Elect a Woman in 2020

[wisewomn]

Quod erat demonstrandum, Rustie.

I'm really not patronizing you nor do I make any assumptions about you. With all due respect my commentary has nothing to do with you personally. I'm responding to your comments on this thread.

In summary, on the topic of voting strategies you expressed the opinions that; change isn't going to happen quickly or dramatically because there are too many Republicans and we're stuck with only approaching our ideals when choosing a candidate. You also shared that you personally have never in your life voted for someone, only against and that in this particular election you feel that anyone would be better than what we have, thus, validating the vote against strategy. ...

[podfish]

...As for the phrase, a bill of goods, i.e. intentional deception, is EXACTLY what it is. Just to pick a few examples, when Obama said he'd advocate for single-payer and immediately dropped it once in office, was that because of a changed situation or did he simply make a promise he never intended to keep? ...

is that a rhetorical question? I say, yes, it was because of a changed situation. Do you just have a different opinion or do you have insider knowledge of some sort?

In the same vein, bringing up Ralph Nader nineteen years after the fact is silly. Al Gore lost because he was a conservative who inspired no one.

I missed the statute of limitations on useful examples. It's silly to attribute his loss to a single cause. I also suspect you're dismissing more than a few people as 'no-one'. You may not have been inspired, but you're probably not in a position to speak for people who for some reason may not share your world view. I think it's quite plausible that he would have won if Nader wasn't running, just as Clinton probably would have won without Jill Stein. But we don't get to run that test, just like we don't get to find out what would happen if Bernie ran against Trump. I'd like to see a few cases where out-and-out doctrinairily-pure progressives won in anywhere less lefty than Brooklyn -- ok, actually, I'd need to see it happen in places with somewhat conservative populations - before I'd feel good about risking a chance at limiting damage vs. shooting for the moon.

[RicoBoccia]

You say it was a changed situation yet you failed to say what changed. We'll wait.

Blaming Ralph Nader and Jill Stein (seriously?) for the failures of poor Democratic candidates is EXACTLY the problem. When those who fail can admit their own failures, there MIGHT be a chance for something to change. Until then, it'll be nothing but Republicans and Republicans Lite.

Outside of Brooklyn, Ilhan Omar won in the Minnesota 5th, Ayanna Pressley won in the Massachusetts 7th, Rashida Tlaib won in the Michigan 13th, Ocasio-Cortez won in the New York 14th -- which is in Queens and the Bronx, not Brooklyn. (But do facts matter?)

As long as voting your values is seen as a "purity test," we're screwed.

is that a rhetorical question? I say, yes, it was because of a changed situation. Do you just have a different opinion or do you have insider knowledge of some sort?....

[wisewomn]

Some people seem to have forgotten that W was "selected," not elected. He lost the the popular vote both times he ran.
Additionally, poll after poll showed that Sanders could defeat Trump, but the Dem. Establishment chose to ignore them. Clinton had 3 million more popular votes than Trump and might likely have won without Russian interference, despite Republican gerrymandering.

is that a rhetorical question? ...

[RicoBoccia]

Not that facts matter, but in 2004, W got 62 million votes to Kerry's 59.

But yes, the DNC was against Bernie in 2016. This is well-documented, but it's too unpleasant for many to think about.

And of course, if it's not Ralph Nader's fault, it's Jill Stein's. And if it's not Stein's fault, it's the Russians'. Or James Comey's. But in no case is it ever, EVER the fault of the Democrat who lost.

Some people seem to have forgotten that W was "selected," not elected. He lost the the popular vote both times he ran.
Additionally, poll after poll showed that Sanders could defeat Trump, but the Dem. Establishment chose to ignore them. Clinton had 3 million more popular votes than Trump and might likely have won without Russian interference, despite Republican gerrymandering.

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

Not that facts matter, but in 2004, W got 62 million votes to Kerry's 59.

And yet... let's not forget- Kerry got "swift boated" by WND's James Corsi (wing nut daily news as I like to call it), and others. People who went on to backTrump.

Likewise- let us not forget 2000 - where by every possible method of recount - Gore won FL. Bush should never have been in power to win 2004....

