliburton contractors and oil companies represented by Cheney in the initial Iraq war, oil in Venezuela, natural gas in Russia, all the way back to bauxite and trade routes in the Vietnam war.

                    I think that a President Clinton will be much more likely to see corporate profits as legitimate national security interests than a President Sanders would. We should, of course, all fear the idea of a President Trump.

                     

                     

                • Voyageur says:

                  Just how would Bernie do that "understanding" thing with ISIS?  Just have a few beers with them?   Oh, wait…

              • Voyageur says:

                If Doddsie's swinish cheap shots are your idea of "policy discussion," MJ, there is no hope for you.

                • Conserv. Head Banger says:

                  Looks like Sanders is ready to throw Israel under the bus with appointments of his to a key convention committee; I believe the platform; Messers. West & Zogby. I'm no fan of Netanyahu and his settlement policy on the West Bank. But West and Zogby are full scale anti-Israel and supporters of BDS. Doesn't matter to them that Israel is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East and the various Palestinian groups are corrupt kleptocracies and violently anti-Israel. 

                • mamajama55 says:

                  V. Breathe. You don't even bother to read my posts – you just see some questioning of HRC, or mild support of Sanders' policies, and that's all it takes to send your blood pressure soaring, and your fingers typing.

                  I could barely get through the policy post Dodds put up because the language was so blatantly biased, I didn't trust it.

                  Which is why the post I did put up was asking for clarification between the two candidates, on the foreign policy front. I have found that clarification on the neutral CFR site. I

                  'm still asking for policy specifics that HRC supporters like, as I have asked for months now, but never gotten. You all just get irate at the very idea of policy specifics.  It seems we have to be content with the keywords of strength, security, freedom, and a lot of name dropping. 

                  But you wouldn't know that, since you never read past the first line. Get a grip.

                  • Voyageur says:

                    I read them .   I just don't buy the idea that your post of a single vapid graf from a Bernie paper is a stunning explication of Foreign policy.  It ain't.   Nor do we need to respond to a zombie candidate who will be mathematically eliminated at 6:15 p.m. Tuesday, June 7.   Hillary's widely praised speech was a takedown of the real enemy. Donald Drumpf, and an overwhelming success.

                    Interesting, you used edit to take out the idiot child insult. Getting soft in your old age? I softened mine too, in response.
                    Seriously, that one line was my only post addressed to you. The rest are just political updates as this game hurtles into its final weekend.

                    • mamajama55 says:

                      No. I just decided not to start out with an insult, since I am actually trying to get clear on the foreign policy differences. It's pretty likely that HRC will be elected President, in spite of all our best efforts.

                      It's also pretty likely that I, and a bunch of other comm.ie peaceniks, will be marching and protesting the wars she gets us involved in, for the sake of GE or EXXON or BP.  I'm just looking for a preview on where, what, and why.

                    • Voyageur says:

                      CQ on your future war protests.   We've already contracted with Trump's goon squad to beat you up when you do.   It's pretty clear they will be looking for work after November.smiley

                    • Conserv. Head Banger says:

                      “It's pretty likely that HRC will be elected president, in spite of our best efforts……."    Talk about an early case of sour grapes. Since you appear to be a populist, perhaps you secretly prefer Trump? If you're really not happy with the prospect of HRC, check out Gary Johnson.

    • Sorry, JD. Perhaps from your POV that's funny. It doesn't tickle my funny bone.

  3. mamajama55 says:

    The Greatest…..and he was also heavyweight boxing champion of the world.

    What he wrote to the US Government, when he was drafted to fight in Vietnam

    “My conscience won’t let me go shoot my brother, or some darker people, or some poor hungry people in the mud for big powerful America. And shoot them for what? They never called me nigger, they never lynched me, they didn’t put no dogs on me, they didn’t rob me of my nationality, rape and kill my mother and father… Shoot them for what? …How can I shoot them poor people, Just take me to jail."

     

     

  4. Voyageur says:

    How Big was Bernie's Oakland Bash, Really?

    Bernie's May 31 rally in Oakland drew 20,000, 30,000 or even 60,000, depending who did the guessing.   From Heavy:

    An enormous crowd of more than 20,000 peopled showed up for Bernie Sanders' rally in Oakland, California on Memorial Day, but this number may be underestimating the attendance. According to different people who talked to the Oakland Police, the estimated numbers ranged from 30,000 to even 60,000 when counting the thousands of people who overflowed into the streets because they couldn't fit in Ogawa Plaza. Many people who attended told Heavy that the police mentioned that the crowd, including overflow, clocked in near 60,000, but the official count has not yet been released from Sanders' campaign,

    [Sorry, but there is nothing "official" about estimates from campaigns themselves, which are invariably self-serving.   The 30,000 turnout seems about right, matching his best in New York.   And, hype aside, 30,000 is a very good turnout.}

    From US Uncut
    [Bernie] held a rally today in Oakland at the Frank Ogawa Plaza with conservative estimates counting attendance between 20,000 and 30,000 people. While some estimates go as high as 60,000 and claim the Oakland Police Department as a source, this does not seem verified and should be taken with a grain of salt. Nevertheless,this is particularly incredible given that the rally was competing with the Oakland-based team Golden State Warriors, who were in the midst of their 7th Game in the NBA playoffs.

