Sen. Manchin, like MAGA, wants to return to the America of the past. The Democratic Party’s progressives will not return, and Rep. Clyburn and this narrative makes that clear.
(I hadn't finished) The deficit ballooned under trump largely because of those entitlements.
It also occurs to me that no one benefits more from US infrastructure and resources than huge corporations and the ultra rich: our highways, railroads, ports, bridges, shipping systems, water supplies, power grid, the internet and other technologies, etc. They could not conduct business without all these advantages.
Mining company executives have been ripping off our country's natural resources and keeping the resulting profits primarily for themselves, while contaminating our waterways and leaving our earth scarred. Yet they refuse to clean up the damage they've caused. They expect their underpaid, poorly-insured, under-protected workers to shoulder the dangers and risks of mining. Why on earth are these no-loads still receiving government subsidies? It's obscene!
The uber wealthy and huge corporations have really done a fabulous job of propagandizing the heck out of everyone below them. Like the Republican theory of "trickle-down economics." I love comic George Lopez's explanation that it means everyone beneath them gets p**sed on. Now that makes sense.
And BTW, ordinary everyday people realize that a corporation is not equal to a person. The resulting overpowering influence of corporate money in politics is a travesty and must be eliminated. It's ruining our democracy.
Thank you for your sanity and good ideas in this crazy world, Egberto!
The Clinton campaign's cheating and collusion enabled her to pull ahead in the delegate count. Earlier, in late February, tremendously influential Clyburn endorsed Clinton ahead of South Carolina's primary, betraying Black voters there and nationwide. How so? Sanders' progressive policies would have disproportionately benefited Black families; Clinton's corrupt ties to Wall Street would ensure harmful economic policies them. Clyburn could have at least remained silent. Instead he chose to screw his own people.
Without the cheating, corruption and collusion, even with Clyburn's betrayal, Sanders could have won the Democratic primary election. Given the polling data, he would have wiped the floor with Trump in November. It wouldn't have been close.
Egberto, I respectfully disagree regarding Clyburn. First, some context. By April 2016 Sanders and Clinton had a roughly equal number of pledged delegates, 1169 for Clinton and 1114 for Sanders. Primaries in key states still hadn't happened. Sanders had the advantage of huge momentum and grassroots enthusiasm.
Clinton had the advantage of a blatantly rigged system in which handpicked "superdelegates" favored her. Further, the DNC was financially indebted to Clinton's well-heeled campaign, so they (Clinton) called the shots. Total corruption.
Meanwhile, polls that pitted Sanders and Clinton not against each other but against GOP candidates showed Sanders to be much more "electable." For instance 50 major polls were published in March. Sanders won 45 against GOP contenders, and lost 5. In the same November matchup polls, Clinton won just 32 against the GOP, lost 14 and tied 3.
In April there were 62 of these major polls. Sanders won 59 and lost just 3 — a stunning performance. In the same polls, Clinton won 48 against the GOP, lost 12 and tied 2.
In sports betting, they talk about point spreads. In March, Sanders averaged an 11-point spread in each poll. In April, he scored an eye-popping 18-point average spread versus GOP contenders. Clinton? In March, she squeaked by with an average 4-point spread against the GOP. In April, she did better, with an 11-point average spread but nowhere close to Sanders' incredible performance.
I know these numbers because I myself did the research and posted the results online. You can still see them at my 2016 site BernieWorks.com (also at https://bernieworks.weebly.com). Meanwhile well-meaning Dem voters said, "I like Bernie, but Hillary's more electable."
(I hadn't finished) The deficit ballooned under trump largely because of those entitlements.
It also occurs to me that no one benefits more from US infrastructure and resources than huge corporations and the ultra rich: our highways, railroads, ports, bridges, shipping systems, water supplies, power grid, the internet and other technologies, etc. They could not conduct business without all these advantages.