[podfish]

...Blaming Ralph Nader and Jill Stein (seriously?) for the failures of poor Democratic candidates ...

Outside of Brooklyn, Ilhan Omar won in the Minnesota 5th, Ayanna Pressley won in the Massachusetts 7th, Rashida Tlaib won in the Michigan 13th, Ocasio-Cortez won in the New York 14th -- which is in Queens and the Bronx, not Brooklyn. (But do facts matter?)

As long as voting your values is seen as a "purity test," we're screwed.

pretty selective reading. To reiterate my other post: I explicitly say you can't pick one cause; I'm not blaming anyone. I do claim that without either of those running the results are very likely different. And sure, to acknowledge your thought, if the candidates were better they'd have won anyway. I don't blame them for not being better, I don't blame Nader or Stein for running, I'm making an observation that I think makes sense.
.. and nice rhetorical trick too, implying I ignore facts, but who did I say was from Brooklyn? I would have picked Sonoma instead, but Brooklyn seems more reliably lefty than we do -- I know a lot of rednecks here.
.. also, you imagined you were reading 'purity test' to construct an argument I never made. To channel Mayacaman, "You're Making a STRAW MAN argument". I don't ever suggest you should never vote your values. I support a society where my values can flourish by blocking those who oppose my values from winning. I won't say voting values and losing is an empty gesture, but it often runs that risk.

[podfish]

kind of apropos to this discussion:

HOUSE DEMOCRATS ARE PANICKED ABOUT PRIMARIES, AND NEW YORK SHOWS HOW POTENT THEY CAN BE

how in New York, progressives actually did take over. So it's possible. But note that not only did they win the primaries, but their party was strong enough that they won the general election too. The Tea Party did something similar - their most ideological members won primaries - but that made several of them unelectable, leading to some breakdowns in previously reliable red states. With luck this is going to happen again with trumpy acolytes. I'd prefer to avoid it happening to the good guys as well.

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

No, no, no tRUMP wil NOT get reelected and things are gonna get much better!!

Lilith

Hmm. And I was the lone wolf crying in the wilderness saying Trump would get elected in the first place. Because I grew up on the Mason-Dixon line. Because I travel to parts of our country that are uncomfortable for people like me. And I talk to and break bread with people that shouldn't like me.

California does *not* represent the views of the democratic party. North bay in particular. People here are so detached from the realities of most of our nation.

Come on- show of hands... how many people here voted for Bernie because they actually thought he could win (not just because your vote for president in CA doesn't matter- it's a foregone conclusion the D will win so you can vote for the green, libertarian, etc with impunity. Quite the luxury we have here).

Biden can win the purple states. But he will lose the liberal and progressive states. Harris or Warren can win the progressive / more liberal states but will lose the rest. Bernie has no chance in ^&)#. And all of the above except Biden will drive turnout on the right.

The *only* way I see Trump loosing is if a R or conservative I runs against him.

I'm sorry... look around you (and by this I mean outside of the Nor Cal bubble). America is *not* going to elect a woman, a black, a gay man, a socialist,...

My only caveat to this- is the economic indicator that has foretold a recession every time- and never given a false positive- indicates a major recession in 9-18 months. If this holds true all bets are off. But, if you've been paying attention to the markets... the immortal words of Alan Greenspan... "Irrational Exuberance" . Didn't Three Twins ice cream just admit that despite selling in all 50 states and multiple countries they have never turned a profit? There are countless companies with hundreds of millions in valuation and billions in sales- that have never... or once or twice, actually turned a profit.

It's a strange world we live in - and people seem to have forgotten the concept of reality....

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

Some people seem to have forgotten that W was "selected," not elected. He lost the the popular vote both times he ran.
Additionally, poll after poll showed that Sanders could defeat Trump, but the Dem. Establishment chose to ignore them. Clinton had 3 million more popular votes than Trump and might likely have won without Russian interference, despite Republican gerrymandering.

As to W... Didn't the senior Bush's once say they thought Jeb could be president... not George Jr?

