Jump to content
zkyllonen8

What if Bernie Wins in New York?

Recommended Posts

In view of Hillary's big win in the New York primary yesterday, her nomination is all but assured ... Bernie is no longer a serious factor. Assuming Hillary becomes the next president, and that's still a big "IF", we have to hope for a Democratic congress ... As skews13 put it "Clinton won't be able to sign any pro corporate legislation, because Liberals in the Senate will never let it reach her desk."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't in the cards for him. The best hope for the middleclass is a Liberal judiciary. That's where the focus has to be. Along with a Democratic Senate. Clinton won't be able to sign any pro corporate legislation, because Liberals in the Senate will never let it reach her desk. If she wins, and the Dems take back the Senate, the Republicans are back benched for at least 6 years, as Senate terms are that long. Bernie has created a Liberal movement with his campaign, and it will be even stronger in the elections in the future. With a solidly Liberal judiciary, including the Supreme Court. The biggest victory of all for Liberals, and the middleclass is forcing the Republican party to move to the left. It will take few years for that to sink in. But as Bernie would say, it's YUUGE.

 

While Senate terms are 6 years, only one-third (approx.) of Senate seats are contested in any 2 year election cycle on a rotating basis, so a Democratic majority this round (let's hope) doesn't guaranteed the GOP is back benched for 6 years.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very disappointing. What is to stop Hillary from appointing fiscal right wingers to the supreme court? This will in no way remove bribery from government. Big money wins again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is ironic that the only supposed hope to stop HRC's right-wing corporatist agenda is the Democratic congress that Sanders supporters suggest are corporate whores. Good grief.

 

It is time for the sanctimoniousness to end.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Citizen's United has made it very hard to stay in office without accepting corporate funding.

 

Politicians usually choose to become Democrats in the first place, because their sentiments are with the ordinary people. Otherwise they would have chosen to be Republicans. So to stay in office, they might take corporate money in return for favorable legislation. But a good part of the agenda of most Democrats is still in favor of their constituencies.

 

A Democratic congress will probably not be able to prevent Hillary from waging unnecessary wars. But it can prevent legislation favorable to corporations from reaching her desk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Citizen's United has made it very hard to stay in office without accepting corporate funding.

 

Politicians usually choose to become Democrats in the first place, because their sentiments are with the ordinary people. Otherwise they would have chosen to be Republicans. So to stay in office, they might take corporate money in return for favorable legislation. But a good part of the agenda of most Democrats is still in favor of their constituencies.

 

A Democratic congress will probably not be able to prevent Hillary from waging unnecessary wars. But it can prevent legislation favorable to corporations from reaching her desk.

 

So the corporate whores in the Congress will be able to stop the corporate whore in the White House? :glare:

 

Nice.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a point. All politics in the US is moving toward the right. Corruption is rife in both parties. But there are still a few Democratic stalwarts in Congress bucking the trend.

 

http://thatsmycongress.com/house/

Strong Liberals. The following Representatives have earned a Net Congressional Score between 70 and 100:

 

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI 13) Liberal Action Score: 88/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 88

Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD 4) Liberal Action Score: 88/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 88

Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ 3) Liberal Action Score: 88/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 88

Rep. Michael Honda (D-CA 17) Liberal Action Score: 88/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 88

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA 2) Liberal Action Score: 88/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 88

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA 13) Liberal Action Score: 88/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 88

Rep. James McGovern (D-MA 2) Liberal Action Score: 88/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 88

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR 3) Liberal Action Score: 81/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 81

Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA 27) Liberal Action Score: 81/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 81

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN 5) Liberal Action Score: 81/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 81

Rep. John Lewis (D-GA 5) Liberal Action Score: 81/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 81

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA 7) Liberal Action Score: 81/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 81

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME 1) Liberal Action Score: 81/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 81

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN 9) Liberal Action Score: 75/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 75

Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA 20) Liberal Action Score: 75/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 75

Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ 12) Liberal Action Score: 75/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 75

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY 13) Liberal Action Score: 75/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 75

Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL 1) Liberal Action Score: 75/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 75

Rep. John Tierney (D-MA 6) Liberal Action Score: 75/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 75

Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY 20) Liberal Action Score: 75/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 75

Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN 4) Liberal Action Score: 81/100 Conservative Action Score: 11/100 Net Congressional Score: 70

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY 25) Liberal Action Score: 81/100 Conservative Action Score: 11/100 Net Congressional Score: 70

Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-IL 9) Liberal Action Score: 81/100 Conservative Action Score: 11/100 Net Congressional Score: 70