Mining company executives have been ripping off our country's natural resources and keeping the resulting profits primarily for themselves, while contaminating our waterways and leaving our earth scarred. Yet they refuse to clean up the damage they've caused. They expect their underpaid, poorly-insured, under-protected workers to shoulder the dangers and risks of mining. Why on earth are these no-loads still receiving government subsidies? It's obscene!
The uber wealthy and huge corporations have really done a fabulous job of propagandizing the heck out of everyone below them. Like the Republican theory of "trickle-down economics." I love comic George Lopez's explanation that it means everyone beneath them gets p**sed on. Now that makes sense.
And BTW, ordinary everyday people realize that a corporation is not equal to a person. The resulting overpowering influence of corporate money in politics is a travesty and must be eliminated. It's ruining our democracy.
Thank you for your sanity and good ideas in this crazy world, Egberto!
Hi Egberto,
You are so right! Trump made sure the uber wealthy got huge "entitlements" through his tax cuts for them. The deficit
PART 2 OF THIS COMMENT. PLS SEE PART 1 FIRST.
The decisive New York primary election was coming up. Sanders had a commanding advantage, even though Clinton had been a New York senator and had close ties to Wall Street. Apparently the Clinton campaign — in cahoots with election officials — invalidated some 300,000 Sanders voters by disappearing them from the primary voter rolls and by other dirty tricks. When these folks showed up to vote in the primary, presto, their names couldn't be located. https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Democrats-rig-the-2016-primaries-to-keep-Bernie-Sanders-out-and-make-for-sure-Hillary-was-the-one-to-lead-the-Democratic-party-and-hopefully-become-president. If you can't find this 2,000-word piece, let me know. I saved the text.
Back to Jim Clyburn...
The Clinton campaign's cheating and collusion enabled her to pull ahead in the delegate count. Earlier, in late February, tremendously influential Clyburn endorsed Clinton ahead of South Carolina's primary, betraying Black voters there and nationwide. How so? Sanders' progressive policies would have disproportionately benefited Black families; Clinton's corrupt ties to Wall Street would ensure harmful economic policies them. Clyburn could have at least remained silent. Instead he chose to screw his own people.
Without the cheating, corruption and collusion, even with Clyburn's betrayal, Sanders could have won the Democratic primary election. Given the polling data, he would have wiped the floor with Trump in November. It wouldn't have been close.
And today we would live in a different world.
PART 1 OF 2 PARTS
Egberto, I respectfully disagree regarding Clyburn. First, some context. By April 2016 Sanders and Clinton had a roughly equal number of pledged delegates, 1169 for Clinton and 1114 for Sanders. Primaries in key states still hadn't happened. Sanders had the advantage of huge momentum and grassroots enthusiasm.
Clinton had the advantage of a blatantly rigged system in which handpicked "superdelegates" favored her. Further, the DNC was financially indebted to Clinton's well-heeled campaign, so they (Clinton) called the shots. Total corruption.
Meanwhile, polls that pitted Sanders and Clinton not against each other but against GOP candidates showed Sanders to be much more "electable." For instance 50 major polls were published in March. Sanders won 45 against GOP contenders, and lost 5. In the same November matchup polls, Clinton won just 32 against the GOP, lost 14 and tied 3.
In April there were 62 of these major polls. Sanders won 59 and lost just 3 — a stunning performance. In the same polls, Clinton won 48 against the GOP, lost 12 and tied 2.
In sports betting, they talk about point spreads. In March, Sanders averaged an 11-point spread in each poll. In April, he scored an eye-popping 18-point average spread versus GOP contenders. Clinton? In March, she squeaked by with an average 4-point spread against the GOP. In April, she did better, with an 11-point average spread but nowhere close to Sanders' incredible performance.
I know these numbers because I myself did the research and posted the results online. You can still see them at my 2016 site BernieWorks.com (also at https://bernieworks.weebly.com). Meanwhile well-meaning Dem voters said, "I like Bernie, but Hillary's more electable."
PART 2 OF THIS COMMENT, COMING UP