Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

This ought to be interesting, how is the business being subsidized? The business doesn't receive government subsidies or free government money in the form of grants. KEEP IN MIND, YOU ARE SPEAKING WITH A US TAXPAYER WHO PAYS TAXES TO ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT WHICH SUPPORTS THE THINGS YOU'VE BEEN USING FOR AN ARGUMENT. The US Constitution is a legal document and a clear representation of libertarian ideals that exists in America. Libertarian ideals and the laws associated with them pertaining to government and the people are what allows us to be different people and oppose one another without having to kill each other. It's OK to be a communist, promote communism, profess communist visions and ideals within America as long the communist is able recognize and respect the libertarian ideals and principals that govern over them and the larger libertarian population that still value and support them. Bob gets it. Why aren't you getting it?

Yes, you pay taxes. Good for you. You also get a lot more for yours than I do for mine. I only get personal services. Your business gets services too, police protection not being insignificant. Tell me, if the security alarm at your business triggers, who responds? 99% of the time, it's not some private security dweeb. So you pay taxes, but nowhere near enough to get all the services you take for granted. Try buying them on the private market.

Back in the Gilded Age, when taxes and services were low, people built their own roads ... assuming they had the wherewithal. That's the end-game when the commonwealth is no longer common or wealth.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Yes, you pay taxes. Good for you. You also get a lot more for yours than I do for mine. I only get personal services. Your business gets services too, police protection not being insignificant. Tell me, if the security alarm at your business triggers, who responds? 99% of the time, it's not some private security dweeb. So you pay taxes, but nowhere near enough to get all the services you take for granted. Try buying them on the private market.

Back in the Gilded Age, when taxes and services were low, people built their own roads ... assuming they had the wherewithal. That's the end-game when the commonwealth is no longer common or wealth.

The police respond and then contact me to meet them. I pay for service with my local property taxes. I pay for police services where I live with property tax. I've probably paid more taxes than most people who post here. How much wealth do you want to continue losing? California is a borderline banana republic because its government is corrupt and greedy.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The police respond and then contact me to meet them. I pay for service with my local property taxes. I pay for police services where I live with property tax. I've probably paid more taxes than most people who post here. How much wealth do you want to continue losing? California is a borderline banana republic because its government is corrupt and greedy.

Why do you say California is a borderline banana republic because its government is corrupt and greedy? What is your basis for saying this?

No, the borderline banana republics are most of the red states, especially the southern ones.
https://newrepublic.com/article/1081...-are-guatemala

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The police respond and then contact me to meet them. I pay for service with my local property taxes.

If you own more property and make more income you should expect to pay more in taxes. You have more of a stake in the survival of the system.

I pay for police services where I live with property tax. I've probably paid more taxes than most people who post here.

So you are above average in earnings and personal spending.

How much wealth do you want to continue losing? California is a borderline banana republic because its government is corrupt and greedy.

California is above average in about everything positive except educational achievement. California has a very poor area with lots of people, namely the Central Valley.

But your state, Minnesota, is near the top in one measure of economic success -- the average credit rating of its residents. Not surprisingly, the state at the bottom is Mississippi. No, it is not because people are more reckless spenders; it is instead that they are more likely to get into trouble for taxes, utility bills, and medical emergencies.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I would have expected Kasich to fare much better in Minnesota than he did. Or is Michelle Bachmann the reality of the Republican Party in Minnesota now?

The old, moderate Minnesota GOP has been dead for over a decade, now.

BS racialized rhetoric like this are why I, a left-wing working class white guy, feel increasingly unwelcome in the Democratic Party.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Why do you say California is a borderline banana republic because its government is corrupt and greedy? What is your basis for saying this?

