Bernie Sanders got walloped in the Dem SC primary today ... lotsa discussion about that on the [url=http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/02/links-22816.html]NC Links page[/url]; I especially liked user Carolinian's "all politics is local" comments. Mish - who thinks Bernie's economic ideas are nuts (I would ask: Which is more nuts - shoveling taxpayer money at the mega-corrupt banking cartels or redistributing sizable but still rather rather smaller sums to people who will actually spend it back into the domestic economy?) but who is no fan of Hillary, [url=http://mishtalk.com/2016/02/27/prepare-for-clinton-coronation-alleged-dead-heat-dies-sudden-death/]also weighs in[/url]. As I e-mailed to my sister, a big Bernie supporter:
[quote]
My one consolation in the event that the Dems steal the nomination for HillBillary is that in that case Trump will tear her a new one. None of the too-polite-to-bring-this-up crap the Dems (including Sanders) have pulled on Hillary 'track record of experience.' Yes, let's look closely at that experience, shall we? Huge warmonger ... owned by Wall Street ... massively corrupt, like her husband ... and completely self-isolated from the effects her neoliberal domestic policies and neocon foreign policies have had on the bottom 90%. A Trump presidency sure as hell could not possibly be worse for non-elite-douchebag Americans than the last 35 years have been, and think of the sheer entertainment value: "Hillary, you're fired." (And indicted, hopefully - Trump has actually promised that as one of his first actions as president. After all there are several non-elite whistleblowers rotting in prison for crimes far less than Hillary committed by privatizing her State Dept email server, using personal e-mail account to transmit top secret stuff, and using the crooked Clinton Foundation as a global pay-to-play money-laundering front while she was SoS .)

Trump and Sanders are the only 2 candidates-with-a-chance who are not a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street, Kochsucker Industries Inc, etc. Despite the huge difference in styles they actually agree on what should be the 2 major issues everyone is focused on:
[b]
1. Domestic policy:[/b] What have all these crooked-bank bailouts and 'free trade' deals done for the real economy, exactly? Why have real wages actually dropped for the bottom 80-90% of Americans over the last 35 years?
[b]
2. Foreign policy:[/b] How exactly does blowing up one foreign country after another and thereby creating millions of potential terrorist recruits make us more safe? Despite Trump's blustery anti-ISIS rhetoric, he has actually said some very cogent things on the issue, see [url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/29/us-usa-election-trump-mideast-idUSKCN0RT1GB20150929]here[/url] and [url=http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/263086-trump-hillary-has-killed-hundreds-of-thousands-of-people]here[/url].[/quote]
Only corrigendum post-SC is that the Dem establishment may in fact not have to steal the nomination for Hillary after all. But rest assured that a vote for her is neither "progressive" nor "for the lesser evil".

Cornel West Says Hillary Clinton is the Milli Vanilli of US Politics
 

[URL="http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Cornel-West-Says-Clinton-is-the-Milli-Vanilli-of-US-Politics---20160222-0027.html"]You tell it, Brother West![/URL]

[QUOTE]The U.S. philosopher Cornel West accused Hillary Clinton of only giving “lip service” to social justice policies, comparing her to German duo Milli Vanilli, whose Grammy award was revoked after it was revealed that the pair had not actually sung their songs, but lipsynched to other singers.

“Sister Hillary Clinton is the Milli Vanilli of American politics … She lip-syncs, she gives lip service. But when it comes to policy, who supported the crime bill? Who supported, not just the deregulating of banks, but also pulled the rug from under welfare?” West said in an interview on CNN.
[/QUOTE]

Could the 2016 Election Be Stolen with Help from Electronic Voting Machines?
 

[URL="http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/23/could_the_2016_election_be_stolen?"]I consider this an "Is the Pope Catholic" kind of question.[/URL]
(Transcript or video available.)

From Democracy Now!
[QUOTE]Harvey Wasserman of Columbus, Ohio, has been a vocal critic of electronic voting machines. He co-wrote the book, "What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election." His upcoming book is titled "The Strip & Flip Selection of 2016: Five Jim Crows & Electronic Election Theft." We talk to him about his concerns for the upcoming presidential race.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Could the 2016 Election Be Stolen with Help from Electronic Voting Machines?[/QUOTE]
Should be pretty safe. Donald Trump is quite obviously too honest to even think of using his wealth to arrange such a thing.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;427998]Should be pretty safe. Donald Trump is quite obviously too honest to even think of using his wealth to arrange such a thing.[/QUOTE]
I am not sure that an individual, and an outsider could make such a play. It is party apparatchiks in positions of authority, such as Secretary of State, who have the easiest access.

That is not to say that they are the only ones, but they have all the machines at their disposal, where an outsider might, at best, be able to diddle the machines of a particular precinct. If they were higher up the chain, they might be able to affect the tabulation, rather than individual locations.

[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/03/mitt-romney-is-the-human-embodiment-of-the-republican-partys-trump-terrors/[/url]

[QUOTE]What Trump has done is revealed how little power is left in the Republican Party.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kladner;427804][URL="http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/23/could_the_2016_election_be_stolen?"]I consider this an "Is the Pope Catholic" kind of question.[/URL]
(Transcript or video available.)