    • Duke Cox says:

      Nevertheless,this is particularly incredible given that the rally was competing with the Oakland-based team Golden State Warriors, who were in the midst of their 7th Game in the NBA playoffs. 

      True, that…that must have been just about everybody not glued to the TV…on the other hand, TV has been replaced by streaming, so you can watch the game while listening to Bernie. I wonder how many in that group had the game on in their pockets?

      ps….It is not lost on me that many liberals of all ages are not at all interested in sports…so there's that, too.

      • Voyageur says:

        Virtually my sole interest in sports is the NFL.   I don't even know who BC's beloved "splash brothers" are.

        • BlueCat says:

          Your loss. The NFL interests me the least BTW. I'd rather watch beautiful young men from all over the world in uniforms that showcase their gorgeously sculpted selves playing a fast paced, graceful sport that isn't 75% waiting around between every play any day. But that's just me. wink

          • Voyageur says:

            I have no problem with your basketball love.   As a kid and later at the YMCA it was by far my favorite sport.  But to me, it's a participatory sport and watching teams make 20 intentional fouls to draw out the inevitable just bores me,   To each his own.   But I hand you the people young people in revealing clothing thing — maybe I should start watching the Women's leaguesad

            • BlueCat says:

              You clearly haven't watched in  while. he 20 intentional fouls thing is getting rarer as  as there are fewer Shaq types playing the game, not to mention the style has shifted 180 degrees since those days. Fewer players are that reliably awful at the line, certainly not the European big men. But to each his own.  Enjoy your fave.

              Did you know that brain damage is found in virtually every player whose family allows an autopsy? And there's no such thing as a helmet that can prevent it. The game has to change or it will continue to eat it's own.

              • Voyageur says:

                Actually, the Washington Post has an article this week noting that the intentional foul thing is not receding, as much as the fans hate them.  And the reason is that so many big guys still can't sink free throws.   There is, the Post notes, a very easy answer — change the rule so an intentional foul is one free throw — and possession of the ball.   Until the owners do this sensible change, the ennui will continue.

                https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2016/04/21/adam-silver-and-the-nba-are-calling-foul-on-hack-a-shaq/

                And yeah, the brain damage is real.   But for $10 million a year, I'd risk it.  So would a lot of guys.   Ali said that about his Parkinson's the even if he had known that would happen, he would have gone ahead.

                As to helmets, some experts now say the way to reduce concussions is to eliminate helmets, at least in practice.   It makes guys much more cautious and actually does cut down on brain damage.

                • Conserv. Head Banger says:

                  "the 20 intentional fouls thing is getting rarer……."  as long as Dwight Howard, and Drummond from Detroit, are still playing, hack-a-Shaq will be alive and well. 

                  • BlueCat says:

                    You're right about Dwight but, in general plenty of games  have pretty good flow and plenty of big men are good at the line.  Our Jokic is tyoical of the new breed of big.  

                    Teams still have to be wary of getting over 5 team fouls too quickly and having every foul thereafter result in a trip to the charity strip and you don't want your best defenders to get into foul trouble  right off the bat.

                    It's still lightening quick compared to snail's  pace football where you have a lengthy  committee meeting as a matter of routine, an integral part of the game, after almost every damn play.  And, V, pardon me if I take any observations from a guy who doesn't know who the Splash Brothers are with a grain of salt. 

                    Enjoy football as we know it while you can. When American parents stop letting their kids play it's not like they can get international players to keep it going. Lebron James (if you know who he is) and countless other pro athletes won't let their kids play football.

                    • Voyageur says:

                      There is no riski of f running out of players in my lifetime.  As for me, I played defensive tackle in hs football, lettering two years.  Not much glory and no money.  But I did what most men could not. Now, if you really want continuous action, try hockey.  But I admit it mostly confuses me. 

                       

                       

                       

    • Canines says:

      When Hillary held a May rally in Oakland, she spoke to 800 people, with 500 people outside who couldn't get in.

  5. Voyageur says:

    Could the Democratic race end Sunday?

    Depending on who does the forecasting . it's possible that Hillary Clinton will lock up the nomination Sunday, even before the final "Super Tuesday" votes are counted.

    Friday on MSNBC, Rachel Maddow reported HRC was 65 delegates short of the nomination.   There are seven being chosen today in the Virgin Islands (plus 5 supers).  That caucus is now underway.   If Hillary wins at least five of them, she could actually clinch Sunday by taking all 60 of Puerto Rico's delegates.   To do that, she'd have to take 86 percent of the PR caucus, denying Bernie the 15 percent that would give him a share of that trove.  And that, sayeth Maddow, would do it.