As t (at least until we get instant runoff elections or something similar). ...and ignores the bump to the opposition when a candidate they can't stand is the frontrunner. Bernie never had- and never will have a chance. (And that's a good thing... please, someone here tell me 5 things he's ever been able to accomplish in congress. Or a single time he's been able to cobble together a coalition of R & D's to accomplish a single damn thing in congress??? ) rr

[podfish]

Biden can win the purple states. But he will lose the liberal and progressive states. Harris or Warren can win the progressive / more liberal states but will lose the rest. Bernie has no chance in ^&)#. And all of the above except Biden will drive turnout on the right.

The *only* way I see Trump loosing is if a R or conservative I runs against him.

I disagree - not about the bubble we're in here, but that Trump's a shoo-in. I think Biden would certainly win all the traditional blue states, liberal or not. In that sense he's maybe a safer choice - certainly the commentators on the right seem to think so. But there's a lot of purple, and a lot of people with only lukewarm support of Trump. So enthusiasm will matter a lot, and I agree with you that our local area's enthusiasm doesn't help directly. But a lot of people's political activities and engagement crosses state lines. The right will try to demonize anyone left of Reagan (actually, they'd demonize him if he were here now) but only so many people will respond. I believe the analysts who claim this rides on enthusiasm of minorities and young voters, and the disgust of women of all demographics. If they don't turn out, and if nothing bad happens to people who don't much like 'giving free stuff to immigrants' and so reflexively support Republicans, it's more Trump. But there are a lot of smart candidates and once they're winnowed out I think any of them can hold their own against the clown show - especially if there's any economic problems, continuing human rights abuses on children, and deterioration in international relations. I suspect all those three are in our near future.

[caromia333]

The significant points detailed in this cogent post should be examined in depth. Thank YOU so much for making them.

Project Censored (the SSU award-winning journalism program looks at these and other issues) often pointing to a "deep state" and special interests who are really controlling our government and representatives. These special interests range from defense contractors (remember America's No 1 Export is military arms - Saudis are the biggest buyers of our arsenal - as documented in Medea Benjamin's book KINGDOM OF THE UNJUST) to Big Pharma, Fossil Fuels and Wall Street ... all powerful-players. And my personal favorites -- the Koch Brothers now giving money to Democrats in the 2020 race to squash opposition to Big Oil's play in this multi-faceted "Risk Game" called our government.

Expand

For myself, I have an eagle eye on the military budget and the control it wields in the world. It seems to fade from most people's view. Yet it has been estimated to be between 60 to 70% of our overall budget. Elizabeth Warren's support of our bloated military is disturbing, to say the least, and yet she nails so many of the special interests to the cross. How can she miss this one?

Matt Taibbi (Rolling Stones Investigative Reporter) wrote a powerful article on the failed Pentagon Audit. 900 million dollars spent and close to a thousand agents who participated in this multi-year analysis of the trillions of dollars that mysteriously go missing and cannot be accounted for. In my opinion, Matt gets a toe hold on the heart of the beast controlling America. Not just the trillions of dollars wasted and the corruption implied but the bigger question arises: What are they doing with this money? The imagination starts to go wild here.

In WikiLeaks historic and unprecedented C.I.A "Vault 7" dump of classified information from this notorious organization (New York Times) --

One revelation that Pulitzer prize-winning journalists uncovered, is the C.I.A has dominion over the NSA ... which might shed light on the power of this "agency" and its influence on our government. And it might illuminate why Obama went back on his promises as outlined in the earlier post. Clearly, he was following our military's lead and empire protocols.

Of the existing candidates - Tulsi Gabbard and Marianne Williamson dared to take aim at the US military monster. Do I think either of these women has a chance in this perverted system to win? NO, I don't. But I was happy to hear their voices raising questions about our military system and our "sick care system". Marianne went where no other candidate dared to go - beyond the endless conversation of Health Care to the heart of why Americans are so sick, to begin with (we are the sickest western culture because of what we eat and our contaminated environment and food system). It was a breath of fresh air to look behind that big curtain.

We must ask who could possibly handle dismantling this system and it's many arms and tentacles?

When people go to "it must be a woman" I cringe. It feels so simplistic and frankly uneducated. A woman is the answer. Certainly, it would be nice to see a woman take the helm. But I am not focused on gender in this campaign as much as character.

