Originally Posted by marypoza

Hawaiian luau & grilled WI cheese luvvem

How bout Berned WI cheese

There will be Philly cheese steak, Maryland crab cakes, and New York strip steaks -- of course to be enjoyed with some excellent California wine (the latter, which may never have gotten much above room temperature).

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

this one reminds me of the 1970's.




Mutual finger wagging at a debate.



Bernie looks mad here.



Now this is something I'd do. I think audio/visual aids help folks remember what you're talking about




One could show news scenes of the actual bridge collapse, a pic of Flint, MI's water tower,

this stuff : http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...7814/?slide=10
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/falling-...nfrastructure/

OK, so where to get the money?

Start here.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media/...agon-s-Arsenal
Chuck losers like the F-35 and for the stuff that works find some way to reign in cost overruns.

-- nice pix Rags. Why is it that we have $ to send drones over to bomb Mideast weddings but no $ to fix our roads & bridges & airports? Bullshit's gotta stop

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

There will be Philly cheese steak, Maryland crab cakes, and New York strip steaks -- of course to be enjoyed with some excellent California wine (the latter, which may never have gotten much above room temperature).

--nah they'll all be Berned

Originally Posted by marypoza

--nah they'll all be Berned

Bernie may win the NY Primary by making the "Burned Over District" (Western upstate NY) the "Berned Over District".

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You can't keep saying, "my candidate lost, so the opponent must have cheated." There's a limit to that explanation. Hillary won AZ by a lot.

Sanders will have to bern the remaining states to a crisp to have a chance. Do you see that happening in New York, where Hillary currently has 64% in the polls?

The thing to remember about NY is that NY is 75% white even if it's median age IS 45. I think Bernie can carry the "Burned Over District" of upstate NY and do quite well in suburban Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk. NYC will be more difficult but even in NYC, whites are a majority and a generation gap amongst African Americans like we saw in Detroit certainly is possible. So yes Bernie can come close in the next month of campaigning and maybe even pull off an upset victory.
And your point about sore losers is well taken. Which is why Bernie's campaign dosen't sweat close losses like MA, MI and IA even if there are some irregularities, especially since proportional voting means that delegations are basically split. Having said that, Bill Clinton's electioneering at polling places is patently illegal and he should be arrested for it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

AZ does have most people voting by mail, like CA. While lines were way too long, it doesn't look like a deliberate plot by the DNC against Sanders. That would be a stretch. It's a miscalculation by election officials and the Board of Supervisors:

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/...ines/82165730/

Many states have primaries in which only registered party members can vote. CA changed to an open primary. That's up to the people in each state to decide which is more fair.

A few polls showed Clinton leading Sanders by double digits a week or two before the primary. Polls can be wrong by a lot, but it does suggest a Clinton win there is not necessarily fraudulent. It was not, at least, a state where Bernie was favored; unlike Utah (which also had long lines) and Idaho, where he was favored (but has zero chance in the general election, whereas Clinton has a chance in the general election in AZ).

If anything, it's a plan to favour Republicans in the general election by suppressing the minority vote. AZ's plans were laid long before the current candidates created their leads. Hillary might have done even better if there had not been those long lines.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Bernie may win the NY Primary by making the "Burned Over District" (Western upstate NY) the "Berned Over District".

--good one

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You're reaching again. Assassins are nuts who are obsessed by their own problems. Assassinations have little to do with a president's policies. Maybe with one exception: America's first one.

Leon Czolgolz was a New Yorker who caught up to McKinley in Buffalo. Czogolz may have known very well that he was giving TR, who had been NY Governor and police commissioner a chance as President he never would have gotten otherwise.

Webb is a moderate/conservative; Hillary is very much closer to Bernie than she is to Webb. Hillary is Bernie; just one gear slower domestically and one gear faster internationally.

Webb, like Bernie wants to rein in Wall Street even if he is more conservative on some social issues. And Webb is against military interventions. Those are the differences that matter this election.

Clinton survived impeachment, because his impeachment was solely a partisan game to try and stop him from doing his job.