    Admittedly, that is a very high bar.  But not everyone agrees that it is even possible.  AP's count has Hillary 70 delegates short of clinching, so even sweeping both VI and PR wouldn't quite do it. However, Washington Post says the territories have three supers who haven’t declare a preference and if they all did, 70 is just possible.

    But at worst, Hillary should get at least 40 delegates this weekend.  That makes the bar ridiculously low for her on Tuesday.   New Jersey closes its polls at 6 p.m. Denver time.   HRC leads there by 18 to 28 pct in various polls and Bernie has written it off.  by 6:15 p.m. Denver time, the Networks should declare the Garden State — and the lion's share of its 150 delegates — in Hillary's loving arms.  But even if she finished a distant 2nd, with only 30 delegates — she would still clinch the nomination.   

    I have a party Tuesday night starting at 6:15 p.m. to celebrate Hillary's victory. I expect to start on time. 

    That will come before the Dakotas, Montana, New Mexico, and California even start counting.  But regardless of the nominal victors in those states, HRC will win hundreds more delegates in those contests to pad her margin, and swell it further — to about 350 delegates — with a victory lap in DC June 14.

    Those diehards still hoping that a Bernie upset in California Tuesday will win the nomination for him are deliberately ignoring the fact  that Democratic contests aren't winner take all.  To even tie HRC in pledged delegates, forget about supers, . Bernie needs 68 percent of the vote in all six states Tuesday.  That is simply way out of his range.

    HRC has big leads in NJ and New Mexico.  Bernie will probably take the final three heavily white states.  As to CA, the RCP average has Hillary up by 5 points, and she has also won endorsements from Gov. Jerry Brown and the L.A. Times.  But as I have documented on several occasions, this contest actually awards delegates in 53 separate contests in senate Congressional districts.   Nobody can accurately predict that maze, so let's just count the votes Tuesday night. CA should come so close to 50/50 that it won’t change the final outcome much either way.

    But, well before that count is completed, the Democratic Party will have a presumptive nominee for President.   And — less than a hundred years after all American women won the right to vote — for the first time in American history, that nominee will be a woman: Hillary Clinton.

    So, yes, the next few days will make history.

  6. Voyageur says:

    Washington Post has its own version of how Hillary could clinch this weekend.  Bottom line: it's mathematically possible but don't bet on it.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clintons-improbable-path-to-clinching-the-nomination-this-weekend/2016/06/04/c93ae7f6-2a56-11e6-ae4a-3cdd5fe74204_story.html

  7. mamajama55 says:

    On another note, what the heck do you all do with daikon radishes? My bountiful baskets food coop pickup was today, and now I have 2 of these baseball-bat sized monsters, and no idea what to do with them.

    • There are lots of recipes out there. Definitely a Japanese thing. Good luck!

    • Voyageur says:

      Give them to me!  I love daiikon.  All I do is slice them to bite size, put a little lime juice and a sprinkle of salt and eat them. Nutititous and very low calories, fill up on them to avoid caloric snacks.  Radishes are god's gift to fat people.

      • mamajama55 says:

        Thanks, V. I was looking for something simple like that. There are many complicated Japanese recipes on line, but I'm done cooking for today.

        Or I could save them until after the primary – they look like pretty good self-defense weapons in case of street brawls between unemployed Trump grumps, hostile Hillarions, and busted Bernites.

        • Voyageur says:

          The Trump grumps on on full time duty to november.  Bernites are supposed to be pacifists, so you get to drive the ambulances.  Most Hillarions are older women and we're equipping them with 18 inch hatpins.  Don't even think of mesing with them.  You think we didn't plan for this when we let women get combat training?

          • mamajama55 says:

            Don't know where you got that pacifist idea. Probably because you never actually read any of Bernie's policy positions.

            We're armed with 24" daikon radishes. After the brawling is done, we julienne it all up with carrots, onions, cukes and peppers, marinate it with lime and sesame. Tasty.

            Hillarions can use their hatpins for BBQ skewers, grill it up nicely.  Trumpers only get red meat on theirs, and they prefer it raw.  No socialist marinade for them, either.

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      I would make a slaw of the radishes. Add in some chopped chives or green onion. Dress it with Rice vinegar, and Olive or sesame oil, maybe a little soy sauce. Salt. Pepper. Garnish with sesame seeds. Serve with a lime wedge or two. 

      • mamajama55 says:

        Dio, I made something similar, and it was yummy and healthy. Thanks,

        • Diogenesdemar says:

          In the next thirty days or so, especially out on the Dumphuckistani plains where you live, you'll get the opportunity to make something similar using fresh yucca blossoms (petals) in place of the daikon.

          I do like to soak the freshly picked and rinsed petals in a mild saltwater solution for a couple of hours in the refrigerator before using them in a salad — that helps remove some a bit of that distinctive yucca (slightly soapy) flavor, just a mild soaking, you're not trying to make pickles. 