The point was made on a Pacifica Radio program the other day - that it wasn’t Russia that lost Hilary the election - it was the Electoral College. We just seem to keep forgetting key factors in our analysis of this election.

Question 1: Who can effectively go up against the quagmire of special interests?

Nader said we must first take money out of politics to even begin to resurrect our democracy. Until then - it is futile.

EXCERPT FROM MATT TAIBBI ARTICLE:
"Meanwhile, the Air Force, which has a $156 billion annual budget, still doesn’t always use serial numbers. It has no idea how much of almost anything it has at any given time. Nuclear weapons are the exception, and it started electronically tagging those only after two extraordinary mistakes, in 2006 and 2007. In the first, the Air Force accidentally loaded six nuclear weapons in a B-52 and flew them across the country, unbeknownst to the crew. In the other, the services sent nuclear nose cones by mistake to Taiwan, which had asked for helicopter batteries.

“What kind of an organization,” Andy asks, “doesn’t keep track of $20 billion in inventory?”

Despite being the taxpayers’ greatest investment — more than $700 billion a year — the Department of Defense has remained an organizational black box throughout its history. It’s repelled generations of official inquiries, the latest being an audit three decades in the making, mainly by scrambling its accounting into such a mess that it may never be untangled..."

...As for the phrase, a bill of goods, i.e. intentional deception, is EXACTLY what it is. Just to pick a few examples, ...

[caromia333]

Tulsi Gabbard, a real star in the group of candidates running.

US presence in Afghanistan costs us $4 billion a month. Imagine what we could do with those billions to care for our sick, support our teachers, provide housing and education, and in other ways serve the American people. I’ll end wars that waste our money and make us less safe.

[Shepherd]

Please do not vote for Biden. Though not as bad as Trump, especially given both of their inappropriate behavior with women, there are many better male and female candidates than he. Biden does not have any of the votes of the progressives and radicals (by which I mean return to the roots of the U.S.) whom I am close to. He is an example, in my opinion, why being a mere liberal is not enough to deal with the extreme conservatives who now dominate American politics.

I disagree - not about the bubble we're in here, but that Trump's a shoo-in. I think Biden would certainly win all the traditional blue states, liberal or not. In that sense he's maybe a safer choice - certainly the commentators on the right seem to think so. ....

[podfish]

Please do not vote for Biden.

hey, if it's him or any republican I can think of, it's him. Merely being willing to be associated with McConnel/Trump/et. al. is a disqualification in my mind, despite any protestations that "no, I'm an Eisenhower republican". I wouldn't vote for Eisenhower either.

but sure, I don't see why anyone would pick Biden given all the other choices. I'm not convinced by the argument that a progressive candidate won't get votes. My post, however, was addressing CPC's claim that Biden couldn't win. Sure he could.

[Barry]

hey, if it's him or any republican I can think of, it's him....

I think it would be helpful if everybody would specify whether they are referencing the primary election or the general election.

In general my guideline would be to vote your preference in the primary (which matters for the first time in California!) and vote Blue in the General. However, being that we are in solid blue California, you can vote for whoever you want in the general election, because the Democrat is going to win.

I'm still liking Pete the best, but I think Warren would be good, too. While her policies are good, I wonder if she has the political chops to pull off both a successful campaign against Trump and the presidency.

I think Bernie already won in 2016 in that he moved the party. Now his time has passed. I don't think he is going to win the nomination because Warren will siphon off his support. I also think he would be the most vulnerable candidate to the Republican fear propaganda machine. Like or not, there are a lot of sheeple out there! And being a grumpy (too) old white man, doesn't help. However if he does win the nomination, he'll have my full support.

[Abraham Entin]

As the originator of this thread (which has certainly taken on a life of its own!) I am going to weigh in one more time.

I agree with Barry that one should vote for the candidate one most agrees with, or whose values and proposals resonate with who we are. For this reason I am not only voting for Marianne Williamson, I have agreed to step forward as Northern California volunteer coordinator for her campaign. Her willingness to speak to the depths of what must be done to "change our hearts and minds" if we are to deal with the existential crises that face us set her apart from all of the other candidates.