If so, it was successful. I still believe that repeal of Glass-Steagall was the Republican's price for not convicting Clinton. But keeping Gore out of the White House weighed on their minds too.

Nixon's impeachment on the other hand was inevitable regardless, because he really was "a crook." Webb would be as bad a choice as Lieberman was for Gore in 2000; a real mismatch. But people don't vote for vice-president, except often in home states.

And Virgninia IS a key swing state this election. A lot more key for Bernie than Delaware (Joe Biden's home state) was for Obama.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Bernie may win the NY Primary by making the "Burned Over District" (Western upstate NY) the "Berned Over District".

Nicely done. Nothing quite like hisorical puns. :

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borow...-to-hear-truth

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Actually, I think Jim Webb would make a strong Veep choice for Bernie. We don't like to think in these terms but one of the most important qualifications for Vice President is a willingness to carry on the President' s policies in the event the President dies in office. Having Hillary or Bernie as running mates (more so for Bernie having Hillary as running mate since Bernie is trying to crate fundamental change) creates a nearly irresistible temptation to reverse the President's policies by assassinating the President. We have examples of assassinations changing policy--Arthur's passage of Civil Service, Theodore Roosevelt's "trust-busting" and near misses such as Zangara's assassination attempt against FDR and possibly the attempt on Truman's life by Puerto Rican terrorists that illustrate this. Motivations to frustrate change by killing off a President delivering change can be high.
And the counter-examples: Nixon could not have been forced to resign until and unless Spiro Agnew was forced to resign on charges stemming from when he was Governor of Maryland. And Al Gore helped provide Bill Clinton with conviction insurance. Republicans did not want to give Gore the advantage of incumbency, particularly early enough in Clinton's second term to where Gore could run for re-election twice.
Webb would be a safe choice for Sanders since he shares Sanders's views on avoiding interventions abroad while being willing to crack down on big banks at home. And Webb has an appeal to authoritarian Scots-Irish (Navy Cross Marine, former Secretary of the Navy--in short, a genuine article) that could cut into Trump's core support, even in some Southern states. Sanders-Webb could be a landslide ticket.

-- dunno about that. If Bernie does manage to wrangle the nomination, the DNC may insist on his choosing the veep from a very short list of their making (since Bernie is not a- ahem- "real" Dem- actually he's the only real dem running, but ykwim) I doubt Webb would be on that list. Not only was he until recently a repug, but he has publicly stated he will not vote for the Annointed One should she be the nominee.

If Bernie has any leeway choosing his VP I think it should be Tulsi Gabbard. That would go a ways towards mollifying alot of women hoping for a female Prez. Instead, Tulsi would be the 1st female VP, & in the catbird seat to become the 1st female Prez (& if that happens in 2020 she will have JFK beat as the youngest Prez by 3 yrs) Lots of ppl want a Bernie/Warren ticket, but the 2 are from adjoining states so that ain't happening. HI is about as far away ftom VT as you can get, except for ME. Tulsi is young (Liz is in her 60's, Hillary's pushing 70) so if something gawdforbidden should happen to Bernie healthwise, like Liz, she can be trusted to step in & continue his policies. And she can continue them in her own right for 2 terms. I think Tulsi would be the better choice

From Anonymous:

http://www.anonews.co/hillary-clinto...fraud-exposed/

& the Observer:

http://observer.com/2016/03/the-coun...gs-of-the-dnc/

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- dunno about that. If Bernie does manage to wrangle the nomination, the DNC may insist on his choosing the veep from a very short list of their making (since Bernie is not a- ahem- "real" Dem- actually he's the only real dem running, but ykwim) I doubt Webb would be on that list. Not only was he until recently a repug, but he has publicly stated he will not vote for the Annointed One should she be the nominee.

