laripu

Of course. And not something that can work within the system as envisioned by the founders, in the Constitution they made. They made it nearly impossible for principles to succeed unless hedged by compromise. Lots of US citizens hate that. That hate got us Trump. The stupid "fix" for a country that requires compromise is dictatorship. Füçk that. Give me muddled compromise rather than dictatorship, left or right. I'd rather advance in predictable slow ways than disrupt everything in service of some ism. Because no theory is predictive of human whim and trend.

Yes. Bernie was never a Democrat. In fact he called the Democratic Party intellectually bankrupt. He has contempt for anyone to his right. He is using the Democratic Party. He should not be trusted. I was for Buttigieg, but he's beginning to seem like he has no realistic chance. I'll be happy enough with Warren. What she needs to do is to show some intelligence (of which she had plenty) on military topics. She needs to show she would be a respected commander-in-chief. Warren/Buttigieg in 2020 ... she brings in progressives, he supplies experience with military intelligence and foreign cultures. That would be a strong ticket.

Warren is clearly healthier than sanders, even though they're both in their 70s where everything is unpredictable. Still, Warren has an 8-year advantage over Sanders, and a slender frame where he's had a heart attack. Women typically live longer than men. Health-wise, her odds are significantly better. I see Warren as being smarter than Sanders, better able to handle the complexity the presidency requires. Wikipedia says "He has described himself as a mediocre college student" and offers an excuse: it was boring to him. Warren has a B.Sc. in speech pathology and a law degree; the different disciplines are a sign of mental flexibility. Those are indications, but the following, from the article, describes what makes me prefer Warren to Sanders. The bolding and italics are mine. <snip> Mr. Sanders would be 79 when he assumed office, and after an October heart attack, his health is a serious concern. Then, there’s how Mr. Sanders approaches politics. He boasts that compromise is anathema to him. Only his prescriptions can be the right ones, even though most are overly rigid, untested and divisive. He promises that once in office, a groundswell of support will emerge to push through his agenda. Three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another.

There will probably be some very bad things before the election, to rile up his base. I'm expecting that before the election, another case will be revealed, where he used his office for personal gain to the country's detriment. If he loses the election, he'll likely not concede and instead blame a scapegoat. There may be violence from armed supporters. If he wins he'll feel free to do any manner of insane $hít.

I guess no-one. It's free to stream if you have Amazon Prime. Seasons 1 to 3 are available, and we've now watched them all. A lot of it is very funny, and there are many moments of howling laughter. My favorite character is Susie Myerson: Lenny Bruce is a character, beautifully played.

Beside being a great musician and ethnomusicologist, Ry Cooder has always been in the side of the poor, and of the immigrant. Ry Cooder's No Banker Left Behind:

Yes. Good. I'm fine with that. They're a private organization and can make their own rules, if they think it's necessary. My belief is that they thought it was necessary for PR reasons. OK, that's alright too. My bet is that they find another sneakier way to put their thumbs on the scale for whoever they think is best. (Like when Blacks got the vote, and then poll taxes and other sneaky laws took it away.) Because: It's going to take very much political work, for many decades, to make this country one that serves the majority, instead of the wealthy. It won't happen in my lifetime. The best we can do is put our own thumbs on the scale with whatever measly rights we have. Note that it was designed that way from the beginning. At first, only white male landowners had the vote. In 1828, white men who didn't own land were allowed to vote. Why? It was the rise of non-land related wealth. Banks and businesses were donating money to campaigns. So the property requirement was dropped. There was a tiny bit of altruism in deference to northern religious liberals that gave Blacks the vote, but only the suffrage movement got women the vote. And only because they just wouldn't shut up. (That's a great strategy, by the way.) It really looked like democracy for a while under the Kennedys, until they killed two of them and MLK to boot. "That'll learn us." So here's a quote from a song: "They put Jesus on a cross, they put a hole in JFK. They put Hitler in the driver's seat and looked the other way. Now we've got poison in the water and the whole world is in a trance, but just because we're hypnotized that don't mean we can't dance!" - Tonio K. Big change isn't allowed by the wealthiest. If Sanders somehow happens to win, he won't be allowed to do much. Change must be snuck in incrementally. We have one hope: big wealth has changed due to the change in wealth generating systems. Maybe high tech wealth will work for some beneficial change.