          Otherwise, it's pretty much the same construction . . . 

          • mamajama55 says:

            I've washed my hair with pounded yucca root, but never thought of eating the blossoms. Do you know if one can legally just pick yucca blossoms from national park lands, or just if they're growing on private property?

  8. MADCO says:

    HRC is the nominee. It's not like 08 where there will doubt right up until Bernie speaks for Vermont and makes it a done thing. 

     

    Its over.

    • Voyageur says:

      Essentially, yes, Madco.  But people in 9 jurisdictions still have the right to be heard from. Be patient, it's all over on Jun7 except for DC June 14.  Then we meet the real enemy, the racist Trump campaign.

  9. James Dodd says:

    The Los Angeles Times did an analysis of contributions to the Sanders campaign. Here is what it looks like:

    Map

    For those with a particular interest in Colorado:

    Colorado Map

    Who gives money to Bernie Sanders? – Los Angeles Times

    The first thing I noted was, outside of New England, Colorado has the highest concentration of contributions to the Sanders Campaign. I see why Voyageur is being such an asshole (even though we reached an agreement to discontinue the ad hominum attacks). He's scared to death. He should be. However, Voyageur and his ilk are doing more to hurt the Clinton campaign than I ever could. Good job.

    • Voyageur says:

      We did such a bad job that HRC will clinch Tuesday at 615 pm denver time.  James, I will still bet you $100 HRC is nominated in Philly.   Still no word from you on that.  Blowing opinions out of your ass is easy.  Putting your money where your mouth is takes a bit of gumption.  How about it, hater- baiter boy?

      • James Dodd says:

        Who's talking about the primary? Anybody with any sense knew the fix was in from the start. It's astonishing that Sanders has gotten a far as he has. I'm talking about the general election. A lot of green there that Clinton and the Democratic Party will have to convert. My question is – How long will Clinton's coattails be with this kind of demographic?  Keep in mind these are people who put their money where there mouths are.

        • Voyageur says:

          So,the Doddism of the day is that MJ, Duke and so many others who worked their heart out for Bernie "have no sense."  Good to know.

          • James Dodd says:

            I gave him money and worked for Sanders, too. But, like MJ and Duke it wasn't about Bernie Sanders. It was about the issues and the policies he promoted. Unlike you Clintonistas, we don't succumb to a cult of personality. You wouldn't understand when we talk about a movement not a campaign.

            • BlueCat says:

              What a load of self righteous crap. And outside of…. maybe…. Voyageur who does seem to find her completely enthralling, HRC is the least likely pol on the planet to be the object of a "cult of personality".  Even her most ardent supporters don't kid themselves (again with the possible exception of Voyageur) about her charisma potential.

              • James Dodd says:

                I was talking to Voyageur. Which one? I can’t be certain.

                • BlueCat says:

                  My reply is right there all alone in your comment's reply box. Why the confusion? In case you don't understand how this works I'm replying to your comment starting with "I gave him money…..". That's why it appears in the reply box of that comment.

                  It is not at all unusual for people here to react to comments not necessarily directed to them personally. Been posting here long?

    • mamajama55 says:

      Congratulations, Polsters! Your "free stuff" turned Morgan and Weld counties  green! Nice work.

    • Blackie101 says:

      Mr. Dodd:  Did you also do some research on the FEC's 636 page report on campaign violations of the Sanders campaign?

      Do so—it is most interesting. 

      • mamajama55 says:

        Did you read it, Blackie? Page 542 especially was riveting, I thought. Actually, the FEC report was a yawner…just a bunch of over-enthusiastic Bernistas who contributed more than an accumulated $2700 each over several months, plus some individuals whose US citizenship needed to be confirmed. All fixed now.

        USAtoday did a somewhat less bated-breath summary of the FEC "scandal", along with a brief mention of HRC's 1842-page report of possible similar "violations".

         

         

        • Blackie101 says:

          Yes, I DID read it.

          And no—it has NOT been fixed by the Sanders people. (At least as of now).

          And if all the monies were to be refunded—Sanders would be broke. (Which he just about is anyway. Six million dollars doesn't go as far as it used to-LOL!).

        • BlueCat says:

          Whatever, Mama. But we all know youhave been known to decry "shenanigans" no more or less serious or pervasive with bated breath when it's HRC's campaign. One can't help but think that your tolerant citing of the FEC "scandal" cited in USA today is influenced by your finding it useful in a Johnny Does It Too context since you usually appear to be on a mission to find HRC campaign and supporter misdeeds, no matter how large or small, under every bed and behind every bush. 

          It will be nice when both sides have to give up these search and destroy missions that turn up nothing much but hyperventilation and get down to the business of beating Trump.

           

          • Duke Cox says:

            That will come, BC, but a great drama is still playing out. Be patient. I have heard it said that the best kind of sex is "make-up sex". When the Hillarians and the Sandernistas hook up…it will be epic.