If Bernie has any leeway choosing his VP I think it should be Tulsi Gabbard. That would go a ways towards mollifying alot of women hoping for a female Prez. Instead, Tulsi would be the 1st female VP, & in the catbird seat to become the 1st female Prez (& if that happens in 2020 she will have JFK beat as the youngest Prez by 3 yrs) Lots of ppl want a Bernie/Warren ticket, but the 2 are from adjoining states so that ain't happening. HI is about as far away ftom VT as you can get, except for ME. Tulsi is young (Liz is in her 60's, Hillary's pushing 70) so if something gawdforbidden should happen to Bernie healthwise, like Liz, she can be trusted to step in & continue his policies. And she can continue them in her own right for 2 terms. I think Tulsi would be the better choice

Habbard could be a good choice. For a while I had hopesfor the Castro brothers of Texas. But recently I read about some votes in Congress and the trend is towards being blue dog corporatists. Republican lite is no way to balance a ticket.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

If anything, it's a plan to favour Republicans in the general election by suppressing the minority vote. AZ's plans were laid long before the current candidates created their leads. Hillary might have done even better if there had not been those long lines.

I don't understand what you mean by a plan to suppress the minority vote.
As an aside, Alabama has an open primary, which I like. In the recent Primary, voters could choose to vote on either ticket and could also select a ballot to vote only for the amendments, if for some reason they did not want to vote for either party.

Originally Posted by marypoza

If Bernie has any leeway choosing his VP I think it should be Tulsi Gabbard. That would go a ways towards mollifying alot of women hoping for a female Prez. Instead, Tulsi would be the 1st female VP, & in the catbird seat to become the 1st female Prez (& if that happens in 2020 she will have JFK beat as the youngest Prez by 3 yrs) Lots of ppl want a Bernie/Warren ticket, but the 2 are from adjoining states so that ain't happening. HI is about as far away ftom VT as you can get, except for ME. Tulsi is young (Liz is in her 60's, Hillary's pushing 70) so if something gawdforbidden should happen to Bernie healthwise, like Liz, she can be trusted to step in & continue his policies. And she can continue them in her own right for 2 terms. I think Tulsi would be the better choice

Tulsi Gabbard would be an excellent choice: She is young enough--as you point out--to succeed Sanders if his health should falter. She is also one of the first female combat veterans to serve in Congress. As such, she understands the "Cost of War" on a deeply personal level, as so few "chicken hawks" do.

http://www.alternet.org/election-201...tands-cost-war

“Being a warrior is about believing in what you are fighting for and holding strong to those convictions,” Rep. Tulsi Gabbard says. “I could not stay back in beautiful Hawaii and watch my brothers and sisters in uniform go off into combat.”

“Bernie Sanders voted against the Iraq war,” Gabbard tells us. “He understands the cost of war—that that cost is continued—when our veterans come home. Bernie Sanders will defend our country and take the trillions of dollars that are spent on these interventionist regime change, unnecessary wars and invest it here at home. The American people are not looking to settle for inches. They’re looking for real change. What I saw in Bernie was the heart of aloha. No matter who you are or where you come from in this country, we are all in this together.”

I only wish Sanders could depart from political convention, and announce her as his Veep choice now.

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- the only time I talk about cheating is when I see it in my news feed from multiple sources. Plz note AZ resident Teach is backing me up on this one. Bernie is speaking out on the cheating, Hillz not so much. But then she's the one benefitting, isn't she? M&L was talking about something being in the court of public opinion in another thread. These cheating incedents may also be in the court of public opinion. If they continue, & the public decides the primaries have been riddled with cheating, they will not accept the DNC's annointed one. They will do one of 3 things: a) stay home, b) vote for the Donald, or c) vote for Jill Stien or some other alternative candidate. This is why the DNC & it's local party operatives need to butt out & let the votes fall where they may




-- NY is Bernie's other home state & like NH, adjacent to VT. So that part of the state, along the Hudson River I can see Berning up. Also downstate NY, LI- Bernie's a Brooklyn boy afterall. As for the western part of the state, I think it depends upon how much the states preceding the NY primary feel the Bern, & this week, @ least they've been Berning up

Hillary may or may not have gained an unfair advantage in Arizona's Democratic primary because of the unjustifiably large reduction in polling sites. More worrisome is the presidential election. The result of ridiculously long waiting lines is indeed voter suppression--intentional or not. If the issue is not quickly and adequately addressed before November, lower voter turnout in minority precincts redounds to the benefit of Republicans.

