You’re repeating yourself. I will too.
I stated that we read that differently.
I also asked what he said -specifically- that led you to your conclusion. Where is this duty you speak of, in the piece? I note you did not address my question the first time, in favor of repeating yourself. I wonder if you will again repeat your assertion, instead of answering a question about your opinion and how you formed it.
eta: missed the comment where you did address my question, thank you.
maybe she should do some left, for a change? She has been right for quite a while.
It’s not saying that the runner-up is stronger, it’s saying that, “Hey, this wasn’t a blow out. Maybe we should take a second look here before we endorse the front-runner whole-heartedly.”
“Weak front-runner” =/= “not the strongest”
oh, hadn’t seen this. Thanks for saying.
You might do well to note the changes to the Superdelegate system since Hillary’s last loss, the one to Obama. There are more of them now, and it was her peoples idea. Prior to her prior loss, they were essentially meaningless. Now they have meaning.
I see this as her own petard, really. Maybe she gets hoisted, maybe not.
But her win is not actually inevitable. Might be without those changes made 8 years back. What happens if she gets her ass handed to her in CA? What would happen under the old system? Who led that change?
See, this is what I’m talking about:
Clinton delivered some scathing lines about Donald Trump in a speech. But delivering scathing lines about Trump is what people have been doing since last August. Give people something to vote for not just something to vote against. Please. Please don’t let Donald Trump become president and then pretend it’s Sanders’ fault.
Because nobody told the idioit he could give the money back?
Since you seem to know the subject, can you please explain if there is any “new technology” now or on the horizon to deal with the issue of waste from nuclear reactors. That to me is actually a much bigger issue.
ITA with you, but wanted to point out that that’s the mirror opposite of what has happened to the Republican party.
I don’t think it’s either or, though. As much as we can pick apart the GOP for all their (many, many) faults, the Dems were clear partners in creating this political landscape too. But I think the GOP is far less big tent and more about defining what they’re against than what they’re for lately. They seem to run on fear and hate of some undefined other, which is a deeply dangerous thing. It’s created Trump, of course. They’ve unleashed scary shit like this:
And then claim to not understand how stuff like this could have happened. Whether this was a plan (something I doubt because that implies fore thought and planning as opposed to just reacting) or not is up for debate, but here we are. The Dems role in all this is constantly rolling over due to a “do nothing” congress, while ignoring their base, because where else are we going to go?
Honestly, it feels like we’re in a political death spiral and the only thing that is going to bring us out is some clear thinking and some honestly, none of which either party can actually give us lately.
I mailed my ballot for Sanders in CA. I expect to vote for HRC after we get to WA.
Politics in my family have been practiced to Sanders’ left for four generations.
Whenever I read about HRC’s unfavorables, I remember the systematic attacks against her since 1992 by the “vast right wing conspiracy” of AM radio and Fox News.
There were brigades of cynical professional staff from right wing think tanks, corporate grifters, fascistic congressional committees, special prosecutors and corporate media.
Even in her “first lady” role, HRC was targeted and slandered as somehow an almost metaphysically evil person in U.S. politics despite her mild centrism.
And those coordinated attacks happened at a time when the working voter left was beating a cowardly, disorganized retreat from cultural wedge issues and the racist, evangelical Reagan coalition zealots.
I remember those attacks against HRC when the new, new leftists speak uncharitably about her work and her record.
She survived all of it. The GOP is rightly frightened by HRC’s experience and strength.
We already have the technology to deal with the waste, in fact there’s no such thing as nuclear waste really, it’s just more fuel. Some of it might need to be stored somewhere for a bit, but a lot of it can be reprocessed straight away and most of the waste from that is more radioactive (i.e. shorter lived - a good thing), and can be reprocessed again if needed. Multiple forms of new reactor designs use waste in various ways (both in fusion and fission).
Could you expand on that a bit? What percentage of nuclear waste is being recycled until what is left is safe, and what percentage is buried?
That’s true, but HRC is currently at net -16% (fav - unfav, +40% among Democrats), while she was at -5% (+55% among Democrats) at the end of last summer. The big swing during the last 9 months, especially among Demorats, is not due to the decades of relentless pounding from the right, it is due to her own cynical campaign. The same thing happened in 2008.
David Brock, for example.
How do you know?
If she really felt cynical, she could be doing a lot of other things with her time.
She’s not a supervillain.
Because if anything they’ve pounded less on her (until the last few weeks) than at other times; they were too busy pounding on one another.
I said the campaign was cynical. But what else could she be doing with her time that would help her become President?
Some say everyone who settles and takes money from a comfortable job at a corporation or a university is cynical. Or weak. Contemptible.
They could have been doing more to resist Nixon’s and Reagan’s war mongering. Or fight welfare reform. Or WTO. Or supporting Occupy. Instead, they make excuses. Rationalize. Collaborate.
I’ve come to think that’s an uncharitable view.
Now I have no idea what you’re talking about.