No, the borderline banana republics are most of the red states, especially the southern ones.
https://newrepublic.com/article/1081...-are-guatemala

One thing you might not expect to find in Alabama. (There is too much labeling going on to foster dialogue.)


http://hudsonalpha.org/about


… "HudsonAlpha connects these four endeavors into a single enterprise, making it one of the most unique areas for genomic discovery in the country. HudsonAlpha has generated major discoveries that impact disease diagnosis and treatment, ... fostered biotechnology companies and expanded the number of biosciences-literate people, many of whom will take their place among the future life sciences workforce. Additionally, HudsonAlpha has created one of the world’s first end-to-end genomic medicine programs to diagnose rare disease. Genomic research, educational outreach, clinical genomics and economic development: each of these mission areas advances the quality of life. ”…

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The police respond and then contact me to meet them. I pay for service with my local property taxes. I pay for police services where I live with property tax. I've probably paid more taxes than most people who post here. How much wealth do you want to continue losing? California is a borderline banana republic because its government is corrupt and greedy.

Two comments:

1. You don't pay for police response to a commercial alarm, nor does the alarm company. The rest of your non-business owning neighbors cover that. That is a well understood subsidy. Ask anyone with ADT, Brinks or any other large security vendor.
2. You do understand that California has a very hot economy, even though some aspects of it are a bit weak at the moment. Oil and gas are down, and some agriculture products are threatened by the drought, but the high tech industry, films and finance are doing great.

Originally Posted by Odin

BS racialized rhetoric like this are why I, a left-wing working class white guy, feel increasingly unwelcome in the Democratic Party.

Sadly, many of the key players in the niche identity politics game, like BLM, are put off by not getting the old knee-jerk support they got in the past. It's the weakness on the left that complements the no-compassion weakness on the right.

Originally Posted by Odin

BS racialized rhetoric like this are why I, a left-wing working class white guy, feel increasingly unwelcome in the Democratic Party.

We need reduce concerns about race in politics to consequences of racist politics and economics in the past and current consequences or to current discrimination. I say to the controversy about "Black Lives Matter" -- black lives really must matter in America if we are to have a good America. Maybe we need to change policies of police forces. Sure, you pull a gun on a cop and you die. But overreacting to a misdemeanor crime?

Real improvement of human life will not depend upon ethnic identity. If anything, people of color have typically felt the worst in America. If social democracy is a true solution to most of America's problems of equity, then it will need to appeal to people not white if it is to succeed in America.

Originally Posted by Odin

BS racialized rhetoric like this are why I, a left-wing working class white guy, feel increasingly unwelcome in the Democratic Party.

The author of your link is Kos, Markos Moulitsas, himself, who set up the DailyKos, the most popular political website of Progressives if not the most popular website of all that is political. Very few people on the Internet can hold a candle to what he has done for the Progressive movement, certainly not you.

Kos is first and foremost an election analyst (with a huge Progressive perspective) who leaves detailed policy discernments to others. His article is not addressing whether one or another candidate's policy positions is best; he's addressing it from how we kill off the GOP with sufficient and broad voter support.

Unfortunately, in the last few months, DailyKos diaries, but particularly commentary, has become a cesspool of Dems bickering over primary season. The worse of it has come from apparently bugged-eye, foaming-at-the-mouth supposed Bernie supporters with Clinton Hate Derangement Syndrome that would make even yours seem somewhat mild in comparison. Most Bernie supporters on the site have disavowed these crazed people and have gone so far as to suggest they are right wingnut trolls. The worse of their shXt has been the White mansplaining to people of color (PoC) why they are too stupid or ignorant to know that they should be voting Bernie - it's been ugly. It got particularly ugly after the SC result when the Bernie people's certitude that to-know-Bernie-is-to-love-Bernie (even PoC folks!) was shocked to its core. More than a few Bernie people (or GOP trolls?) didn't take it well.

If you would actually read Kos' piece, it is only stating the obvious that in a Party made up of 40% PoC, one doesn't treat them as not having the wherewithal to know their own self interest or insist that the needs/desires of young college degreed White guys need to be exactly the same for PoC who have very different life experiences. If you believe otherwise, you really do belong in that OTHER Party.

I think Kos made the mistake by saying you have to "start with" for that conveys that you start exclusively with PoC; I don't think he meant that. I think adding the word "simultaneously" would make eminent sense, and I believe that was what he was getting at.

