Hill and Bern can add a truly free LABOR MARKET to their agenda.
A 50% poor-country/50% rich-country workforce (Chicago work-force? – useful approximation) whose pay level set by collective bargaining – will have a higher level of pay than a 100% rich-country workforce whose pay is set by what I call “subsistence-plus.”
Subsistence-plus means what Karl Marx would have recognized (Teamster vet here: we are looking for good capitalist contracts; we are not looking for class enemies): bottom pay is set at the bottom tolerance level below which nobody will show up …
… $400/wk for poor country/$800/wk for rich (just to concoct a not too far off approximation to use) – e.g., foreign born taxi drivers/American born (that’s me) which latter will no longer show up for 60 grueling hours. Neither will the Crips and the Bloods who, if supermarket were paying the $800 they used to, would be stacking shelves instead of looking out for cops (that’s 100,000 out of my guesstimate 200,000 Chicago gang-age, minority males – at any one time!).
A 50-50% labor market whose pay is set by subsistence-plus – or at least a combo of subsistence-plus and collective bargaining – will not clear. A huge drop out of rich country workers will result – more or less permanently (street gangs, whatever missing American born cab drivers do now ??? I’m retired at 72).
I repeat: A 50% poor-country/50% rich-country workforce (Chicago work-force? – useful approximation) whose pay level set by collective bargaining – will have a higher level of pay than a 100% rich-country workforce whose pay is set by what I call “subsistence-plus.”
because I think this particular formulation will stick in human male heads which too quickly (instantly) vaporize any idea that is too far from current (hunting pack?) practice – doesn’t even get out the other ear. I think this formulation will stick.
And maybe Hill and Bern can add a truly free LABOR MARKET to their agenda.
(I’m just starting to work on the above – not even a first draft – but I am always over-anxious.)
And always remember — as incidents reported from locker rooms to dressing rooms around the country are starting show up — that the bigger part of this ideology is that NO QUESTIONS may be asked of any male entering the previously out-of-bounds area — lest anyone feel humiliated. Incidents being of males being found in all places, offering no explanation why they are there, and employees in charge explaining that they cannot ask questions.
The following may seem snarky — it is not; I fully understand the suffering of the transgender — it is just one of those “balloon pop” connections. To wit: if transgender females are so perfectly matched in their brains, why do they not understand why other females are abhorrence of their male endowed selves invading the previously sacred precincts. Just like I wonder how many still physical males are sexually attracted to females (like Bruce!). Purely scientific curiosity (I am hung up on motives).
In Palatine, Illinois one high school girl seems to complain that the physical boy can in fact view the girls while going to and from the locker room: “There is no towel over his eyes.” So what’s next: transgender female athletic coaches? Would be consistent.
As far as I can tell Obama would rather trans girls be naked in the locker with the other girls rather than be denied access altogether, if that were the choice. (CHASE EVERYBODY TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CLOWNS — YOU NEVER CARED ABOUT OUR LIVELIHOODS ANYWAY.)
The Southern states have something right for once. The liberal elite cannot possibly just revoke tens of billions of dollars from education throughout the country — impossible. $5 million was the threat to junk education in Palatine. Shouldn’t there be reaction against that? The Republicans would probably like to see federal money sucked out of education anyway. HELP THE REPUBLICANS IN EVERY WAY, WHY DON’T YOU?!
What is next is fixing changing rooms and bathrooms so that they create privacy for their users instead of creating semi-privacy. Americans have historically rejected bathroom privacy in public places for some reason, otherwise toilets would be properly enclosed and there would be walls and doors from floor to ceiling.
A guy was intimidated and got into a fight because he brought his 5 year old daughter into a men’s bathroom. That is the definition of insanity. The solution to these situations are the same, bathrooms and other places where people need privacy and/or will be fully or partially clothed should be built in a way that establishes and respects privacy, instead of making the ludicrous claim that adequate privacy is generated by gender segregation.