Some excerpts from E.J. Dionne's column, "Arizona’s Voting Rights Fire Bell"

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/..._bell_20160328

It’s bad enough that an outrage was perpetrated last week against the voters of Maricopa County, Arizona. It would be far worse if we ignore the warning that the disenfranchisement of thousands of its citizens offers our nation. In November, one of the most contentious campaigns in our history could end in a catastrophe for our democracy.

A major culprit would be the United States Supreme Court, and specifically the conservative majority that gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013.

The facts of what happened in Arizona’s presidential primary are gradually penetrating the nation’s consciousness. In a move rationalized as an attempt to save money, officials of Maricopa County, the state’s most populous, cut the number of polling places by 70 percent, from 200 in the last presidential election to 60 this time around.

Maricopa includes Phoenix, the state’s largest city, which happens to have a non-white majority and is a Democratic island in an otherwise Republican county.

What did the cutbacks mean? As The Arizona Republic reported, the county’s move left one polling place for every 21,000 voters—compared with one polling place for every 2,500 voters in the rest of the state.

The results, entirely predictable, were endless lines akin to those that await the release of new iPhones...

...Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton, whose government does not control election management, is furious about what was visited upon his city’s citizens. The day after the primary, he wrote U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking her to open a Justice Department investigation into the fiasco. It was not just that there weren’t enough polling places, Stanton charged. Their allocation was “far more favorable in predominantly Anglo communities.” There were fewer voting locations in “parts of the county with higher minority populations.”

In a telephone interview, Stanton made the essential point. Long lines are bad for everyone. But they particularly hurt the least advantaged who usually have less flexibility in their schedules than more affluent people do. It is often quite literally true that poor voters can’t afford to wait.

“If you’re a single mother with two kids, you’re not going to wait for hours, you’re going to leave that line.” As a result, Stanton said, “tens of thousands of people were deprived of the right to vote...”

Originally Posted by marypoza

From Anonymous:

http://www.anonews.co/hillary-clinto...fraud-exposed/

& the Observer:

http://observer.com/2016/03/the-coun...gs-of-the-dnc/

If you think getting older voters to vote by use of early voting is fraudulent, then you must agree that opening up Democratic caucuses to people not registered as Democrats (one of the reasons why Bernie wins in small states with caucuses) is really out of line.

In fact, a guy who is running in the Democratic primaries and is not a Democrat, and has stated his only reason for doing so was media coverage, has to be about the most underhanded electioneering happening in this election year, right?

Or is it because pure Saint Bernis is doing these underhanded things makes it okay?

By the way, it is one of the foundation principles of the Democratic Party to make voting as easy as possible, and that includes early voting. I realize that as a Dem-by-convenience, you probable don't know that; but I wonder if Bernie does.

Just trying to figure out how deep the Bern hypocrisy goes.

Bernie still has a delegate problem. He's not winning enough delegate-rich states. Supers are obviously going to split and many will favor the front runner. At least the DEMs are not self destructing. It's more or less "friendly" competition. I look forward to both the concession speech and who knows what else after that. He's gotten some good PR that will go a long way.

Leon Czolgolz was a New Yorker who caught up to McKinley in Buffalo. Czogolz may have known very well that he was giving TR, who had been NY Governor and police commissioner a chance as President he never would have gotten otherwise.

He was an anarchist who felt called to assassinate the leader of his nation. That's all it was; everyone knows that.

Webb, like Bernie wants to rein in Wall Street even if he is more conservative on some social issues. And Webb is against military interventions. Those are the differences that matter this election.

Webb is a conservative when it comes to the programs that government needs, and like Republicans he wants to build up the military. And he is only selectively non-interventionist.

He is better than any Republican, but that does not make him a good match for Bernie, and I agree with Hillary more often than with Webb.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...nds-10-issues/
In the positions covered in this PBS report, I disagree with his views on Iran, disagree strongly with his views on the EPA and energy (this disqualifies him completely as a VP choice), on less-restrictive access to guns (where Bernie is weak), on his apparent preference for military over other spending, on health care reform (it needs to be broader, not "narrower"), and his opposition to higher taxes on the wealthy (here too he is clearly unacceptable as a Bernie partner).