            For my part, I must note that President Obama has publicly called for increasing Social Security benefits. If that happens, I will celebrate a moral victory for the "Bern"… I don't think I have ever before heard Obama say it. 

            • BlueCat says:

              Agree, Which is why I disagree with Bernie or Busters who claim that there has been no real policy movement that won't disappear as soon as the election is over so, no point in helping Dems win if Bernie isn't the candidate.

              Bernie has created a yuuuge movement, a force that will have to be reckoned with and if they turn out to put Dems back in the driver's seat, those Dems will be fully aware that if they don't keep those energized voters engaged by offering something substantial they can be kicked out of that driver's seat in two short years.

              Analogies to Dems taking minorities for granted in the past without giving them much won't apply because Bernistas are a huge broad new wing, not 12% here competing with a different 13% there. Attention will have to be paid unless the "or Busters" win the day, the Dems lose the election and Bernie's movement is left with no power or influence under GOP  hegemony.

              Little chance of that because I think real to the death Bernie or Busters are a tiny very silly minority that doesn't even include Bernie himself, much less Warren.

              • Conserv. Head Banger says:

                That "real to the death" movement does include the very powerful nurses' union in California, from what I've read. 

                • BlueCat says:

                  I wonder how these people, including a friend of mine who shared an FB post to the effect that HRC is a war criminal and no true progressive could possibly support her, can continue to ignore the fact that Bernie himself has made clear he will support her if she's the nominee against Trump?

                  Doesn't that make Bernie not progressive enough for them? Too much of a sell out for them? Warren too because she also will support the Dem nominee, whichever it is, against Trump? 

                  Apparently the Bernie or Buster fanatics see no irony in the fact that if HRC wins the nomination and they refuse to support or vote for her come the general, that will put them on the opposite side from…. Bernie Sanders and Bernie will be supporting and voting for HRC in opposition to the Or Busters. 

                  So whose side are they really on? Kind of looks like it's Trump's. It's also possible that most of them will join Bernie in the general and vote for HRC after all. A least they will if they respect him and his judgement as much as they claim to.

                  • Voyageur says:

                    It is like going through the stages of grief, BC.  In time most will come around.  I finally voted for Humphrey in 68, despite being a soldier in a war I despised.  And we almost beat nixon. A lot of people would be alive today if we had.  Keep the faith and spread it gently.

            • MichaelBowman says:

              Eliminate the cap, broaden the base, lower the rate and increase the benefits.  Studies show that 'Trickle UP' is 700% more effective than the perverted economics of the Reaganistas and the ever-useless Arthur Laffer.  

              This would be the mother of all economic stimuli.  

               

              • BlueCat says:

                Which is how the broadest most prosperous upwardly mobile middle class was created in the first place. Lots of people with disposable income spending on lots of stuff ordinary stuff, paying taxes to keep up our infrastructure, public schools, public amenities and services, etc., send kids to college with money left over to save. Sound familiar? 

                It's not the gilded age Rs have been dragging us back to using Horatio Alger stories to convince us that if we work hard enough we can defy math and all be in the upper 1%. 

                It's the golden age of unions. Of course that wasn't the golden age for social justice and equality but now we can have both. Rs want us to have neither.

                They want an elitist society where our betters are in charge for their own enrichment and complete power over the little people. And not just the little people of color.  They just use people of color as a look over there to distract white blue color and modestly white collar people from fighting for their own economic interests.

    • MichaelBowman says:

      V – your beloved Phillips County has a rather dark shade of green attached to its boundaries.  Have you not taught your people anything?!? 

  10. Voyageur says:

    DOnt let MJ Read This​​​​

    I spent a long time on reddit trying to get results from the Virgin Islands caucus.  Several posters griped about the long delay.  Finally, one guy patiently explained: "It takes a long time to figure out exactly how many ballots we can steal from bernie before his people get suspicious."

    Of course, now we have to kill him.  You want the contract, Duke?  I used my last curare dart on Dodd, who has been strangely silent lately. angry​​​​​

  11. Voyageur says:

    ABC says Hillary won the Virgin Islands.   But it doesn't say how many dlegates she won. There are only 7 up, boys, how hard can that be to count. It's like the old sportscaster's joke:  "here we have a partial score: Broncos 7…"

  12. Voyageur says:

    Finally, cnn says preliminary count is 1308 Hillary, 192 bernie.  Bernie won less than the 15 percent needed for a proportional share.  But there are actually two blocs of delegates, 4 and 3.  Depending on where bernie's votes were, he may get a delegate.  It is either 6-1 hillary or 7-O.  Incidentally, VI has the only superdelegate to switch sides so far.  But he switched from bernie to hillary because bernie never responded to a query about the islands concerns.