You imply that some transgender people are still attracted to the opposite sex and therefore are using transgender identification as a ruse to get into a women’s locker room. This is a ridiculous claim. Transgender people experience levels of public shaming and rejection that are beyond what almost any other group that I’m aware of currently experiences. Meanwhile, your men’s locker room has certain got 10 – 20% of occupants in it who are also interested in men. Privacy from people who might have lewd intentions isn’t guaranteed in any way by separating people with Y chromosomes from those without it. Pretending otherwise seems a disingenuous way to explain away bigotry or general distrust that the people around you or that you have never met did nothing to deserve.
J. Goodwin,
I love the way the elite left so easily descend to condescend to anyone who disagrees with them — making out same to have despicable motives, yet. Thank you.
Difference between gay and straight has nothing to do with genitals. Gays perceive the dangerous, step lightly around its toes, ego in females — rather than in males. And the other way around. Can’t be sexually dangerous to the dangerous sex — or be endangered except by the dangerous sex — whomever you think that might be.
So you could have any permutation and combination of gender dysphoria and hetero-homosexual orientation. Leaving the unpleasant fact that a transgender girl (physically male) may be just as attracted to the opposite sex as any heterosexual. Like to explain to me how you know they cannot. Caitlyn reportedly still has an interest in females — seems certainly to have had a full interest the past.
” ludicrous claim that adequate privacy is generated by gender segregation. ” Nice of you to think that a whole cultural way of life should just vaporize because the elite left (many voluble anyway) think it should be so. It’s not just about plumbing.
Oh, and thanks for potentially scaring millions in the direction of the Republican Party.
Denis you really need to get a grip. On something.
If exposure to opposite sex genitalia is the horrific threat to “a whole cultural way of life” you seem to keep thrashing on about, pray tell how whole swaths of europe manage to survive coed changing rooms at gyms, saunas etc. Or is this another one of those American Exceptionalism phobias that Can’t Happen Here Or It’s The End Of Civilization As We Know It.
Hint: Irrational fear of human genitalia is a learned response. So it can probably be unlearned. Maybe some counseling or managed anxiety sessions can help. I mean really.
And just to further address your anxiety about people turning republican to avoid seeing opposite sex nudity in asexual settings, if that’s where people like you end up I for one am fine with it. For one thing this smacks way too much of the insane anxiety around same sex marriage.
Which has come to pass in this country without a lot of fuss and bother despite the insane rantings of many GOPers. Here in the conservative rural county in TX where I live with my same sex husband we applied for a marriage license at the county courthouse and were treated with the same courtesy as any other engaged couple as far as I could tell. Same with the caterer we hired, the limo service etc. Nobody really cares. Especially younger people who by all accounts are sharing detailed nude photos with each other on a fairly routine basis.
I know you think you mean well protecting the poor Democrats and all but really, this is going to be fine. You just make yourself look silly with this stuff.
And just in case you decide to go on ranting about “degenerate europeans” or some other such nonsense I would point out that our northern neighbors in Canada don’t seem to be bothered much by this stuff.
Is it possible your fears have to do with your own personal response to human nudity? I have to say your multiple comments on this do beg reasonable questions.
People don’t get assaulted by gays or straights or transgenders, they get assaulted by horrible people who need to be identified as early as possible and if possible rehabilitated and if not, isolated from the general population.
How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Donald
So it occurred to me today, after he backed out of the Sanders debate that maybe a Trump presidency won’t be so awful after all. From here he doesn’t seem that much worse than W except possibly by degree. GWB was also a lousy businessman, tending to fail upward via family connections, misrepresenting his military record etc. And the country managed to get through 2 terms okay.
In fact it turned out somewhat better than OK in that he managed to generally trash the GOP brand to the point they had to relabel it “Tea Party Inc” to gain any traction at all in downballot races. The party is in some palpable sense still suffering his legacy in that the best thing they appear to have come up with 8 years later is the legitimacy of one Donald J Trump. Despite a lot of attacks and hand wringing by the party elites.