In this pro-Webb article:
http://theweek.com/articles/442284/w...ton-presidency
I could find no coherent policy for taxing or restricting Wall Street greed and criminal behavior; just a tweet about the "class system." Do you have any such evidence about his proposals about Wall Street and financial speculation/corporate corruption?

(Eric: Clinton survived impeachment, because his impeachment was solely a partisan game to try and stop him from doing his job.)
If so, it was successful. I still believe that repeal of Glass-Steagall was the Republican's price for not convicting Clinton. But keeping Gore out of the White House weighed on their minds too.

It was successful, but there is no grounds for your "belief." Republicans voted en masse to impeach and convict, except for a few moderates in the Senate some of whom later became Democrats.

And Virgninia IS a key swing state this election. A lot more key for Bernie than Delaware (Joe Biden's home state) was for Obama.

It's true that could be a consideration, since Webb is from VA. Although he was only a one-term senator who was narrowly elected. And I think VA will go Democratic anyway, but yes it is no doubt a swing state.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

Tulsi Gabbard would be an excellent choice: She is young enough--as you point out--to succeed Sanders if his health should falter. She is also one of the first female combat veterans to serve in Congress. As such, she understands the "Cost of War" on a deeply personal level, as so few "chicken hawks" do.

http://www.alternet.org/election-201...tands-cost-war

“Being a warrior is about believing in what you are fighting for and holding strong to those convictions,” Rep. Tulsi Gabbard says. “I could not stay back in beautiful Hawaii and watch my brothers and sisters in uniform go off into combat.”

“Bernie Sanders voted against the Iraq war,” Gabbard tells us. “He understands the cost of war—that that cost is continued—when our veterans come home. Bernie Sanders will defend our country and take the trillions of dollars that are spent on these interventionist regime change, unnecessary wars and invest it here at home. The American people are not looking to settle for inches. They’re looking for real change. What I saw in Bernie was the heart of aloha. No matter who you are or where you come from in this country, we are all in this together.”

I only wish Sanders could depart from political convention, and announce her as his Veep choice now.

I'd like to see a more-qualified choice.

Originally Posted by playwrite

If you think getting older voters to vote by use of early voting is fraudulent, then you must agree that opening up Democratic caucuses to people not registered as Democrats (one of the reasons why Bernie wins in small states with caucuses) is really out of line.

In fact, a guy who is running in the Democratic primaries and is not a Democrat, and has stated his only reason for doing so was media coverage, has to be about the most underhanded electioneering happening in this election year, right?

Or is it because pure Saint Bernis is doing these underhanded things makes it okay?

By the way, it is one of the foundation principles of the Democratic Party to make voting as easy as possible, and that includes early voting. I realize that as a Dem-by-convenience, you probable don't know that; but I wonder if Bernie does.

Just trying to figure out how deep the Bern hypocrisy goes.

As long as we have institutions designed to create only two major parties, open primaries are not out of line. If we can go to a multi-party system, then you will have a point. A closed two-party system truly IS a closed oligarchy with little possibility for democratic change.
What I fear is that what you are saying will become the norm if Hillary wins the White House. Instead of listening to the People, finding new ways of shutting the People up.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'd like to see a more-qualified choice.

How about Alan Grayson?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

He was an anarchist who felt called to assassinate the leader of his nation. That's all it was; everyone knows that.

That's all? We called every subversive an anarchist in 1900.

Webb is a conservative when it comes to the programs that government needs, and like Republicans he wants to build up the military. And he is only selectively non-interventionist.

In short, the perfect person to pull votes away from Trump. Webb is the one who can point at Trump and ask "What did he do"?
He is better than any Republican, but that does not make him a good match for Bernie, and I agree with Hillary more often than with Webb.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...nds-10-issues/
In the positions covered in this PBS report, I disagree with his views on Iran, disagree strongly with his views on the EPA and energy (this disqualifies him completely as a VP choice), on less-restrictive access to guns (where Bernie is weak), on his apparent preference for military over other spending, on health care reform (it needs to be broader, not "narrower"), and his opposition to higher taxes on the wealthy (here too he is clearly unacceptable as a Bernie partner).