From Democracy Now![/QUOTE]

I have a lot of issues with that article. For example, this statement:

[quote]They are stripping the voter rolls—and Greg Palast, the great investigative reporter, is doing great on this—removing African Americans, Hispanics, people who might incline to vote progressive, and they—so that—in 2004, they stripped 300,000 people from the voter rolls here in the urban areas. Bush only won by less than 120 [thousand].[/quote]

assumes many things including:

1) That the 300,000 people that were removed should not have been removed in the first place.
2) That 150,000 of them would have voted.
3) That 80% of them would have voted for a Democrat.

Although #3 is likely true, #1 and #2 are likely not true.

This statement:

[quote]When you compare exit polls, which are generally accurate to within 1 percent, with the electronic outcome, there are huge variations.[/quote]

also makes a number of assumptions.

1) "generally" does not mean always
2) exit polls are voluntary
3) "huge variations" is poorly defined

Finally, since I'm a cheesehead (but not "cheesehead"), this statement is just an assertion without facts:

[quote]We have no doubt that Scott Walker stole his re-election in Wisconsin.[/quote]

All polls at the time clearly showed that Walker was going to win that election. The Democrats did not put forth a good enough candidate.

In case you think I'm some right-leaning whack-job, I'll let you know that I am one of those coveted "in the middle" voters who is neither a Democrat or Republican. Personally I would love see Trump vs. Sanders in November because of the problems both cause for their respective parties. I don't see how Trump could win, whether he faces Clinton or Sanders.

[QUOTE=tha;410778]...... Trump will not win the Republican nomination, not be elected president, but otherwise he certainly would be the first president to be impeached and in the first year in office to be precise. No need for a militairy coup.[/QUOTE]

I am still of the opinion Trump will not be the Republican nominee, will not be elected US president, and would be impeached by the US congress with bipartisan support in his first year in office if he somehow ended up there anyway. But I am amused and relieved by US generals openly discussing a running up to a coup scenario in the media already.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;428023][url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/03/mitt-romney-is-the-human-embodiment-of-the-republican-partys-trump-terrors/[/url][/QUOTE]

Flip-flop much, Mittens?

Romney, 2016: “[ROMNEY:] Here’s what I know: Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He’s playing members of the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House, and all we get is a lousy hat” [CNN].

Romney, 2012: “[ROMNEY:] Donald Trump has shown an extraordinary ability to understand how our economy works to create jobs for the American people. He’s done it here in Nevada, he’s done it across the country… He’s one of the few people who stood up and said, you know what, China’s been cheating. They’ve taken jobs from Americans” [Political Wire].

[QUOTE=kladner;428022]I am not sure that an individual, and an outsider could make such a play. It is party apparatchiks in positions of authority, such as Secretary of State, who have the easiest access.

That is not to say that they are the only ones, but they have all the machines at their disposal, where an outsider might, at best, be able to diddle the machines of a particular precinct. If they were higher up the chain, they might be able to affect the tabulation, rather than individual locations.[/QUOTE]
Note that the establishment insiders have many other ways to commit caucus/primary/general-election fraud, as well -- such as [url=http://theantimedia.org/60000-people-want-bill-clinton-arrested-for-violating-election-laws/]this example from Super Tuesday's MA primary[/url]. And of course the whole Dem 'House of Lords'-style superdelegate system is perhaps the clearest example of vote-rigging, and the Dem establishment is not even trying to disguise that one.

[QUOTE=tha;428041]I am still of the opinion Trump will not be the Republican nominee, will not be elected US president, and would be impeached by the US congress with bipartisan support in his first year in office if he somehow ended up there anyway. But I am amused and relieved by US generals openly discussing a running up to a coup scenario in the media already.[/QUOTE]

IMO President Hillary would be at least as likely to be impeached, over her actual breaking of laws (privatizing her e-mails as SoS and gross mishandling of state secrets, lying to Congress over the Benghazi consulate weapons-smuggling operation to the Syrian rebels, using the Clinton Foundation as a pay-to-play bribe-laundering front during her tenure in Congress and at State, the list is seemingly endless). What illegal acts might Congress impeach The Donald over, pray tell?

The UK neocons were also issuing such blustery, borderline-treasonous verbiage in the runup to the recent UK elections. But nice of you to go on record as preferring a US military dictatorship over someone who has actually dared question the imperial warmongering status quo in Washington, whatever his other personal flaws may be.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;428043]...... But nice of you to go on record as preferring a US military dictatorship over someone who has actually dared question the imperial warmongering status quo in Washington, whatever his other personal flaws may be.[/QUOTE]

You are stretching it quite bit. A coup does not need to be followed by militairy rule.

Rule 40 is an interesting quibble to watch. Each of the conventions seems to be working under hindsight rules set by the last mess incurred.

A very biased source but so what at this point.
[url]http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/03/what-if-trump-is-the-only-candidate-at-a-brokered-convention-whos-satisfied-rule-40/[/url]