Come on, the entire fûçkiñg setup of the country is an insult to democracy. I'm defining that as 1 adult, 1 vote, and this country is set up against that, over and over. 1. Gerrymandering. I don't need to explain why that's wrong. I'm sure everyone agrees with me. 2. The Senate. How is it democratic that California, with nearly 40 million people, gets two senators, while Wyoming and Vermont, each with under 1 million, also each get two senators? 3. The electoral college. How is it democratic that California, with nearly 40 million people, gets 55 electoral college votes while Wyoming and Vermont, each with under 1 million, each get two? The number of people per electoral vote is heavily in favor of the small states. In fact, those two states have twice the representation of California, by population. A political party is a private organization run by itself and not an organ of the government. It has the right to do whatever it wants, and we have the right to join it, not join it, vote for or against it, or not at all. So Bernie Sanders can get in, and then get out, support the winner or not. His right, his decision. But the Democratic party can see any of that as a betrayal of the party by someone who doesn't give a crap about it, and make any rules it wants against him. That's not an insult to democracy, that's a party, a private entity, making it's own rules for itself. Anyone is free to organize their own party.

The Supreme Court has set the rules of the game. If any candidate plays but a different set of rules it's like a tennis champ deciding to play with his sneakers tied together. He might be so talented that he wins anyway. But it's unlikely. I won't fault Sanders or Warren for taking money, unless they take it from white supremacists or that ilk, like the orange thing in office.

Sure, of course. We'll have that. I'll support the winner, whoever that is. I hope that this time, so do the Bernie Bros. I remember what happened in the last Democratic primary. Long after it became clear that Hillary Clinton would be the nominee, Sanders still refused to bow out and endorse her. It was even clear that she won the popular vote, not just super delegates, and he still didn't stop and endorse. After she had the majority of both popular vote and super delegates, it still took Sanders over a month to endorse her. That sends a message to Bernie Bros. I wonder how many votes that cost Clinton in the general. I wonder whether it cost her any states. I wonder whether it cost her the election. There's no way of knowing how much damage was done by the Bernie Bros. That's how much of a Democrat Sanders is. Not a team player. Not on the team at all. And the party massively wanted her, based on super delegates. I think super delegates are an important feature because they have the experience and seriousness to guide the party away from travesties like the Republicans got with Trump. (Republican super delegates are required to vote for their state's primary winner; they don't have the free vote the Democratic super delegates have.) Super delegates in the Democratic Party are the "responsibility brake" on whatever nonsense happens to be the Democratic moral equivalent to the Tea Partiers. Maybe Marianne Williamson supporters, next time.

It would be very nice if helping clean up the world would also make you some money 💰. When as far back as Clinton, people were talking about "the new economy". I guess it's here in spades.

That's good news. More good news: Citing Climate Change, BlackRock Will Start Moving Away from Fossil Fuels BlackRock is an investment company that controls about 8.5% of all the money in the world.

Trump accuses Dems of using impeachment trial to hurt Sanders campaign Another conspiracy theory, another lying twit.

Got it. People aren't ready. Right, not ready. They want the status quo. Whoa, whoa, wait up a minute there. Which is it? Not ready for change, want status quo ... but also want change and Sanders? Here's what 50% of the country wants: not much change, except to punish everybody they don't like, among these: Mexicans, Muslims, university graduates, Black people and foreigners. Here's what the other 50% wants: Medicare for all, racial equality, social justice, money out of politics, no gerrymandering. Do you see deep change happening quickly in a country designed with a Court, House, Senate, and presidency all designed to oppose each other?

I agree.