An unfortunate fact of political debate is that one often feels compelled to state and re-state what one thinks should be obvious, because a bunch of folks are apparently having success at pretending that something which seems obviously true is not true.
Some decent points made in this article, but this is a nonstarter and patently false:
"Of course, people can't be prevented from saying whatever they want. They can say that green is red and night is day. It's a free country..."
Is it a free country?
Why, then, are treaties like TIPP and TPP done in absolute secrecy?
Why did Obama leave Single Payer advocates out of the room when "negotiating" with Insurance companies for a plan IMPOSED on Americans?
Why are 2.2 million incarcerated with many more on probation or parole?
Let's stop with grades school "Columbus discovered America" style assertions.
Of course, in many areas, poor residents are "free" to live under bridges.
Many Congressional Democrats will support progressive social issues like womens' choice and same sex marriage while voting with the GOP on economic issues. As long as Clintons, Obamas and other corporate Democrats occupy the White House, few progressives will take on corporate Congressional Democrats.
If Bernie does well in the primaries you will see more progressives throwing their hats in races against the corporate Congressional Democrats...that is what feeling the Bern will look like.
Obama didn't just "LEAVE Single Payer advocates out of the room", his point gunner Max Baucus had them arrested and hauled out of the room in handcuffs.
I believe that Bernie does intend to make changes. Whether or not he can remains to be seen! Hillary, on the other hand plans to increment change one step forward two steps back. IMO.
And Dr. Flowers, too.
I've been mulling this matter more often over the past couple weeks as the Bernie Bandwagon gathers riders and steam. Every four years CD and the public at large seem to focus, laser-like, on the presidential contest as if it's in a vacuum. I truly hope those ready to cast for Sanders can find viable challengers to the status quo for their down-ticket choices. His candidacy this year is a gift ... but a great deal of assembly is required.
Its indeed been proven time and time again that the GOP didn't take control of both houses of Congress because they had such a huge following, they took control because so many voters who historically had voted Democrat stayed home because they are tired of holding their noses while they vote for the only slightly lesser evil, but more effective evil Congressional Democrats. States like California and Washington that have top two primaries for all offices except US President don't even allow voters to vote for third party Congressional candidates in the general election.
Our next steps are to continue the revolution Bernie starts. I envision the revolution being somewhat like our history books define "the industrial revolution." We are now entering a period which will be called the "renewables revolution." Bernie's revolution is not violent; quite the opposite, as it describes a new politics that will provide the people power to achieve the new renewables revolution.
Can we say, "Bernie Sanders," Mr. Naiman? Here it is in a sample sentence:
It matters that Bernie Sanders, not Hillary Clinton, win the Democratic candidacy.
See? No drone strike. Of course, I am not going to go calling it a "free country" for all that. Shouldn't we get to see Manning standing beside Ellsberg and at full liberty, addressing crowds at universities? Shouldn't we get to see Ed Snowden smiling and relaxing somewhere inside the United States and outside of armed guard?
It damned well ought to be a free country, and I imagine that's what you mean. But a Democratic president keeps busting, harassing, and killing some of my best news sources. That's partly because people go on calling the country "free." And I think you ought to be able to write "Bernie Sanders" in an article first.
I am not going to claim here that Bernie Sanders is going to solve all that. His foreign policy does suggest that he is sold way into the MIC, and that probably really is part of what has enabled him to survive as a candidate within the Democratic Party. But he is sure not Hillary Clinton, and he has a track record of taking on big money over a lot of domestic issues. That's not the same old same old. He really is a compromise candidate, and he really is least worst among the people who may have a shot at a major party candidacy. And, in Sanders' case, if he wins the candidacy and he is not shot, he will probably win the election against whichever of the killer clowns the Republicans propose.
Sanders is different enough that a lot of us were arguing that he would never get anywhere inside the Party. I did, and he has proven me wrong, thank goodness.
So where is Peter Green's comment that you are ostensibly replying to? Has that been removed? Doesn't seem quite fair, now does it? So what else is new ...
That oughta be ruled unconstitutional, doncha think?
Hmm, Peter Green's comments seem to be visible only to you ....
"Sanders is an independent" - prove it ...
Sanders - "I am a Democrat" ..
All the reasons Warren listed as to why it is important who is in the WH - i have been arguing the same for some time when confronted with the claim "Stein couldn't do anything in the WH" ..
Seeing how the only purpose a top two primary system serves is to assure that the US will always have just two sanctioned parties which for at least three decades have been a duopoly. That system should indeed be unconstitutional.
So is anyone challenging it in court?
While California and Washington voters approved initiatives for the top two primary system, Oregon voters voted it down twice, most recently in 2014.
I know of no court challenges.
So why isn't anyone challenging it, do you suppose?