So in the worst case scenario, i.e. a Trump inaugural, today’s GOP is forever associated with his administration. Which I honestly expect to be just as successful as say, Trump Steaks. Or Trump Air. Or Trump Mortgage. Etc. etc. I don’t suffer much anxiety over his ability to accomplish anything genuinely disastrous because I honestly believe in the oath the military leadership takes to the Constitution. Not the executive, despite the rantings of various RW blowhards. I believe that at least among the officer corps the consequences of following an illegal order are well understood.
There will no doubt be some ugly consequences, particularly if he manages to impact the judiciary but again, SCOTUS has survived the likes of Thomas, Alito, and the recently departed Scalia. So it goes.
Yes, I know our reputation among other countries will suffer but I’m not at all sure we have much left to lose after the endless adventurism in the middle east started by GWB and continued in much of the same ineffective way by Obama. And maybe the Daily Show will be funny again. Anything’s possible.
And I can’t help appreciating the problem an HRC defeat will cause the worst “GOP Lite” elements in the Democratic party. So in that sense it’s a twofer; the opportunity to marginalize the most problematic actors within the DNC I’ve ever seen in 40 years of political activism while also permanently saddling the GOP with a genuinely disastrous legacy. One they may never recover from.
A.S.,
Your comment is one of the worst examples of political analysis that I’ve read in a very long time. The country did survive two terms of G.W.B., but mere survival is a poor measure of harm. And the amount of harm done is near to incalculable. Certainly the same can be said of Scalia, Alito and Thomas. The extreme turn to the right has been abetted by both the irresponsible Bush II administration and a Supreme Court with a political rather than judicial ideology. The country has now suffered through fifteen years of hostility in the Middle East which now has morphed into nearly world wide terrorism. Thank you Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al.
There are severe consequences to poor political chooses. The economy is a dump for most of the working class and the upper middle class is barely holding its own. Bad administrative and congressional decisions have dire consequences for most Americans, and the end is not yet in sight. Certainly Trump is not the answer and Clinton is only better than a worst case scenario. I don’t think Sanders has much chance, but even if he does a. Sanders presidency will fail without a strongly Democratic, progressive Democratic, Congress.
You can say what you want about me – it’s just my opinion after all. But I don’t think HRC can win against Trump. She will persist in trying to run her husbands 20 year old triangulation playbook striving to draw squishy GOP voters that simply don’t amount to much today, at least demographically. They didn’t survive W, they’ve all been chased out.
And Trump’s ability to make it up as he goes will completely thrash her insider competence “Hard Choices” argument. She’s already losing a lot of younger voters to him and can’t even hold the white female vote. The only way she will win is if his campaign completely melts down ala McGovern in 72. It’s not impossible but it’s not something I’m counting on either. It’s not like she doesn’t have her own potential surprises looming.
Meanwhile you gotta love these people whose number one concern is about getting money out of politics and then have no problem with saying “COTUS has survived the likes of Thomas, Alito, and the recently departed Scalia”
It is absolutely frightening how these peoples’ minds work(sic).
Don’t forget all the vets who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country this weekend. Put up your American flag and fly it all weekend proudly and say God Bless America and lets all be thankful for all we have from our great country.
Again, A.S.,
I am no fan of the Clintons and Hillary seems no significant improvement over Bill. After all it was Bill who signed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act into law leading directly to the destruction of our economy and the vast enrichment of the executives of repeal of Glass–Steagall Act and the near destruction of the banking and finance industries.
H. Clinton has given no concrete evidence that she would be a more prudent and progressive Executive than was Bill Clinton. They are prime examples of the worst effects of the DLC leadership of the Democratic Party. As important as defeating a clown like Trump, and his newly formed retinue of Republican Party leaders, is the replacement of the DLC Democrats with Democrats that look, feel and act like progressive Democrats beholding to the voters rather than the financial backers of the political class. Presently we have a choice between the new crazed form of Republican and the DLC/Republican moderate form of the Democratic Party. Not a good choice, to say the least. Sanders is trying, but I think we may have to first accept H. Clinton as she is with an effort to reform her. She needs to know that she will get only one term of office if she simply continues to promote liberal Republican ideology and a global perspective that Machiavelli would admire.