  13. exlurker19 says:

    I feel so out of place here, right now. A Bernista who recognizes the inevitable and will do everything I can to get Hilary Rodham elected so that the Trumpsta hits the dumpsta (not that he seems to need any help with that–he regularly climbs in and barely tries to crawl back out).  My only watchable sport is tennis.  The free stuff I feel entitled to is Medicare (just a few more years, yay!), Social Security, free stuff that I have been paying into for way too many years.

    Even though I can't read all the back and forth, I enjoy all of you guys here a lot and appreciate Voyager standing up for reality.  JD, Mama, Duke, et al., I agree with you guys all the way, just don't see us electing Bernie, no matter how much I love him.

    • mamajama55 says:

      Exlurker, welcome to the middle ground. Dodd and Vger will hold down the poles. Don't worry about not being able to catch up; V will provide 5 posts answering each possible pro-Sanders spin, adding spin of his own, so unless you skip his posts, you'll know what each delegate had for breakfast and dreamed about last night before they signed the loyalty and secrecy oaths for HRC's inevitable coronation.

  14. Voyageur says:

    I don't actually know the breakfast menu ex.  But MJ has a great daikon salad for lunch and Duke is relaxing with a great craft beer.  On the other side, Donald Trump is eating his standard tacos from Crow meat while explaining again that no  Hoosier of Mexican descent can be allowed to serve as a judge.

    • Duke Cox says:

      I noticed this morning, during an interview, Der Drumphenfuhrer said he went after the judge because he thinks the judges' rulings were "unfair"…that the judge is biased against him and treated him badly.  A situation he is, no doubt, looking forward to being able to control when Das Donald becomes emperor. "No more Mexican judges", he shouts! …"and no Muslim judges, while we're at it! And since we're on the subject, I'm getting a little tired of Judge Judy, too."

      Oh, the pain…sad

  15. Zappatero says:

    Bennet's Idiotic Campaign

    As Republican Nutiness gets all the headlines here, Michael Bennet continues his campaign that links him to Republican Cory Gardner through the joys of bipartisanship and highlights his absolute inability and failure to do anything to energize voters who should be his natural base.

    By now he should know that the party's 3 major proponents (Obama, Clinton, Sanders) have all endorsed expansion of Social Security benefits. This  fact and the failure of both Austerity and America's great 401k experiment (privatization of public pensions) gives Bennet a perfect opportunity to change his austerity tune and make the tough decision to 1) tax the wealthiest among us, even his friends, to pay for enhanced SS benefits; 2) do what the American people want; 3) do what party leaders are doing out of political wisdom; and 4) abandon his losing Blue Dog/Austerity/Neoliberal philosophy that has been rejected by Democratic voters everywhere. 

    Unfortunately, due to Bennet's political incompetence and the advice of the Campaign Geniuses he has hired, I doubt he'll do any of this. 

    Of course, he may get another 6 years in office because Republican glue-sniffing has permanently damaged their brains. It will not be because Bennet is a great politician or even a good legislator.

    • Voyageur says:

      Actually, that is exactly why a moderate, reasonable, liberal who puts Colorado's interests first is so heavily favored for re-election.   The proof is that in a year where even Diana DeGette has a primary opponent from the left, no one challenged Bennet.  But Keep on truckin' Zappy.   The occasional blast from the uber left just cements his appeal to the moderate middle that decides elections.

      • Conserv. Head Banger says:

        Bennet is an excellent legislator in his support of public lands and the vibrant outdoor recreation component of Colorado's economy. I most recently heard him speak about his work at last Friday's annual gala of Conservation Colorado. Too bad, Mr. Zappatero, that you're so blinded with your hatred of Bennet that you can't even begin to comprehend good stuff he has done while in office. I'm guessing you would prefer Robert Blaha as the next senator from Colorado?

        And why are you now knocking 401Ks? What do you have against people saving for their own retirement so they don't have to rely solely on government benefits? I'm doing so nicely in retirement; thanks to my 401Ks and no thanks to you; that I won't apply for SS benefits until I turn 67 this fall (waiting a year added to my benefit).

        • Voyageur says:

          Oddly, I don't think Zappy will vote third party and I am certain he won't vote R.  While he is utterly obsessed with attacking Bennet he has also said, as the much more moderate Duke has, that his ultimate goal is to make Bennet a better — which for him means much more leftist — senator.  For all his incessant attacks, he has never even mentioned the greens, which would be the logical landing space for one of his ideological tilt.  

  16. Voyageur says:

    Great Moments in Journalism

    All right, class, some of you have accused the mainstream media of hyping routine events in the quest for greater readership/viewership and advertising dollars.   But as the following report from the Chicago Tribune about Hillary's sweep of the Virgin Islands proves, this NOT THE CASE.

     

    Hillary Clinton has scored a sweeping win in the U.S. Virgin Islands, picking up all seven pledged delegates at stake as she inched closer to the Democratic nomination.

    She is now just 60 delegates short of the 2,383 needed to advance to the November election.

    The party said Clinton won 84.2 percent of the vote, while Bernie Sanders earned 12.2 percent.