 

 

Strong Liberals. The following Senators have earned a Net Congressional Score between 70 and 100:

 

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) Liberal Score: 88/100 Conservative Score: 0/100 Net Score: 88 Phone: 202-224-5244 Contact online

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Liberal Score: 75/100 Conservative Score: 0/100 Net Score: 75 Phone: 202-224-3553 Contact online

Senator Mark Begich (D-AK) Liberal Score: 75/100 Conservative Score: 0/100 Net Score: 75 Phone: 202-224-3004 Contact online

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) Liberal Score: 75/100 Conservative Score: 0/100 Net Score: 75 Phone: 202-224-2823 Contact online

Senator Alan Franken (D-MN) Liberal Score: 75/100 Conservative Score: 0/100 Net Score: 75 Phone: 202-224-5641 Contact online

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Liberal Score: 75/100 Conservative Score: 0/100 Net Score: 75 Phone: 202-224-4242 Contact online

Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) Liberal Score: 75/100 Conservative Score: 0/100 Net Score: 75 Phone: 202-224-3753 Contact online

Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT) Liberal Score: 75/100 Conservative Score: 0/100 Net Score: 75 Phone: 202-224-5141 Contact online

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a point. All politics in the US is moving toward the right. Corruption is rife in both parties. But there are still a few Democratic stalwarts in Congress bucking the trend.

 

http://thatsmycongress.com/house/

Strong Liberals. The following Representatives have earned a Net Congressional Score between 70 and 100:

 

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI 13) Liberal Action Score: 88/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 88

Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD 4) Liberal Action Score: 88/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 88

Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ 3) Liberal Action Score: 88/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 88

Rep. Michael Honda (D-CA 17) Liberal Action Score: 88/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 88

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA 2) Liberal Action Score: 88/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 88

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA 13) Liberal Action Score: 88/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 88

Rep. James McGovern (D-MA 2) Liberal Action Score: 88/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 88

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR 3) Liberal Action Score: 81/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 81

Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA 27) Liberal Action Score: 81/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 81

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN 5) Liberal Action Score: 81/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 81

Rep. John Lewis (D-GA 5) Liberal Action Score: 81/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 81

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA 7) Liberal Action Score: 81/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 81

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME 1) Liberal Action Score: 81/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 81

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN 9) Liberal Action Score: 75/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 75

Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA 20) Liberal Action Score: 75/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 75

Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ 12) Liberal Action Score: 75/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 75

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY 13) Liberal Action Score: 75/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 75

Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL 1) Liberal Action Score: 75/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 75

Rep. John Tierney (D-MA 6) Liberal Action Score: 75/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 75

Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY 20) Liberal Action Score: 75/100 Conservative Action Score: 0/100 Net Congressional Score: 75

Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN 4) Liberal Action Score: 81/100 Conservative Action Score: 11/100 Net Congressional Score: 70

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY 25) Liberal Action Score: 81/100 Conservative Action Score: 11/100 Net Congressional Score: 70

Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-IL 9) Liberal Action Score: 81/100 Conservative Action Score: 11/100 Net Congressional Score: 70

 

 

Strong Liberals. The following Senators have earned a Net Congressional Score between 70 and 100:

 

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) Liberal Score: 88/100 Conservative Score: 0/100 Net Score: 88 Phone: 202-224-5244 Contact online

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Liberal Score: 75/100 Conservative Score: 0/100 Net Score: 75 Phone: 202-224-3553 Contact online

Senator Mark Begich (D-AK) Liberal Score: 75/100 Conservative Score: 0/100 Net Score: 75 Phone: 202-224-3004 Contact online

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) Liberal Score: 75/100 Conservative Score: 0/100 Net Score: 75 Phone: 202-224-2823 Contact online

Senator Alan Franken (D-MN) Liberal Score: 75/100 Conservative Score: 0/100 Net Score: 75 Phone: 202-224-5641 Contact online

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Liberal Score: 75/100 Conservative Score: 0/100 Net Score: 75 Phone: 202-224-4242 Contact online

Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) Liberal Score: 75/100 Conservative Score: 0/100 Net Score: 75 Phone: 202-224-3753 Contact online

Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT) Liberal Score: 75/100 Conservative Score: 0/100 Net Score: 75 Phone: 202-224-5141 Contact online

 

Of the "strong liberal" Senators listed above: Wyden, Boxer, Blumenthal, Franken, and Leahy, all endorse Clinton.

 

Marc Begich is no longer a Senator. Jeff Merkley is the only Senate colleague to endorse Sanders.