In my close to sixty years of activism I have never worked for a candidate before. I have only voted for a "winner" twice--and did not feel like a winner either time. I don't know that she "can't win"--that is, after all, what almost all the experts said about Trump (with the notable exception of Michael Moore). I doubt that the Democratic Party will ever embrace non-violent direct action as a political principal, but perhaps a new party will emerge from the chaos.

The power We the People have is based in Love. We certainly don't have guns or money, nor do guns and money bring about real change. A Politics of Love is both difficult and powerful, but anyone who thinks that real change will come easily is deep in self-delusion.

If you are interested in working on this campaign please let me know. We are just beginning the journey, and there is plenty of room on this train.

[Mayacaman]

Abraham Entin wrote:

...I doubt that the Democratic Party will ever embrace non-violent direct action as a political principal, but perhaps a new party will emerge from the chaos.

The power We the People have is based in Love. We certainly don't have guns or money, nor do guns and money bring about real change. A Politics of Love is both difficult and powerful, but anyone who thinks that real change will come easily is deep in self-delusion...

Quite so, Abraham. Perhaps a new party will emerge from the Chaos. But the two major parties are the "two wings of the same bird of prey." My grandfather said that, in a rousing speech on May Day in 1934, at a Farmer-Labor Party gathering in the plaza in Rochester Minnesota. It was a new saying at the time, only six years old. It is now a proverb, among the disaffected.

My grandmother also wrote this, in their little weekly, the "Mid-West American" in 1934, when it was published in Rochester:

"Ever since the aftermath of the Compromise of 1877 worked out so well for the plutocrats, the bi-partisan party bosses have been meeting in a smoked-filled room in a Men's Club in mid-town Manhattan on election years before the Spring primaries, to work out who will run in the coming elections, and who will win, place, and show, and where the patronage will go..."

That is pretty much the sum of my own cynical credo concerning the duopoly that we here in Amerika have been saddled with. The System is rigged. It does not work for We, the People. That much is obvious. And, sadly, the plutocracy has a whole lot of experience in co-opting and/or side-tracking potential third parties. They like the duopoly; they are old hands at working it. It works for them.

Picking potential ponies in the race for the Democrat Party nomination in 2020, seems to me like a futile & hopeless endeavor. Sorry to rain on your parade, but it all seems so sad. Yes, "hope springs eternal" - but at this point, perhaps it is time to acquire another faith.

In my elder, hard-won cynicism, I remember the "Watermelons of Hope" that Bill Clinton peddled in 1992, and the Hope/hype that Obama peddled in 2008. Those guys were shoe-ins; that is, they were selected.

My grandmother, a savvy little Jewish gal from Flatbush, knew Manhattan, mid-town & downtown, like the back of her hand. She knew City Hall and Tammany Hall - and she knew where the bodies were buried. She was the City reporter for the New York Call in the 1920's, & she had it right: the "bi-partisan party bosses" {her term} "...work out who will run in the coming elections, and who will win, place, and show..."

More than likely, "emerging out of the chaos" will be a Civil War. None of us, I tell you, are prepared for what 2020 is going to bring. Putting one's hope in any Democrat candidate, & thinking, even remotely, that any of that will save you, personally, is like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Sorry, but that is how I see it...

[Abraham Entin]

Dear Maya,

So, my uncle was a Jewish communist union organizer in NYC who died in the Spanish Civil War.

I have never had any illusions about the duopoly and I am certainly not looking for any candidate to save me personally. I am about as "saved" as I am going to be in this lifetime. I see this as a long game and refuse to be sidetracked by cynicism, which, IMHO, deflects us from seeing who we are and what we might accomplish. At worst, it is the intellectuals' rationale for doing nothing and feeling good about it.

No matter what happens in 2020, I believe the Williamson campaigns represents a chance to talk about issues at a deeper level than usually happens in a Presidential campaign, and I relish that possibility.

[Mayacaman]

Abraham Entin Wrote:

...I see this as a long game and refuse to be sidetracked by cynicism, which, IMHO, deflects us from seeing who we are and what we might accomplish. At worst, it is the intellectuals' rationale for doing nothing and feeling good about it.