    It was the biggest margin of victory for a Democratic candidate in the Virgin Islands caucuses since 2008, when Barack Obama beat Clinton 90 percent to 8 percent.

     

    This is historic because Hillary’s win is the biggest in the VI since 2008, when Obama beat her by an even bigger margin:
    You have your hand up, Ms. Jama. Is there something you want to share with the class? A question: When was the last contested Democratic caucus in the VI?
    Uhh, let’s see — that would be 2008. So Hillary’s victory is the biggest victory since the last victory?

    Has anyone told you you have an attitude problem, Young Lady?

  17. Voyageur says:

    Hillary's VI sweep of all seven delegates means it is still mathematically possible for Hillary to clinch the Democratic nomination today, sayeth MSNBC.  She needs 57 delegates to hit the magic 2383, MSNBC math says.  AP says she is 60 short.

    Either way, she clinches if she gets more than 85 percent of the PR vote, thus denying Sanders any of the 60 pledged delegates being chosen today.  Hillary is very popular in Puerto Rico and the Big Dawg worked the island extensively, thus keeping him out of trouble in the mainland.  So a sweep is possible.   But both campaigns agree it is highly unlikely since Bernie also visited the island.

    As to superdelegates, MSNBC reports there are still 125 of them who haven't endorsed either candidate.   Theoretically, enough could do so Monday to put Hillary over the top if she falls just a few votes short after results are announced in Puerto Rico.  But if Hillary gets all the PR delegates, that isn't necessary.  If, more likely, Bernie scores above 15 percent, then he will get at least 9 delegates, probably ensuring that the campaign is settled on Tuesday, when both Dakotas, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and superstate California all vote.  The first of those states to close its polls is New Jersey, at 6 p.m. Denver time.

    • MichaelBowman says:

      I'm a #votebluenomatterwho constituent this year, but I'm more interested in consistency in the arguments.  I understand Hillary has the pledged delegates but technically those don't count towards the 2383 until they cast their vote in July, no? Isn't it like doing the average kernel count on a corn crop, estimating it's yield, but it's not official until the combine has rolled through the field? 

      In another social media thread I follow there was a lot of discussion about 'quorum' for the convention.  Could it be possible that it won't be a violent redux of '68, but a more subtle approach to influencing platform, etc? If enough Bernie delegates don't show that a quorum isn't present, could they still officially nominate?  

      I'm not advocating for violence or anything short of a democratic process that follows the rules as they are, but what do you all think about this?  MamaJ?  I have zero issues with Bernie staying in the race – I think all of this is healthy for the party and the national discourse.    #BlessedUnrest 

      • Voyageur says:

        I think you meant to say superdelegates don't ohhicially count until cast at the convention, mi chael.  Technically that is true — but it is equally true about pledged delegates!  Technically no delegates vote is cast until the convention.  But hillary's big win in Puerto Rico today 65/35 gives her another 38 delegates leaving only 22 to go for a majority of 2383.  Those will come soon after polls close in New Jersey at 6 pm Denver time.  She will add still more in the dakotas, montana, new Mexico and California, ending with probably 350 more pledged delegates than Bernie and around 2700 total.  Plus, she is virtually certain to win the dc finale june 14.  So, lift a glass of fracking fluid tuesday in honor of the first woman  nominated for president by a major party.  Or stopby my house and share a cabernet in honor of Sir Bernie of the Mountain Green and the stalwart yeoman archers he used to slaughter the establishments armored knights at agincourt before joining at last with Hillary the Fair in the climactic batle for middle earth against the Orcs and Klansmen of Donald of Drumpf.

        • MichaelBowman says:

          My bad, V.  Yes, I did mean Super Delegates.  And yes – I will take you up on that offer of the cab on one condition: we must do this on homeland soil, given how 'green' your homeland has become 🙂  

          I have little doubt we'll all coalesce around a common goal after July: #NeverTheScreamingYam 

      • mamajama55 says:

        I don't know, Michael, but I know Sanders folks are studying the rules very carefully. The "no quorum" thing could backfire, I'm thinking.. It's not like the DNC actually wants lots of Bernie delegates on site and voting, so if they don't show up, what could be better for their purposes?

        Sanders' 5 picks influencing the platform would be a very limited victory. Nobody seems to pay any attention to the platform in off-election years. The things I want Bernie's "movement" to accomplish at the convention, even if he's not the nominee:

        1. I want to see a commitment to cutting the power of superdelegates, even if that means fewer or no state caucuses. I think the grassroots aspect of district caucusing could still be preserved. Superdelegates should have to be bound by the votes of their states, if they still exist at all.

        2.I want to see some consistency, as you said, in how rules are applied across states and districts.

        3. I want to weaken the two party system to allow more diverse candidates to achieve a national stage, and win by the power of their ideas – as Bernie has.

        4. I want to lessen the power of the corporate oligarchy over American politics. I understand that K street lobbyists have VIP access to all important aspects of the DNC convention.

