In late July, delegates to the Democratic National Convention will gather in Philadelphia, not only to nominate a president and vice president but to debate a reform agenda for the party itself. Bernie Sanders’ call for a political revolution is centered on democratizing U.S. politics, including the Democratic Party, and his delegation will number at least 1,700. “Big money out and voters in” should be their rallying cry; spending on the 2016 election is on track to exceed the 2012 record of $7 billion.
Hmmm....this is a familiar theme: if you are not winning, it's not fair, so change the rules so you do win.
On election day, the least extreme position usually wins at the national level. This time we've got no one in the middle.
If Sanders were half as smart as you claim he is, he would tone down the rhetoric and shift right a few steps.
As it is, he is more scary on-the-fringe, for "middle America", than either Trump or Clinton. Clinton is a "known" quantity.
Trump has not taken any extreme positions, except to call everyone a jerk. For the average American, that may just win the day
Yes obviously these things would help. They are what Bernie has talked about many times. That's why he has the support of so many. Bernie supporters will not support Clinton. That's a start.
Roy, thank you so much for this. I was actually starting to fall for the crappe proposed in this article. And Sander's moving to the right? Genius. Why didn't we think of this before. We'll pass it along to him.
At a minimum the caucuses should be ended and there should be all primaries.
Am I missing it -- or is there no mention in this article of our HACK-ABLE voting computers ?????????????????
I am a delegate to the Texas Democratic Convention in San Antonio. I just received an email today stating "All positions can be self-nominated at the caucus except candidates for National Delegate for which the filing deadline has passed." I never received an email explaining the filing deadline for National Delegate before the deadline, whenever that was. It seems like that was some sort of inside information and another fix.
You assume that the Democratic Party wants to "broaden its base", to be more democratic. Have you considered that the Parties are just fine with the system they have in place. It is the system that continues to allow control of the country - and beyond - to the power elite. It works quite well for their true purposes.
Oh, so THAT'S why polls repeatedly show Sanders beating Trump by more percentage points than Clinton - because Sanders is more "scary."
Thank for clearing things up, Roy!!!
Don't forget the maaachiiiiiiines! eeeek!
More parties, get rid of the electoral kindergarten, DIRECT ELECTIONS
Sorry - I did not mean America's heartland. I met the ideological middle America.
I can certainly appreciate the feeling that the "working class" is under attack.
When you have spent a fair amount of time punching a time clock in a factory, or putting in very long hours doing farm labor just to try to have food and a roof over your head at night, it is easy to feel like the world is a pretty difficult place. Been there, done that.
It is one thing to work toward better access to medical care, or toward better schools for your children, or better safety rules in your place of work.
But it seems to me that ideological predators are hijacking good and worthy progressive goals and substituting empty, fabricated emotional issues, such as "get big corporations out of the food supply" in an attempt to seize political power. Over and over, history has shown that emotional campaigns based on intangibles lead to the establishment of dictatorships under which everyone except the new privileged political elite suffered.
How is getting big corporations out of the food supply an intangible?
I wonder if he’s the real Roy Williams, the likable former Kansas Jayhawks coach. Probably not, from his ridiculous view about Sanders.
Cargill and the other big corporations have made our food supply the most plentiful, safest, and least expensive in the world. That is definitely not an a bad thing. Less than 2% of all Americans have any contact with agriculture, and the vast majority of our food is grown by less than 200,000 farms. There are people with political ambitions, and some large companies that want to control the food supply, who can achieve their ambitions if enough people believe that biotech companies control the food supply. It is an old and proven way to control the masses - if you campaign long enough that someone else is doing something bad, enough public attention will get focused on the someone else, and then you quietly do exactly what you were accusing someone else of doing, pigs in Animal Farm style. It is deceitful, dishonest, unethical, and unscientific, but that is the way things happen. The biotech companies will thrive only if they continually expand the number of different seeds they produce, and those seeds get better and better at making it easier and cheaper for a farmer to grow a crop. The companies and organizations that are trying to take over the food supply wish to restrict what food is available, restrict how the food is grown, and raise the price using the vacuous claim that their product is better.