 

So I don't know your point? The notion that there are "strong liberals" who can save us from the corporatism of HRC doesn't compute with the idea that all top-Democrats (and especially those who support Clinton) are corporate whores who are on the take.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

corporate whores

 

Your term not mine. I never used it.

 

There are various degrees of dependency on corporate money. The list I posted (the latest available) show those least on the take and the most free to support their constituencies. Implying that dependency on corporate money is all or nothing is setting up a straw man. Hillary, however is unusually dependent on corporate contributions, as I showed earlier in this thread.

 

The fact that some of the most Liberal support Hillary for president might be for a variety of political reasons. But it doesn't mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that they will send corporate favorable legislation to the her desk, should she become president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your term not mine. I never used it.

 

There are various degrees of dependency on corporate money. The list I posted (the latest available) show those least on the take and the most free to support their constituencies. Implying that dependency on corporate money is all or nothing is setting up a straw man. Hillary, however is unusually dependent on corporate contributions, as I showed earlier in this thread.

 

The fact that some of the most Liberal support Hillary for president might be for a variety of political reasons. But it doesn't mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that they will send corporate favorable legislation to the her desk, should she become president.

 

You've repeatedly stated all top-Democrats (especially Clinton supporters) are corrupt and on the take. Now they are the saviors who will protect us from HRC's corporatism.

 

The straw-man is one you (and your candidate) have set up.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You've repeatedly stated all top-Democrats (especially Clinton supporters) are corrupt and on the take. Now they are the saviors who will protect us from HRC's corporatism.

 

The straw-man is one you (and your candidate) have set up.

 

Bill

 

This style of so-called debate is just to contradict everything. Very repetitive and predictable. Nothing new is offered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This style of so-called debate is just to contradict everything. Very repetitive and predictable. Nothing new is offered.

 

We could not agree more.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary will favor corporations. I'm under no illusion that she won't, or that any congress will stop her. Unfortunately the rules that the Democratic and Republican parties put on the debates (requiring 15% in the polls 2 weeks before the first debtae) makes it impossible for a third party candidate to be viable.

When the choice is between a slightly right-wing warhawk who is at least liberal on social issues, versus a theocrat or a crazy xenophobe, the choice has to be the slightly right-wing warhawk. At least until they change the rules for the debates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary will favor corporations. I'm under no illusion that she won't, or that any congress will stop her. Unfortunately the rules that the Democratic and Republican parties put on the debates (requiring 15% in the polls 2 weeks before the first debtae) makes it impossible for a third party candidate to be viable.

 

When the choice is between a slightly right-wing warhawk who is at least liberal on social issues, versus a theocrat or a crazy xenophobe, the choice has to be the slightly right-wing warhawk. At least until they change the rules for the debates.

It's hard for me to play that game. You set it up correctly, but either way I get hurt. I would favor instant runoff voting where you rank the candidates, and if your candidate loses, it selects your second choice, or third choice...

 

If the choice is between Trump and Clinton, I will probably vote for Jill Stein (Green Party).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/feb/23/bernie-sanders-democrat/

highlights a fundamental Sanders dishonesty, namely his recent claim that he's a Democrat. He only uses the claim of being a Democrat when it suits him for practical reasons.

 

This is even more clear in fundraising. In order that any progressive goals be accomplished, it isn't enough to have a Democratic president, as we've seen with President Obama. You also need a Democratic Congress. Accordingly, Clinton also raises money for Democrats in congressional races, not only for herself. That earns her the support of super-delegates. In the meantime, Sanders goal is to be president, and other Democrats be damned, because he's really an independent. And what will he be able to accomplish without support from Democrats?

 

He even admits to being an independent on his Senate web page, where he calls himself an "independent member of Congress": http://www.sanders.senate.gov/about

 

Any claim to purity he may have evaporates in the face of that bit of purely political mendacity: running as a Democrat.

 

But I'm not interested in purity. If he becomes the candidate, I will immediately support him. He won't get much done, but at least he'll make great Supreme Court appointments.

 

If Clinton becomes the candidate, anyone who thinks campaign finance is the most important issue should vote for the self-financing Donald Trump in the general election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point about the possibility of Bernie not getting cooperation as president. But it's really academic now. After Hillary's big NY primary win, Bernie's chances suddenly diminish to slim and none. Barring the unexpected, Hillary will be the Democratic candidate.

 

Campaign finance for a competent candidate is high on my list of important issues. A Trump presidency would be a catastrophe for the US. Means of finance pales into irrelevance when the candidate is not presidential material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I agree with everything you just wrote.