You can accept HRC all you want. I don’t actually believe she’s going to win the election. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. I’m not in favor of Trump inaugural – I sort of explicitly stated that as a worst case scenario.
But I’m watching the case for HRC unravel day by day week by week within the core constituencies she is going to need to win the GE. And I see a candidate that hasn’t learned a damn thing from her humiliation in 2008. So I expect her to lose again. As Bev pointed out at length in an adjacent thread she’s just a colossally bad campaigner and politician without even her husband’s charm and instincts to pull her over.
I expect her to get the nomination, I’m not unrealistic about that. And I expect her to lose the GE. Unless Trump colossally screws himself which I admit is a non-zero possibility. Not counting on it though.
Caught a stream of Bernie on Maher’s show tonight. He made a very succinct and articulate argument regarding the superdelegates. Essentially he said that if you accept their role as ensuring the party nominates *the most electable candidate* they really need to consider what has happened in the primaries since they initially pledged for HRC.
Labor Day weekend is still months away but congratulations to Verizon workers ending their 44 day old strike in the face of considerable challenges from the corporation who apparently planned to replace them.
This IMF pub is making the rounds today.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/pdf/ostry.pdf
Re: Social-democratic vs market-friendly progressivism – Lane Kenworthy
https://lanekenworthy.net/2016/05/26/social-democratic-vs-market-friendly-progressivism/
Hill and Bern can add a truly free LABOR MARKET to their agenda.
A 50% poor-country/50% rich-country workforce (Chicago work-force? – useful approximation) whose pay level set by collective bargaining – will have a higher level of pay than a 100% rich-country workforce whose pay is set by what I call “subsistence-plus.”
Subsistence-plus means what Karl Marx would have recognized (Teamster vet here: we are looking for good capitalist contracts; we are not looking for class enemies): bottom pay is set at the bottom tolerance level below which nobody will show up …
… $400/wk for poor country/$800/wk for rich (just to concoct a not too far off approximation to use) – e.g., foreign born taxi drivers/American born (that’s me) which latter will no longer show up for 60 grueling hours. Neither will the Crips and the Bloods who, if supermarket were paying the $800 they used to, would be stacking shelves instead of looking out for cops (that’s 100,000 out of my guesstimate 200,000 Chicago gang-age, minority males – at any one time!).
A 50-50% labor market whose pay is set by subsistence-plus – or at least a combo of subsistence-plus and collective bargaining – will not clear. A huge drop out of rich country workers will result – more or less permanently (street gangs, whatever missing American born cab drivers do now ??? I’m retired at 72).
I repeat:
A 50% poor-country/50% rich-country workforce (Chicago work-force? – useful approximation) whose pay level set by collective bargaining – will have a higher level of pay than a 100% rich-country workforce whose pay is set by what I call “subsistence-plus.”
because I think this particular formulation will stick in human male heads which too quickly (instantly) vaporize any idea that is too far from current (hunting pack?) practice – doesn’t even get out the other ear. I think this formulation will stick.
And maybe Hill and Bern can add a truly free LABOR MARKET to their agenda.
(I’m just starting to work on the above – not even a first draft – but I am always over-anxious.)
PS. I am working on something called “Transgender bathrooms — it’s not just about plumbing.”
The arrogance of academic liberals who just because they think German or old Tahitian expect American women to just forget their greatest fears and allow a previously unimaginable privacy invasion because the elite left (some voluble ones anyway) think they shouldn’t care.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/05/24/conservative_groups_are_goading_politicians_into_fighting_trans_bathroom.html
And always remember — as incidents reported from locker rooms to dressing rooms around the country are starting show up — that the bigger part of this ideology is that NO QUESTIONS may be asked of any male entering the previously out-of-bounds area — lest anyone feel humiliated. Incidents being of males being found in all places, offering no explanation why they are there, and employees in charge explaining that they cannot ask questions.