Yes, there is a lot of clear cutting going on in certain parts of the world. But it is a complex problem; I do not accept any simple explanation like "its all the fault of JBS", because clear cutting happened on a massive scale here in the eastern US up until about 60 years ago, and that was most certainly not due to the actions of "Big Ag". Clear cutting goes on today in the US - millions of acres of farm land and forest being converted to suburban housing development.
In my view, the anti-CAFO emotion has been generated entirely by radical animal rights activists taking advantage of the complete ignorance of people who live in the very artificial and totally synthetic urban environment. I've worked on some of the largest dairy farms in the U.S. The cattle on large farms have care, feed, facilities, and veterinary attention of higher quality than the vast majority of small farms have the resources or expertise to provide. As one New England farmer said to me "we know how to farm way better than we can afford to farm".
Thanks to international trade, you have cell phones, computers, modern vehicles, GPS on your tractor and in your car, because we are totally dependent on China and to a lesser extent on countries in the Middle East for certain critical minerals to make those products. There is a great amount of controversy over the effect on jobs as a result of international trade agreements, and both sides can bring up all sorts of evidence for their position. Clearly, if you lost your job because where you worked shut down specifically because the company decided to move that operation overseas, you are directly affected. On the other hand, if you were hired by Toyota because they opened an new assembly plant near your home, you are also affected, in a positive way. People who lose jobs are those who complain loudly. People who get jobs don't complain, so it is an unbalanced debate.
Nearly everything in your life exists, and you can afford to have it (including the computer / cell phone and internet service that we are using for communication), because extremely large corporations had the resources to bring those products and services to market. Many people who are alive and productive citizens today would have died years ago had not very large, multi-national corporations gathered together the billions of dollars in resources required to take a scientific discovery made in a government-funded lab in a research university from lab-bench discovery to product on the pharmacists' shelf.
Sorry, but your statement about "financialization of the American economy has brought us to the bring of a neo-feudal society" leaves me completely bewildered as to what you mean or to what you are referring, so I can't respond.
No it is not "Clintonian triangulation" (whatever than means). You are in a different space than I, and words have different meanings in different places. That is why, in a "diverse" society, misunderstandings are rampant.
Carol, I really don't get your point. What are you asking? What "idiots" that "brought us global warming"? What are you talking about, "censored our constitution"? And what are you referring to about "privatizing water"? Sorry, I absolutely do not buy into any "conspiracy theory", if that is what you are getting at.
Sorry, but I really don't agree with Ikerd's views. I'm happy to acknowledge that there is a "local food movement", but I live in New Hampshire, which in spite of very vocal support for "local food", the state must "import" 90% of its food. As a consumer, I really dislike the "local food" movement trying to grow on the insinuation that any food that is not local is not healthy, e.g. "healthy local food". Don't tell me that the fruit I buy in the middle of winter that is shipped here from Brazil, New Zealand, Italy, and other places in not "healthy" just because it is not "local". Most places just cannot grow commercial quantities of fruits; while many vegetables can be grown in greenhouses, farmers in my state tell me that it is not economically feasible to do so here. Essentially all of my food, most of the year, must not be local. Another issue is that the quality of a lot of "locally grown" food appears to be inferior to competing products. The "locally grown" movement needs to fix that. A recent report of a large survey done by an academic group indicates that an increasing number of consumers are willing to pay more for produce they perceive to be "better". I am very troubled by the fact that "better" is being defined by marketing claims and not by objective facts.
FAIR TRANSPARENT ELECTIONS for ALL STATES! One law requiring automatic enrollment to vote for party of choice. Monitoring of electronic vote machines with ability to recount & observe all aspects of process by public &independent checks on ALL software in the machines!