Elections are emotional, and those emotions can get away from folks regardless of how otherwise pure their political intentions. Elections do require brains; Kos is just providing the reality that those whose brains are functioning should consider, hopefully without all the mouth foam.


Odin, you had the same reactions when Obama, your previous savior, didn't provide the magic ponies. Have you owned up to the t-baggers in Congress, the lack of a public option, insufficient government spending, and the host of other 'goodies' brought by staying home in the 2010 election? You helped build that. Will you take ownership in your role of making it President Trump? You're on the road to building that as well.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The author of your link is Kos, Markos Moulitsas, himself, who set up the DailyKos, the most popular political website of Progressives if not the most popular website of all that is political. Very few people on the Internet can hold a candle to what he has done for the Progressive movement, certainly not you.

Kos is first and foremost an election analyst (with a huge Progressive perspective) who leaves detailed policy discernments to others. His article is not addressing whether one or another candidate's policy positions is best; he's addressing it from how we kill off the GOP with sufficient and broad voter support.

Unfortunately, in the last few months, DailyKos diaries, but particularly commentary, has become a cesspool of Dems bickering over primary season. The worse of it has come from apparently bugged-eye, foaming-at-the-mouth supposed Bernie supporters with Clinton Hate Derangement Syndrome that would make even yours seem somewhat mild in comparison. Most Bernie supporters on the site have disavowed these crazed people and have gone so far as to suggest they are right wingnut trolls. The worse of their shXt has been the White mansplaining to people of color (PoC) why they are too stupid or ignorant to know that they should be voting Bernie - it's been ugly. It got particularly ugly after the SC result when the Bernie people's certitude that to-know-Bernie-is-to-love-Bernie (even PoC folks!) was shocked to its core. More than a few Bernie people (or GOP trolls?) didn't take it well.

If you would actually read Kos' piece, it is only stating the obvious that in a Party made up of 40% PoC, one doesn't treat them as not having the wherewithal to know their own self interest or insist that the needs/desires of young college degreed White guys need to be exactly the same for PoC who have very different life experiences. If you believe otherwise, you really do belong in that OTHER Party.

I think Kos made the mistake by saying you have to "start with" for that conveys that you start exclusively with PoC; I don't think he meant that. I think adding the word "simultaneously" would make eminent sense, and I believe that was what he was getting at.

Elections are emotional, and those emotions can get away from folks regardless of how otherwise pure their political intentions. Elections do require brains; Kos is just providing the reality that those whose brains are functioning should consider, hopefully without all the mouth foam.

Odin, you had the same reactions when Obama, your previous savior, didn't provide the magic ponies. Have you owned up to the t-baggers in Congress, the lack of a public option, insufficient government spending, and the host of other 'goodies' brought by staying home in the 2010 election? You helped build that. Will you take ownership in your role of making it President Trump? You're on the road to building that as well.

This sounds remarkably like the rationalization for a Grievance Party. Can we avoid going there? If the Dems are really focused on being the party that only carries the torch for aggrieved women, PoC, the disabled and so on, then they have chosen to be the party of petty feuds. Nothing arises from that but bickering. Think about it. Where is the common interest that provides the glue to unite a coalition that consists solely of small groups, each interested in its own narrow range of issues. Will the SJWs cross-over to support each other? I don't see any evidence of that. You'll need a few coalition-wide issues to do that, and gay marriage or black men being harassed by the police don't make that cut.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This sounds remarkably like the rationalization for a Grievance Party. Can we avoid going there? If the Dems are really focused on being the party that only carries the torch for aggrieved women, PoC, the disabled and so on, then they have chosen to be the party of petty feuds. Nothing arises from that but bickering. Think about it. Where is the common interest that provides the glue to unite a coalition that consists solely of small groups, each interested in its own narrow range of issues. Will the SJWs cross-over to support each other? I don't see any evidence of that. You'll need a few coalition-wide issues to do that, and gay marriage or black men being harassed by the police don't make that cut.

That's about the silliest thing I've ever seen you post; not your usual.