Well maybe not on environment.

In this pro-Webb article:
http://theweek.com/articles/442284/w...ton-presidency
I could find no coherent policy for taxing or restricting Wall Street greed and criminal behavior; just a tweet about the "class system." Do you have any such evidence about his proposals about Wall Street and financial speculation/corporate corruption?

Webb did rail against Wall Street as a Senator but his proposals were vague compared to Bernies. Which is probably why he didn't catch fire as a Presidential candidate.

It was successful, but there is no grounds for your "belief." Republicans voted en masse to impeach and convict, except for a few moderates in the Senate some of whom later became Democrats.

I think that the Republican leadership made certain that votes for conviction would fall short. And frankly in retrospect, convicting Bill Clinton and putting Al Gore in the White House would have been the shrewdest move Senate Dems could have made. We likely could have avoided the Bush Administration completely. And firmly established the precedent that yes, no President is above the law and yes, Congress CAN remove a President from office, no matter how popular that President is. And yes, we could have avoided the 2008 recession if Al Gore had been in office to veto repeal.

It's true that could be a consideration, since Webb is from VA. Although he was only a one-term senator who was narrowly elected. And I think VA will go Democratic anyway, but yes it is no doubt a swing state.

Given the disparity between Dem and Republican primary turnout, I'm not so sure about that. And unless Trump actually SAYS something anti-AA, I don't think African-Americans will be frightened enough of Trump to turn out in large numbers for Hillary--or maybe even Bernie--to prevent states like VA, OH, MI, from going Republican this election no matter how much Democrats jump up and down and call Trump racist.

(Mordecai) That's all? We called every subversive an anarchist in 1900.

That's all, indeed. He said so himself.

In short, the perfect person to pull votes away from Trump. Webb is the one who can point at Trump and ask "What did he do"?

Why not support Hillary then, since she's also closer to Trump than Sanders is? Also a moderate IOW.

Well maybe not on environment.

He wants to close the EPA and stop the energy transition we need to save the environment. Total disqualifer. Close to Trump, indeed. If Webb were nominated there would be no undecided answer from me; I'd vote for Stein for sure.

Webb did rail against Wall Street as a Senator but his proposals were vague compared to Bernie's. Which is probably why he didn't catch fire as a Presidential candidate.

There you go. Not much worth voting for.

I think that the Republican leadership made certain that votes for conviction would fall short. And frankly in retrospect, convicting Bill Clinton and putting Al Gore in the White House would have been the shrewdest move Senate Dems could have made. We likely could have avoided the Bush Administration completely. And firmly established the precedent that yes, no President is above the law and yes, Congress CAN remove a President from office, no matter how popular that President is. And yes, we could have avoided the 2008 recession if Al Gore had been in office to veto repeal.

Veto repeal of what? Glass-Steagall? It might have helped, I suppose. But I think Gore probably would have signed it.

You can think that, but there's no evidence for it. They all voted to impeach him. Maybe it would have been a shrewd move for Democrats though. Even though the whole affair had nothing to do with who's above the law, and only who made a stain on who's dress, and what the definition of the word is, is.

(Eric)And I think VA will go Democratic anyway, but yes it is no doubt a swing state.
(Mordecai)
Given the disparity between Dem and Republican primary turnout, I'm not so sure about that. And unless Trump actually SAYS something anti-AA, I don't think African-Americans will be frightened enough of Trump to turn out in large numbers for Hillary--or maybe even Bernie--to prevent states like VA, OH, MI, from going Republican this election no matter how much Democrats jump up and down and call Trump racist.

My guess is that blacks will turn out against a racist, because they know they could be next.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

How about Alan Grayson?

I'd still like to see a more-qualified choice. Representative in congress is not much stature. Grayson is a good progressive guy, but kind of loose with his tongue and may have corruption suspicions. The vice president is supposed to be someone who can take over if need be.

I also know that the presidential horoscope score for both of these possibilities is too low to be in good stead for the presidency. Unless, of course, Ted Cruz or John Kasich wins it and upsets my system.