        5. I want party officials to be held accountable by members – DWS, for example, should regularly have to account for her actions to a gathering of all members, not just the lobbyists and the elite few in the inner circle.

        One of my old friends will be a legal observer on site at the convention. I've asked her to live blog on here, but her perception is that Pols is a very biased site (pro-Hillary), and she wants a more neutral one. We will see.

         

        • Duke Cox says:

          I hope she will reconsider…

        • Voyageur says:

          Exactly how will dws be held accountable to a meeting of "all members?"  Finding a hall big enough to hold 100,000,000 democrats isn't easy.

        • BlueCat says:

          With Bernie's only conceivable chance being to get all the supers to come over to his side and even then only if HRC is completely demolished in California, like maybe a 70%/30% landslide for Bernie, it doesn't seem like less power for the supers should be on the Bernista wish list at this point for the election at hand. Unless altered retroactive reality is also on the list.

          • Diogenesdemar says:

            It is more than a little ironic, that the campaign that has been from its inception reviling the "corrupt" system of "unaccountable" and "purchased" supers, is now pinning their last desperate fantasies on swaying those same against the "corrupt" system of "thievery and manipulation" they imagine seeing in the results from the popular vote . . .

            • Pseudonymous says:

              Not irony, I think.  Just the natural, ordinary hypocrisy that comes with people who are invested in change seeing their chance slip away and grasping at straws as they develop tunnel vision on the least important result of their work.  It's a shame, of course, that Bernie worked to advance a principled view and then diminished it by torturing his early statements to mean anything other than what they did.

              I think people generally have a short-term view of politics that emphasizes victory over effect, holding power over usefully wielding it, and politics over policy.  Our system lends itself to that view by creating a duality, where the natural outcome, especially in a society so focused on winners and losers, is to put "our folks" rather than "their folks" in place, and to spend a lot less energy wondering about what "our folks" are doing with their time.

              I'm interested to see what, if any, effect this campaign has on the Democratic Party going forward.

               

              • Voyageur says:

                I don't disagree with your broad thrust, Sudy.  But this campaign has changed both parties.  Democrats will make history tomorrow by nominating the first woman ever to lead a major party ticket.  Incredibly, most democrats see that as a victory for the party's moderate wing.

                Women's rights, LGBT rights. Once scorned.  Now any Democrat who didn't embrace them would be run out of the party.  And an outright Socialist won 45 pct of the vote, even winning one primary – Oregon — that.was limited to Democrats only.  

                OK, old White guys like me don't run everything any more.  But you know what?  I'm tired.  Let our daughters take their turn at the helm.

                 

                 

        • JohnInDenver says:

          Responding to your wish list:

          1. Un-pledged delegates are Democrats who have won elections. Within the past 6 years, they won a seat either for Governor or Congress or were elected as a party official. Rather than having direct democracy of people voting in a short period of time, there are a small number of Democrats who have won at other times. Maybe 15% isn't the right number, but I appreciate actual winners have a voice in the direction of the Democratic Party. Forcing them to vote as "bound" delegates in the nomination process undercuts their role.

          2. Consistency would be grand. It would be difficult to achieve, given diverse states with Democrats and Republicans in varying proportions setting rules for primaries. I'd enthusiastically endorse a small step of eliminating caucuses and conventions and insisting on an election with a secret ballot of individuals and including an option for "absentee" voting. .

          3. Candidates can already be as diverse as the market allows. Sanders, an independent from a very small state, demonstrates that. Had he started earlier, if he had campaigned in a way to better compete for un-pledged delegates and in Southern states, this could be a different race.

          4. Less power to oligarchs – who could be opposed to that? it would mean revision to the current Golden Rule [those with the gold make the rules]. So, figure out a way to pay for the $60 million cost of the convention or the $300 million for the DNC that doesn't involve lobbyists or change the process so the party doesn't need to spend as much for a convention or its operation.

          5. Party officials serve terms in office. Want different ones? Get enough people involved to vote in your preferred candidate. Want to influence those in office? Become important to the party in some fashion – money, voters, and messaging (or connections to those factors) are traditional ways to influence outcomes. The "inner circle" are those who have used strengths over time to move into that position..

           

          • The problem insurgent "outsider" candidates see in the super-delegate system is exactly why you support it: it gives an excess of support to those already in power or in the halls of power.
            I think that lowering the power of the super-delegates to a "can only vote if no candidate wins the pledged majority" or under certain other pressing circumstances (viable pending criminal charges or questions of mental health with some standard that has to be met, perhaps) would be a good change.

  18. Voyageur says:

    Pollmeister Nate Silver's analytic program gives Hillary Clinton a 92 percent chance of winning California Tuesday.   But one man who disagrees with that prediction to the extent of saying he'd happily bet on Bernie at those odds is … wait for it … Nate Silver.  Here is an authoritative look at the woes of the polls in this highly unconventional year.

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-state-of-the-polls-2016/

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.