Sanders didn't run in the GOP and he didn't run as an independent; BREAKING NEWS! BERNIE IS RUNNING IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Do you think there might be a reason for that?

You really believe 60% of the Dems who are White are going to leave the Party because 40% who are PoC like one of the candidates better? Do you not believe that of the 60% that are White that many of them actually voted for the supposed candidate of just the 40% or that many more did vote for the alternative as a preference but still loyal to whoever the Dems put forward?

The most obvious coalition-wide issue is to keep another insane GOP a-hole out of the WH and not putting another GOP a-hole on the SCOTUS that your children and grandchildren will have to suffer under long after you're dead. If someone who normally votes Democratic doesn't get THAT issue, then I think we need to let them go ASAP - we don't need people who are as dumb as a brick - that's a Trump thing.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This sounds remarkably like the rationalization for a Grievance Party. Can we avoid going there? If the Dems are really focused on being the party that only carries the torch for aggrieved women, PoC, the disabled and so on, then they have chosen to be the party of petty feuds. Nothing arises from that but bickering. Think about it. Where is the common interest that provides the glue to unite a coalition that consists solely of small groups, each interested in its own narrow range of issues. Will the SJWs cross-over to support each other? I don't see any evidence of that. You'll need a few coalition-wide issues to do that, and gay marriage or black men being harassed by the police don't make that cut.

Hillary did well at that this Tuesday night. She gave the speech that the pundits have been wanting her to give.
https://youtu.be/UrHKKLPgpE4

Here she seems like a Lady I can believe in. Can it be true?

Originally Posted by playwrite

That's about the silliest thing I've ever seen you post; not your usual.

Sanders didn't run in the GOP and he didn't run as an independent; BREAKING NEWS! BERNIE IS RUNNING IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Do you think there might be a reason for that?

You really believe 60% of the Dems who are White are going to leave the Party because 40% who are PoC like one of the candidates better? Do you not believe that of the 60% that are White that many of them actually voted for the supposed candidate of just the 40% or that many more did vote for the alternative as a preference but still loyal to whoever the Dems put forward?

The most obvious coalition-wide issue is to keep another insane GOP a-hole out of the WH and not putting another GOP a-hole on the SCOTUS that your children and grandchildren will have to suffer under long after you're dead. If someone who normally votes Democratic doesn't get THAT issue, then I think we need to let them go ASAP - we don't need people who are as dumb as a brick - that's a Trump thing.

There is a huge difference between running as a champion of economic justice that impacts the 99%, and the champion of a basket of narrowly focused issues that affect slices of the population. Even Hillary's implied nod-nod-wink-wink at the female majority only reaches a subset of them ... and misses the ones that are the future of the country. We may be reaching the end of identity politics for this cycle. When it returns, we will be long gone.

So no, the electorate is not interested in stopping anyone from reaching the WH unless that person is considered an impediment. Even insults don't have traction, because the real issue in this election is power not aggrieved status. That doesn't make any of those issues unimportant. It just make them impotent.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

There is a huge difference between running as a champion of economic justice that impacts the 99%, and the champion of a basket of narrowly focused issues that affect slices of the population. Even Hillary's implied nod-nod-wink-wink at the female majority only reaches a subset of them ... and misses the ones that are the future of the country. We may be reaching the end of identity politics for this cycle. When it returns, we will be long gone.

And a HC supporter could say the same thing about Bernie's implied nod-nod-wink-wink at continuing the Progressive White man's burden, and it would make as much sense as your particular brand of identity politics.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

So no, the electorate is not interested in stopping anyone from reaching the WH unless that person is considered an impediment. Even insults don't have traction, because the real issue in this election is power not aggrieved status. That doesn't make any of those issues unimportant. It just make them impotent.