No matter what happens in 2020, I believe the Williamson campaigns represents a chance to talk about issues at a deeper level than usually happens in a Presidential campaign, and I relish that possibility...

No doubt about it, Abe, Marianne Williamson is by all means the "best candidate" - as far as purity of intent goes. And, not having been in politics, she is also the least polluted. And I am sure, what she is saying - and shall say - is worthwhile. Also, "talk about issues at a deeper level than usually happens in a Presidential campaign" is good. Let's hear it.

But Marianne Williamson does not have a ghost of a chance of winning the Democrat Party nomination. Let's get real. Nor does Bernie - whom I would have preferred to Trump.

The DNC & the RNC {the "bi-partisan party bosses"} in spite of all appearances work in tandem, and they select who will be the presidential candidates - for both parties. That's all. I am not a cynic on all points - but this is one: "Democracy in America."

Yes, they still allow us good old-fashioned "Town Hall Democracy" =OR= at least the appearance of it, to be sure. But when it comes to the election of congress, senate & presidents, It is all a charade.

[caromia333]

Tulsi Gabbard knocks it out of the park in this interview on Stephen Colbert.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0jnKb8MDks

Hawaii's member of Congress - Tulsi knows what she is talking about.

[gaiasophia]

Hi Abraham and all you in Wacco land

I heard an interview with Maryanne Williamson. I was listening because I was considering supporting her.

I haven't watched the debates.

That being said, after the interview, I emailed Williamson's campaign, saying she had just lost my vote because she was unsure about single payer etc. and also about forgiving student loan debt. I never received a reply.

I appreciate her honesty, but was amazed that she was unprepared on those 2 extremely important issues.
She said in the interview that she couldn't see anyway to pay for these .

Perhaps she was clearer on the debates or--?

Haven't fact checked this, but I heard today that Ralph Nadar is endorsing Bernie Sanders/ Elizabeth Warren ticket.

I've not time or desire to "debate" about this.

Just offering this as food for thought.

I agree with you Abraham on many points you raised, and anyone who knows me knows that I'm all about walking the path of Love, politically and in all walks of Life!

Kindly,
dusty

[kburgess]

The entire media, campaign and election infrastructure is so embedded with a 2 party democratic tyranny that unless the MSM is truly routed out and replaced with a truly honest and open media system, no reform can hope to take place. I see the Democratic party has become the MSM and visa-versa, and neither have any of our best interests at heart. The country is a lot more than California and New York, and the rest of the country needs to be heard in a fair and honest way with public discourse, dialogue and solution oriented debate and not this constant noise of opinion and fact-less accusation. It is great to have an opinion, but not cool to wave it around as though it is a fact. The world and this country is in quite a mess and been created by a long history of both parties abuses culminating to what we have here.

DJT was elected because enough people of this country were fed up with an entitled established ruling class that had no genuine interest in representing the people of this country to then provide us a platform to represent better values to the world. Clearly lots of people here in SoCo do not like him, but I believe that time will prove him right as he slowly unravels an incredible web of filth that has become the political world that some of us hold to be true and normal.

I am not trying to pick a fight, but just state that this has been a very long and dirty road and most of us may not remember what it might really mean to have a fair and honest media and election system, and until we get them back, I do not see much of anything truly taking place.

Please take a look at Robert David Steele's Election Reform Platform as it is the best first step that I have ever seen.

Be well,
Ken.
https://unrig.net/

...Quite so, Abraham. Perhaps a new party will emerge from the Chaos. But the two major parties are the "two wings of the same bird of prey."...

[podfish]

.... unless the MSM is truly routed out and replaced with a truly honest and open media system, no reform can hope to take place.....
I am not trying to pick a fight, but just state that this has been a very long and dirty road and most of us may not remember what it might really mean to have a fair and honest media and election system, and until we get them back, I do not see much of anything truly taking place.

not to be cynical -- well, ok, to be cynical. Unless you're a lot older than me, I can't imagine you remember a time with an "honest media and election system", even compared to now. In fact, I don't recall ever hearing about a point in history where people were blessed with anything "truly honest and open", much less a media system. Yet, periodically, we do get reform. It's always relative, it's never really good enough, but it's what we do.