 

About cooperation: I hope the Republicans are so alienated by their horrible candidate that they stay away from the polls. Maybe the Democrats can win back the Senate at least.

 

Maybe one day people will see how the tea party f***ed up the House, and then Democrats can win that back too.

 

When that happens, it will be the opportunity to put pressure on for a single-payer healthcare system.

 

The right always talks about how much that will cost. I think it will actually boost the economy by freeing people up to be able to leave jobs and start up businesses. Small individualized skilled services will become very important in the economy because old-style manufacturing jobs aren't coming back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About cooperation: I hope the Republicans are so alienated by their horrible candidate that they stay away from the polls. Maybe the Democrats can win back the Senate at least.

 

Maybe one day people will see how the tea party f***ed up the House, and then Democrats can win that back too.

 

When that happens, it will be the opportunity to put pressure on for a single-payer healthcare system.

 

The right always talks about how much that will cost. I think it will actually boost the economy by freeing people up to be able to leave jobs and start up businesses.

 

The Republican melodrama has yet to play out ... there's a high possibility for the unexpected. But assuming Hillary faces The Donald in the general election and dominates him, her coat tails might help in turning Congress left. We need all three branches. At first, single-payer will be a blow to the vast insurance industry and the economy. In the long run, the benefits will become more than apparent.

 

 

Small individualized skilled services will become very important in the economy because old-style manufacturing jobs aren't coming back.

 

Good idea. We also need labor unions to represent all service workers, at the very least.

 

 

because old-style manufacturing jobs aren't coming back

.

Not until worldwide pay normalizes and there's no longer anyplace industry can go to exploit dirt-cheap labor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three Types of Campaign Finance:

 

1 - Candidates funded mostly by their constituencies (Includes labor union membership). Candidates funded this way are beholden to their voters. If they displease their constituencies, their funding dries up. Once in office, their only obligation is to those who voted them in.

 

2 - Mainly self-funded candidates. These candidates are autonomous and not obligated to pay anyone back for anything. If they displease any part of their constituencies, their funding is not affected. Once in office, there need be no concern about obligations to financial backers. Their own agendas and possibly campaign promises, are their only worries.

 

3 - Candidates receiving most of their funding from large special interests. If they displease these entities, no further donations will be forthcoming. Once in office, they are expected to provide favorable legislation in return for previous support. If not, the agreement ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need all three branches.

 

Yup, and state legislatures and governors too, because a lot of the current tea party problem comes from gerrymandering at the state level.

 

Small individualized skilled services will become very important in the economy because old-style manufacturing jobs aren't coming back.

 

Good idea. We also need labor unions to represent all service workers, at the very least.

 

Sure. The workers at big chain restaurants, Walmart/Target etc etc should all find ways to get unionized. Pay is an issue, but also safety, hours, training are also considerations.

 

What I was thinking of when I wrote "Small individualized skilled services" was people who start their own small businesses. As the baby boom ages out, they're going to be hiring help more and more often. Help cleaning the house, nursing help, gardening, other maintenance. This shouldn't always be done by large companies, or it won't be personalized. There's a niche for small, personal businesses.

 

 

Small individualized skilled services will become very important in the economy because old-style manufacturing jobs aren't coming back.

 

Not until worldwide pay normalizes and there's no longer anyplace industry can go to exploit dirt-cheap labor.

 

Not even then. The world is mechanizing. Manufacturing will be mostly robotic, with a few skilled workers who can maintain and reconfigure machines as necessary. Worldwide pay will normalize, but it will do so at the lowest possible level.

 

Why? Because computing has off-loaded many tasks, and made many jobs disappear. That advance will be taken up everywhere.

 

Think about bank tellers. That job is still around, for specialized things, but they need far fewer of them since ATMs became universal.

Think about cashiers. I have self-checkout at almost every store I patronize.

 

How many store clerks do you still need when people buy from Amazon? Some, but not nearly as many.

Then, as delivery companies are doing big business, they're starting to talk about delivery by drone. Faster and more efficient, once they've worked out the bugs: You'll still need some drivers, but not nearly as many.

 

More and more tasks are either being off-loaded to the consumer, or done by machines, and businesses therefore hire fewer people.

 

Many people will not have the intelligence to fill the new positions, which will also be fewer in number. Many people will not have the intelligence to start small service businesses.

 

I expect to see a lot more prostitution and drug dealing as people of limited ability look for ways to make money.