It's a little silly to preach to PoC that power is where it's at.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BRv9wGf5pk

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Playwrite has it about right. Bernie has enough money and support to keep going. But remember the path has been laid out for him, and it's not to his advantage. Super Tuesday was created by Chuck Robb some years ago to give moderates momentum to defeat lefties like McGovern for the Democratic nomination. It's probably working for Hillary. But Sanders has a couple of places in the schedule where he can come back: in the next group; followed by another group advantage Hillary, and then again at the end. It depends on him keeping a tie in the national polls. He has dropped recently there too, so he'll have to rise again there. But the worst group is behind him.

Rubio has to win Florida in order to help stop Trump and hope for a brokered convention. Cruz won 3 states and picked up a sizeable delegate chunk from his home state. If Rubio wins Florida, then it might look better for him in the future, while it doesn't look better in too many places for Cruz. From now on, unless Trump falls out of favor due to the attacks from his two "wing men" or at the debates, Cruz can only hope for a few wins here and there in the South and lower midwest, plus some hispanic states in the West.

Trump is on his way, but his margins of victory were narrow in many states, and late deciders defected. Could the whole race be laced with "late deciders" defecting from him in future primaries? If so, he might be stopped, but that will mean division and a convention fight. That's the only way now that Cruz or Rubio can win. No candidate has ever won as many primaries as Trump has and lost the nomination. He will retain a lot of support, even if his momentum is slowed down. Cruz, Rubio and the 2 others are splitting the anti-Trump votes. That means neither can be nominated outright. But on the other hand, if there's only two candidates left, especially if the other one is Cruz, then Trump will get some of those voters and he will be nominated. Only the others all campaigning have any hope of stopping him now.

I have already predicted Trump will be the nominee months ago.

--actually I hope you're right. The Donald is a doofus. Rubio & Cruz scare me, esp Rubio

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

There is a huge difference between running as a champion of economic justice that impacts the 99%, and the champion of a basket of narrowly focused issues that affect slices of the population. Even Hillary's implied nod-nod-wink-wink at the female majority only reaches a subset of them ... and misses the ones that are the future of the country. We may be reaching the end of identity politics for this cycle. When it returns, we will be long gone.

So no, the electorate is not interested in stopping anyone from reaching the WH unless that person is considered an impediment. Even insults don't have traction, because the real issue in this election is power not aggrieved status. That doesn't make any of those issues unimportant. It just make them impotent.

Spot on, Marx & Lennon: "the real issue in this election is power not aggrieved status." Robert Reich said essentially the same thing the other day. "This election is about power: who has it and who doesn't." (The Deep State has it; working families don't.)

The other day I happened to watch a portion of Marco Rubio's stump speech at a rally in Atlanta. I'm paraphrasing somewhat, but this is what he said at one point: "Our military has nothing to do with our debt," which he said with a straight face as Nikki Haley stood behind him and to the side with a knowing smile. (I nearly choked on my chicken.) Rubio went on to bemoan at length the woeful state of our military. To hear him describe it, you would think that America is the 98-pound weakling on the beach getting sand kicked in our face. By whom, I wondered? He trotted out the usual suspects...Kim Jong-un, the Ayatollah of Iran, Putin. Rubio's pièce de résistance was his proud boast that "When I'm president, we're going to have a Reagan-style military build-up!" (Wild applause to shouts of USA! USA! and off goes my TV.)

Where am I going with this? Traditionally, the Third Rail in American politics has been any suggestion by a candidate for office that we should tamper with Social Security. Dubya dared to touch that rail in 2005, devoting a large measure of his political capital to a far-reaching proposal to restructure Social Security. And he got burned. His proposal went absently nowhere. Not much mention of "entitlement reform" on the Republican campaign trail--so far. (The Donald has even proposed increasing Social Security which, of course, is Republican heresy.) In fact, I haven't heard much concern from any quarter about slashing budget deficits this go-round, just the usual tripe about cutting government "waste and fraud." Bi-partisan rubbish.

What concerns me about this presidential race is the clarion call for a big defense build-up by virtually every Republican candidate, including the Trumpinator, who apes the other GOP candidates, promising that if he's commander in chief, he'll "knock the hell" out of ISIS, and "nobody is going to mess with us." Really? With those new Air Force F-35 fighter jets? (The whole fleet of which has a current price tag of $400 billion and is expected to cost $1 trillion over its entire life.) Is that going to stop "lone wolf" attacks on our streets by jihadis with AR-15s readily available at your neighborhood gun store? Sheesh.