The following may seem snarky — it is not; I fully understand the suffering of the transgender — it is just one of those “balloon pop” connections. To wit: if transgender females are so perfectly matched in their brains, why do they not understand why other females are abhorrence of their male endowed selves invading the previously sacred precincts. Just like I wonder how many still physical males are sexually attracted to females (like Bruce!). Purely scientific curiosity (I am hung up on motives).
In Palatine, Illinois one high school girl seems to complain that the physical boy can in fact view the girls while going to and from the locker room: “There is no towel over his eyes.” So what’s next: transgender female athletic coaches? Would be consistent.
As far as I can tell Obama would rather trans girls be naked in the locker with the other girls rather than be denied access altogether, if that were the choice. (CHASE EVERYBODY TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CLOWNS — YOU NEVER CARED ABOUT OUR LIVELIHOODS ANYWAY.)
The Southern states have something right for once. The liberal elite cannot possibly just revoke tens of billions of dollars from education throughout the country — impossible. $5 million was the threat to junk education in Palatine. Shouldn’t there be reaction against that? The Republicans would probably like to see federal money sucked out of education anyway. HELP THE REPUBLICANS IN EVERY WAY, WHY DON’T YOU?!
What is next is fixing changing rooms and bathrooms so that they create privacy for their users instead of creating semi-privacy. Americans have historically rejected bathroom privacy in public places for some reason, otherwise toilets would be properly enclosed and there would be walls and doors from floor to ceiling.
A guy was intimidated and got into a fight because he brought his 5 year old daughter into a men’s bathroom. That is the definition of insanity. The solution to these situations are the same, bathrooms and other places where people need privacy and/or will be fully or partially clothed should be built in a way that establishes and respects privacy, instead of making the ludicrous claim that adequate privacy is generated by gender segregation.
You imply that some transgender people are still attracted to the opposite sex and therefore are using transgender identification as a ruse to get into a women’s locker room. This is a ridiculous claim. Transgender people experience levels of public shaming and rejection that are beyond what almost any other group that I’m aware of currently experiences. Meanwhile, your men’s locker room has certain got 10 – 20% of occupants in it who are also interested in men. Privacy from people who might have lewd intentions isn’t guaranteed in any way by separating people with Y chromosomes from those without it. Pretending otherwise seems a disingenuous way to explain away bigotry or general distrust that the people around you or that you have never met did nothing to deserve.
J. Goodwin,
I love the way the elite left so easily descend to condescend to anyone who disagrees with them — making out same to have despicable motives, yet. Thank you.
Difference between gay and straight has nothing to do with genitals. Gays perceive the dangerous, step lightly around its toes, ego in females — rather than in males. And the other way around. Can’t be sexually dangerous to the dangerous sex — or be endangered except by the dangerous sex — whomever you think that might be.
So you could have any permutation and combination of gender dysphoria and hetero-homosexual orientation. Leaving the unpleasant fact that a transgender girl (physically male) may be just as attracted to the opposite sex as any heterosexual. Like to explain to me how you know they cannot. Caitlyn reportedly still has an interest in females — seems certainly to have had a full interest the past.
” ludicrous claim that adequate privacy is generated by gender segregation. ” Nice of you to think that a whole cultural way of life should just vaporize because the elite left (many voluble anyway) think it should be so. It’s not just about plumbing.
Oh, and thanks for potentially scaring millions in the direction of the Republican Party.
A little reading for you: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheena-c-howard/-safety-of-women-and-girl_b_10131346.html
Denis you really need to get a grip. On something.
If exposure to opposite sex genitalia is the horrific threat to “a whole cultural way of life” you seem to keep thrashing on about, pray tell how whole swaths of europe manage to survive coed changing rooms at gyms, saunas etc. Or is this another one of those American Exceptionalism phobias that Can’t Happen Here Or It’s The End Of Civilization As We Know It.