I don't mean to disparage the push for reform, openness, and fairness. That's an ongoing fight. But that's kinda my point, it's an unreachable goal but incremental progress is better than none, and recovering from backsliding is better than continuing to lose what progress has been made. I guess it's motivating to think that the current crowd of enemies, both systemic and personal, have pried us out of Eden, but personally I'm more motivated by someone who understands the bastards in charge, understands their motivations (rather than cartoon characterizations of them) and can find the winnable goals -- and win them. Glorious defeats are no fun, and I've lived through lots of those. That's the history I remember...

[kburgess]

I am glad that you at least are in support of some type of reform. Yes total reform may be a far goal for most folks, but I do not believe that any of us have to settle for 2nd best, and unless we have a goal of getting there, we probably will not. It is also part of the choice to see that society is at least a 2 level system, the power holding elites with a clear agenda of control and the rest of us as the controlled. All that said, even the power brokers have their weakness, and that is their arrogance, their sense of invincibility, disclosure and the level of satanic sacrifice that they use as their spiritual core.

Miracles and true healing do take place and as a society/world, I think that we are well ready and deserving of one. Not to say that it will happen, but unless we keep our eye on the TRUE prize, we will never get it.
Thanks,
Ken.

not to be cynical -- well, ok, to be cynical. Unless you're a lot older than me, I can't imagine you remember a time with an "honest media and election system", even compared to now. In fact, I don't recall ever hearing about a point in history where people were blessed with anything "truly honest and open", much less a media system. Yet, periodically, we do get reform. It's always relative, it's never really good enough, but it's what we do.

I don't mean to disparage the push for reform, openness, and fairness. That's an ongoing fight. But that's kinda my point, it's an unreachable goal but incremental progress is better than none, and recovering from backsliding is better than continuing to lose what progress has been made. I guess it's motivating to think that the current crowd of enemies, both systemic and personal, have pried us out of Eden, but personally I'm more motivated by someone who understands the bastards in charge, understands their motivations (rather than cartoon characterizations of them) and can find the winnable goals -- and win them. Glorious defeats are no fun, and I've lived through lots of those. That's the history I remember...

[Rustie]

...and ignores the bump to the opposition when a candidate they can't stand is the frontrunner. Bernie never had- and never will have a chance. (And that's a good thing... please, someone here tell me 5 things he's ever been able to accomplish in congress. Or a single time he's been able to cobble together a coalition of R & D's to accomplish a single damn thing in congress??? ) rr

Please see below for the short list as per your request. Though it's not a complete list it exceeds your required 5 things Bernie's ever been able to accomplish in Congress. I've included the party majority and white house stats as a shorthand way to respond to your additional comment about Sanders being incapable of cobbling together a coalition of Republicans & Democrats.

And while we're on the subject of a bipartisan coalition let's not forget Bernie's measure to end U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen. That motion passed 63-37, an amazing accomplishment considering the current atmosphere between Democrats and Republicans.

Naturally all the bills that Bernie has put forward that did not pass are not included as that wasn't your criteria. However I happen to think that those bills tell a substantial story regarding his long term commitment to confront and take on our runaway capitalist system and elite ruling class that have been running and ruining our country for decades.

This list also doesn't give any insight into his voting record which of course is of major importance, at least in my opinion, when determining if a potential candidate actually stands for the policies they are quick to give lip service to when campaigning. For the most part, I'm sure there's always an exception to the rule, Sanders' votes reconcile with his policy positions. Throughout his entire political career he has been very consistent. I think it fair to say that one could count on him to follow through with his campaign promises a well as standing up to the corrupt self-serving power structure that most of our politicians are indebted to.