For me, one of the bigger disappointments of Bernie Sanders' campaign has been his absolute silence about our wasteful outsized military and intelligence expenditures, out of all proportion to any legitimate threat to our national security, not to mention our poor return on that "investment" in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria. I want to scream, "Hey, Bernie, do you want to find the money to fund your commendable social programs? Look at the 'yuge' honeypot over there at the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, the NSA..." Now there's some real waste and fraud...

But, of course, Bernie won't go there, his portrait of Eugene Debs notwithstanding. (Bernie likes the defense "goodies" available in his home state of Vermont, and has lobbied hard for it, but at least he has it half-right with his domestic agenda). Neither will Trump or Cruz or Rubio--or Hillary the Hawk, for that matter. And you can bet your sweet bippy that, if the election comes down to Hillary and Trump, they'll fall all over each other on the debate stage trying to prove who can best protect America. Cue the military band and the bellicose rhetoric. Our bloated military-industrial--intelligence-Congressional complex, whose wheels are greased by Wall Street--that's the real Third Rail.

Mike Lofgren, whose The Deep State I've already quoted liberally, has this to say:

...The stagnation of middle-class incomes...the offshoring of American investments...and the high cost of maintaining the security apparatus of the Deep State have together ensured an almost unbroken series of large federal deficits for three decades. But Wall Street, however phobic it claims to be about government deficits, rarely, if ever, calls for trimming military spending. Instead, the cry is always for "entitlement reform": cutting the Social Security and medical benefits that a beleaguered middle class needs in order to maintain its footing at a time of skyrocketing home prices, medical costs, and school tuitions.

Lofgren weaves together all the threads that underscore this 4T crisis, and why we're in it. Dismantle the Deep State, or watch America's ruin unfold by degrees from military overreach and financial exhaustion. That or accept that we have a crisis without end, awaiting a true Gray Champion. Neither the Donald nor Hillary fit the bill. They and their ilk personify the Deep State. Want proof of that? Watch the reaction of Wall Street if Hillary is pulling away from Trump in the polls ahead of the election. If the stock market rallies, you know that the financial oligarchs have a friend in Hillary. Her six-figure campaign contributions from Wall Street and private speeches to their bigwigs portend as much.

Sanders has talked about military expenditures and how they are too high, etc.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sander...-and-veterans/
http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/bern...ense-spending/

Originally Posted by playwrite

And a HC supporter could say the same thing about Bernie's implied nod-nod-wink-wink at continuing the Progressive White man's burden, and it would make as much sense as your particular brand of identity politics.

Bernie is trying to make OWS viable as a universal political movement. That's a long way from the white man's burden argument. BTW, I think he's done a yeoman's job, but it won't be enough.

Originally Posted by PW ...

It's a little silly to preach to PoC that power is where it's at.

BLM tries to pull power toward them. So does the LGBT community. That's fine. It's just that it should be noted for what it is, and balanced against a broader need. For example, we have been actively engaged in the Civil Rights effort for 50 years, and it still is not resolved. Is the fault in the white community? Yes. Is the fault in the black community? Yes again. It's a twisted symbiotic relationship. That it's not necessary is obvious when you see African immigrants rising above the fray. But no one pays attention because we're all in the scrum.

Now, it's leading to a huge backlash. I have idea where that leads, but not forward. It's time to turn down the heat on those issues and focus on issues of universal appeal. Economic justice will benefit the poorest most. I'm not sure that we can replace the old identity labels with class labels, but it's worth a try. It may even work to resolve other non-economic issues.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Sanders has talked about military expenditures and how they are too high, etc.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sander...-and-veterans/
http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/bern...ense-spending/

But has he explicitly advocated taking a meat cleaver to the whole enterprise? Do his votes on defense funding back up the talk?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Two comments:

1. You don't pay for police response to a commercial alarm, nor does the alarm company. The rest of your non-business owning neighbors cover that. That is a well understood subsidy. Ask anyone with ADT, Brinks or any other large security vendor.
2. You do understand that California has a very hot economy, even though some aspects of it are a bit weak at the moment. Oil and gas are down, and some agriculture products are threatened by the drought, but the high tech industry, films and finance are doing great.