Hint: Irrational fear of human genitalia is a learned response. So it can probably be unlearned. Maybe some counseling or managed anxiety sessions can help. I mean really.
And just to further address your anxiety about people turning republican to avoid seeing opposite sex nudity in asexual settings, if that’s where people like you end up I for one am fine with it. For one thing this smacks way too much of the insane anxiety around same sex marriage.
Which has come to pass in this country without a lot of fuss and bother despite the insane rantings of many GOPers. Here in the conservative rural county in TX where I live with my same sex husband we applied for a marriage license at the county courthouse and were treated with the same courtesy as any other engaged couple as far as I could tell. Same with the caterer we hired, the limo service etc. Nobody really cares. Especially younger people who by all accounts are sharing detailed nude photos with each other on a fairly routine basis.
I know you think you mean well protecting the poor Democrats and all but really, this is going to be fine. You just make yourself look silly with this stuff.
I’m not saying that male to female transgender people cannot be interested in women. Some are.
Samantha Kalman talks about her relevant experience in this podcast.
[audio src="http://www.giantbomb.com/podcasts/download/1404/Danswers_Episode15_02112015-11-02-2015-7885894730.mp3" /]
And just in case you decide to go on ranting about “degenerate europeans” or some other such nonsense I would point out that our northern neighbors in Canada don’t seem to be bothered much by this stuff.
Is it possible your fears have to do with your own personal response to human nudity? I have to say your multiple comments on this do beg reasonable questions.
Meanwhile in Idaho:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/high-school-american-football-players-raped-disabled-black-teammate-with-coat-hanger-idaho-john-a7049566.html
People don’t get assaulted by gays or straights or transgenders, they get assaulted by horrible people who need to be identified as early as possible and if possible rehabilitated and if not, isolated from the general population.
How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Donald
So it occurred to me today, after he backed out of the Sanders debate that maybe a Trump presidency won’t be so awful after all. From here he doesn’t seem that much worse than W except possibly by degree. GWB was also a lousy businessman, tending to fail upward via family connections, misrepresenting his military record etc. And the country managed to get through 2 terms okay.
In fact it turned out somewhat better than OK in that he managed to generally trash the GOP brand to the point they had to relabel it “Tea Party Inc” to gain any traction at all in downballot races. The party is in some palpable sense still suffering his legacy in that the best thing they appear to have come up with 8 years later is the legitimacy of one Donald J Trump. Despite a lot of attacks and hand wringing by the party elites.
So in the worst case scenario, i.e. a Trump inaugural, today’s GOP is forever associated with his administration. Which I honestly expect to be just as successful as say, Trump Steaks. Or Trump Air. Or Trump Mortgage. Etc. etc. I don’t suffer much anxiety over his ability to accomplish anything genuinely disastrous because I honestly believe in the oath the military leadership takes to the Constitution. Not the executive, despite the rantings of various RW blowhards. I believe that at least among the officer corps the consequences of following an illegal order are well understood.
There will no doubt be some ugly consequences, particularly if he manages to impact the judiciary but again, SCOTUS has survived the likes of Thomas, Alito, and the recently departed Scalia. So it goes.
Yes, I know our reputation among other countries will suffer but I’m not at all sure we have much left to lose after the endless adventurism in the middle east started by GWB and continued in much of the same ineffective way by Obama. And maybe the Daily Show will be funny again. Anything’s possible.
And I can’t help appreciating the problem an HRC defeat will cause the worst “GOP Lite” elements in the Democratic party. So in that sense it’s a twofer; the opportunity to marginalize the most problematic actors within the DNC I’ve ever seen in 40 years of political activism while also permanently saddling the GOP with a genuinely disastrous legacy. One they may never recover from.
It’s win win!