2001 – 2006 President Bush – Senate Republican Majority - House Republican Majority
H.Amdt.238 to H.R. 2590 (July 2001) Sanders Amendment
Prohibits the importation of goods made with forced or indentured child labor
H.Amdt.404 to H.R. 3338 (November 2001) Sanders Amendment
Makes available an additional $100 million for federally qualified community health centers
H.Amdt.562 to H.R. 5120 (July 2002) Sanders Amendment
Prohibits the IRS from using any funding made available from H.R. 5120 for activities that violate current pension, age discrimination, and tax laws
H.Amdt.721 to H.R.5006 (Sept 2004) Sanders Amendment
Increases funding for Low Income Energy Assistance programs by $22 million
H.Amdt.381 to H.R. 3057 (June 2005) Sanders Amendment
Prohibits the use of any funds made available from H.R. 3057 to be used by the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. for a long term loan or loan guarantee for nuclear projects in China
2007 – 2008 President Bush – Senate 50/50 split - House Democrat Majority
S.Amdt. 1525 to H.R. 6 (June 2007) Sanders Amendment
An amendment to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requiring not less than 30% of hot water demand for new and modified Federal buildings be met through the installation and use of solar hot water heaters
S.Amdt 3130 to H.R. 3222 (October 2007) Sanders Amendment
Provided an additional $10 million for operation and maintenance of the Army National Guard which had been stretched thin and overextended by the Iraq war
2009 – 2010 President Obama – Senate Democrat Majority - House Democrat Majority
S.Amdt 306 to H.R. 1 (Feburary 2009) Sanders Amendment
An amendment to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the bank bailout) requiring recipients (financial institutions) of TARP funding to meet strict H-1B worker hiring standards to ensure non displacement of American workers
2011 – 2014 President Obama – Senate Democrat Majority - House Republican Majority
S. Amdt 3183 to S.3254 (November 2012) Sanders Amendment
Requires the database of senior Department officials seeking employment with defense contractors be made publicly available
S.893 (May 2013) Sanders Bill - Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-living Adjustment Act of 2013
Increases the rates of Veterans' disability compensation, additional compensation for dependents, the clothing allowance and dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses and children

[Shepherd]

VOTE FOR BERNIE SANDERS, and whichever woman he selects as his Vice-President. She then could be our first female president, which we desperately need, in my opinion. If he dies in office, she becomes president. Or he may simply resign, at some point, in which case she becomes our first female president, and can then run for office on her own.

[podfish]

VOTE FOR BERNIE SANDERS, and whichever woman he selects as his Vice-President.

someone on another thread pointed out that this idea, that it's better that the woman should be the VP, is kinda patronizing. I know it's not meant as tokenism, but it was nice that Obama wasn't just the first black VP.

[Shepherd]

Unfortunately, America is not ready to elect a woman president, in my opinion. So my reason for wanting Bernie to be our president includes that I think he is the most qualified person, and second because he has said that he would have a female vice-president. Taking one step at a time--rather than trying to get a female president at this time--is more likely to be successful. A vote for Bernie is a possible way to get a female president soon, in my opinion. Make your vote count!

someone on another thread pointed out that this idea, that it's better that the woman should be the VP, is kinda patronizing. I know it's not meant as tokenism, but it was nice that Obama wasn't just the first black VP.

[caromia333]

The more critical question is have we addressed the lack of justice in the voting systems in America?
The Electoral College for example and Greg Palast work https://www.gregpalast.com

He focuses on the massive voter fraud and suppression (gerry mandering and the hacking of our GOP owned machinery and the purging of voter rolls - millions of votes lost). People seem to keep forgetting what really impacts who gets elected.

From Huff Post article

The Electoral College is one of the most dangerous institutions in American politics today.

The primary impact of the Electoral College is to give the citizens of some states more influence over the presidential election than citizens of other states. If you live in a Battleground State you are showered with attention. Your issues gain traction at the national level. You have political power. But if you happen to live in a Red State or a Blue State — as do roughly 79% of Americans according to Nate Silver’s electoral map — then you are pretty much out of luck. Your vote doesn’t matter. And when we say “your vote doesn’t matter,” we can actually quantify this. According to the Princeton Election Consortium a vote in Nevada this year (a small battleground state) is over one million times more likely to have an impact on this election than a vote in New Jersey (a large Blue state).

Unfortunately, America is not ready to elect a woman president, in my opinion. ...