1) I paid for the police response through property taxes. I paid a higher property tax rate than the average homeowner paid for the same police service within the community.

2) My niece couldn't afford to live in California. My brother couldn't stand living in California. California had to much BS for his tastes. California doesn't have enough middle income to grow from and sustain itself in the future. California is an inflated economic bubble that will eventually burst.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

But has he explicitly advocated taking a meat cleaver to the whole enterprise? Do his votes on defense funding back up the talk?

I doubt he could ever say "take a meat cleaver to the whole enterprise," and seriously ever consider any run for the presidency. I doubt even Jill Stein could say that, or Ralph Nader. But from what I read at those and other links, he voted against the defense authorization act at least several times, and he votes to defund expensive military boondoggles. So I think that's a yes.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I doubt he could ever say "take a meat cleaver to the whole enterprise," and seriously ever consider any run for the presidency. I doubt even Jill Stein could say that, or Ralph Nader. But from what I read at those and other links, he voted against the defense authorization act at least several times, and he votes to defund expensive military boondoggles. So I think that's a yes.

You've made my larger point, actually. No one dares touch the real Third Rail--our ongoing investment in the national security state. It's political kryptonite for any serious candidate--for now. Still, it's the vampire squid sucking the blood and marrow out of our economy.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Bernie is trying to make OWS viable as a universal political movement. That's a long way from the white man's burden argument. BTW, I think he's done a yeoman's job, but it won't be enough.

Yes, and probably not.

BLM tries to pull power toward them. So does the LGBT community. That's fine. It's just that it should be noted for what it is, and balanced against a broader need. For example, we have been actively engaged in the Civil Rights effort for 50 years, and it still is not resolved. Is the fault in the white community? Yes. Is the fault in the black community? Yes again. It's a twisted symbiotic relationship. That it's not necessary is obvious when you see African immigrants rising above the fray. But no one pays attention because we're all in the scrum.

Now, it's leading to a huge backlash. I have idea where that leads, but not forward. It's time to turn down the heat on those issues and focus on issues of universal appeal. Economic justice will benefit the poorest most. I'm not sure that we can replace the old identity labels with class labels, but it's worth a try. It may even work to resolve other non-economic issues.

It doesn't seem to be working. Blacks are voting for Hillary in staggering numbers. That's both for what they perceive as her person-to-person involvement, past policies, and current advocacy. So blacks obviously don't feel that the issues affecting them are only class and economic ones. The unarmed shootings of young black men, the rampant racial profiling, the percentage of blacks in prison and death row, the vast discrepancies in wealth between the races, all convince them that the battle for civil rights is not over, even though some African-Americans have done well.

So it's got to be both class and race. Both Bernie and Hillary understand both aspects very well. Middle aged and older black voters know Hillary and don't know Bernie, however. It may just be a habit; or name recognition. So, although whites may not trust Hillary much, blacks do. Bernie speaks in statistics and policies, while Hillary speaks in terms of experience. So blacks, maybe because Bill and Hillary have more "soul" than Professor Sanders, prefer Lady America-- at least now in the primaries.

Barring a near-miracle, we're going to need to go with Hillary. She's smart, and tough, and has a good heart. She has good policies, even though she has come late to some of them, and her foreign policy is probably the best for these times among all candidates. I don't know if I will vote for her. I'm tempted, but I remember the last time I voted for a Clinton for president. I was disappointed, and I haven't voted for a Democrat (or a Republican) since 1992. I didn't vote for Carter again the second time either. Democrats often let us down. So I don't know if I can give up my own habit of voting Left. But if I lived in a swing state, even one swinging blue like Virginia, I'd have to seriously consider voting for Hillary, even though I feel the Bern now.