A.S.,
Your comment is one of the worst examples of political analysis that I’ve read in a very long time. The country did survive two terms of G.W.B., but mere survival is a poor measure of harm. And the amount of harm done is near to incalculable. Certainly the same can be said of Scalia, Alito and Thomas. The extreme turn to the right has been abetted by both the irresponsible Bush II administration and a Supreme Court with a political rather than judicial ideology. The country has now suffered through fifteen years of hostility in the Middle East which now has morphed into nearly world wide terrorism. Thank you Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al.
There are severe consequences to poor political chooses. The economy is a dump for most of the working class and the upper middle class is barely holding its own. Bad administrative and congressional decisions have dire consequences for most Americans, and the end is not yet in sight. Certainly Trump is not the answer and Clinton is only better than a worst case scenario. I don’t think Sanders has much chance, but even if he does a. Sanders presidency will fail without a strongly Democratic, progressive Democratic, Congress.
You can say what you want about me – it’s just my opinion after all. But I don’t think HRC can win against Trump. She will persist in trying to run her husbands 20 year old triangulation playbook striving to draw squishy GOP voters that simply don’t amount to much today, at least demographically. They didn’t survive W, they’ve all been chased out.
And Trump’s ability to make it up as he goes will completely thrash her insider competence “Hard Choices” argument. She’s already losing a lot of younger voters to him and can’t even hold the white female vote. The only way she will win is if his campaign completely melts down ala McGovern in 72. It’s not impossible but it’s not something I’m counting on either. It’s not like she doesn’t have her own potential surprises looming.
Jack,
Biggest understatement of the year.
Meanwhile you gotta love these people whose number one concern is about getting money out of politics and then have no problem with saying “COTUS has survived the likes of Thomas, Alito, and the recently departed Scalia”
It is absolutely frightening how these peoples’ minds work(sic).
Don’t forget all the vets who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country this weekend. Put up your American flag and fly it all weekend proudly and say God Bless America and lets all be thankful for all we have from our great country.
Again, A.S.,
I am no fan of the Clintons and Hillary seems no significant improvement over Bill. After all it was Bill who signed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act into law leading directly to the destruction of our economy and the vast enrichment of the executives of repeal of Glass–Steagall Act and the near destruction of the banking and finance industries.
H. Clinton has given no concrete evidence that she would be a more prudent and progressive Executive than was Bill Clinton. They are prime examples of the worst effects of the DLC leadership of the Democratic Party. As important as defeating a clown like Trump, and his newly formed retinue of Republican Party leaders, is the replacement of the DLC Democrats with Democrats that look, feel and act like progressive Democrats beholding to the voters rather than the financial backers of the political class. Presently we have a choice between the new crazed form of Republican and the DLC/Republican moderate form of the Democratic Party. Not a good choice, to say the least. Sanders is trying, but I think we may have to first accept H. Clinton as she is with an effort to reform her. She needs to know that she will get only one term of office if she simply continues to promote liberal Republican ideology and a global perspective that Machiavelli would admire.
You can accept HRC all you want. I don’t actually believe she’s going to win the election. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. I’m not in favor of Trump inaugural – I sort of explicitly stated that as a worst case scenario.
But I’m watching the case for HRC unravel day by day week by week within the core constituencies she is going to need to win the GE. And I see a candidate that hasn’t learned a damn thing from her humiliation in 2008. So I expect her to lose again. As Bev pointed out at length in an adjacent thread she’s just a colossally bad campaigner and politician without even her husband’s charm and instincts to pull her over.
I expect her to get the nomination, I’m not unrealistic about that. And I expect her to lose the GE. Unless Trump colossally screws himself which I admit is a non-zero possibility. Not counting on it though.
Caught a stream of Bernie on Maher’s show tonight. He made a very succinct and articulate argument regarding the superdelegates. Essentially he said that if you accept their role as ensuring the party nominates *the most electable candidate* they really need to consider what has happened in the primaries since they initially pledged for HRC.
Recommended.
Labor Day weekend is still months away but congratulations to Verizon workers ending their 44 day old strike in the face of considerable challenges from the corporation who apparently planned to replace them.
Solidarity!