 

The real challenge in the future is going to be: how can we have a system in which unemployable people can still have meaning and fulfillment in their lives. It's easy enough to use society's surplus to clothe, house and feed them and that will come too, because computing and mechanization raises the overall wealth of society, and modern societies won't let people starve or freeze. But what's hard is to give people who are essentially useless some meaning to their lives. (Not that all the corrupt religious figures won't try.)

 

The next big inequality will come when genetics and nanoscience figure out ways to extend life indefinitely, and only the rich and those covered by high-end jobs will be able to afford it. The less able and the poor will become a servant class to superannuated elite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yup, and state legislatures and governors too, because a lot of the current tea party problem comes from gerrymandering at the state level.

 

This is of utmost importance. As of now, a big majority of state governors and legislatures are Republican. If "All politics is local", Democrats need to put effort not only into federal elections but state governments as well. Gerrymandering and flipping election results electronically are rendering Democracy a sham in many townships and at the state level. And very little is being done to combat it.

 

Meanwhile, Republican governors and legislatures are throwing up ever more restrictive barriers to register and vote ... Reducing the representation mainly of poor people and minorities. Government "by consent of the governed" is being subverted by a dying party which recognizes it is heading for demographic obscurity.

 

Sure. The workers at big chain restaurants, Walmart/Target etc etc should all find ways to get unionized. Pay is an issue, but also safety, hours, training are also considerations.

 

Having been a longtime union official, I can say that these are standard concerns of any labor union I know about.

 

 

What I was thinking of when I wrote "Small individualized skilled services" was people who start their own small businesses. As the baby boom ages out, they're going to be hiring help more and more often. Help cleaning the house, nursing help, gardening, other maintenance. This shouldn't always be done by large companies, or it won't be personalized. There's a niche for small, personal businesses.

 

Yes. And the creative arts too.

 

 

Not even then. The world is mechanizing. Manufacturing will be mostly robotic, with a few skilled workers who can maintain and reconfigure machines as necessary. Worldwide pay will normalize, but it will do so at the lowest possible level.

 

Why? Because computing has off-loaded many tasks, and made many jobs disappear. That advance will be taken up everywhere.

 

Think about bank tellers. That job is still around, for specialized things, but they need far fewer of them since ATMs became universal.

Think about cashiers. I have self-checkout at almost every store I patronize.

 

How many store clerks do you still need when people buy from Amazon? Some, but not nearly as many.

Then, as delivery companies are doing big business, they're starting to talk about delivery by drone. Faster and more efficient, once they've worked out the bugs: You'll still need some drivers, but not nearly as many.

 

More and more tasks are either being off-loaded to the consumer, or done by machines, and businesses therefore hire fewer people.

 

Many people will not have the intelligence to fill the new positions, which will also be fewer in number. Many people will not have the intelligence to start small service businesses.

 

 

I think this is broadly correct if it is allowed to unfold this way. Other more destructive technologies: Nuclear, biological, chemical warfare/terrorism, could cause a new dark age or worse. The specter of WMDs has bothered me since I was a kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hypocrisy is that Sanders, after first demanding that the super-delegates follow the popular vote has a near-zero chance if that's the case, and is now on a last-gasp quest to preserve an electoral rational by trying to flip super-delegates to vote against the will-of-the-people, in direct contravention of his so-called principals.

 

Senator Sanders' "lack of purity" extends beyond running "as a Democrat" to not running as "a democrat"(when convenience suits him).

 

When the campaign started I thought I liked and respected Senator Sanders, even if he had not yet won me over (which was in the realm of possibility). Those generally positive feelings have been greatly diminished, sorry to say.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the campaign started I thought I liked and respected Senator Sanders, even if he had not yet won me over (which was in the realm of possibility). Those generally positive feelings have been greatly diminished, sorry to say.

Take a breath. That's the same advice I'd give a Sanders supporter who resented Clinton.

 

Politics is a cutthroat game and the candidates will be convinced to do anything to win.

 

Soon the election will be over and Sanders will go back to doing good. He's a good man playing a tough, ugly, and unforgiving game. He served the country his entire adult life. He's going to lose the nomination and he deserves a pass on the hooking and high-sticking.

 

Hockey metaphor.... I'm a naturalized American from Canada and my team (Tampa) has just won the first playoff series. You can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take hockey out of the boy. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lacrosse coach myself (son's team for 4 seasons).

 

Sanders has already lost the nomination. He has no clear path. So he could be a mensch, and carry his message forward in a positive fashion, or he could be a schmuck. Unfortunately he's chosen the latter path. The roar of the crowds has seemingly turned the man's head. Not new in human history, but disappointing.

 

The man is embarrassing himself.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×