Isn't it odd that Clinton and Trump are the likely winners of the Democratic and

Votes than sanders...the process appears to working...except when its your candidate not winning...why is that?

even odder behavior of the Establishment people are unfairly helping Clinton
and working against Sanders. As if you didn't know!!

Do you get mad when you cant name other peoples kids?

the way FDR was leading our nation. Not a government of, by and for the 0.1% super-rich, where
the everyday Joe has no say at all.

Hillary is part of the establishment and got support from the party machinery while Trump voters voted for him in anger against their establishment led by Jeb Bush and they are still trying to undermine him.

I guess it's easier to deflect if you can't make an argument.

That being said automatic voter registration needs to be put in place.

For opposite reasons, oddly enough. The Republicans, because they can't prevent the voters from rejecting the establishment's choice, and the Democrats, because they can.

What's consistent is that both parties' establishments choose candidates that don't address the issues of regular people. I suppose it's a natural result of having such enormous wealth disparities.

movement started by Sanders and Warren will continue to take hold, even after she and he will
have left the political scene. It would be a tragedy, indeed, if democracy were to cease to exist
in our nation.

Spare me the poor Democrats, nothing to fight back with, have to clean up after those evil Republicans. The 2 parties have largely become 2 peas in a pod, only the RNC establishment let things get out of control with Trump while the DNC maintained control of their system. Provided they can keep the FBI in check, of course.

first sentence. This gives a false impression. Here' the whole paragraph:

"As far as the news media is concerned, the Democrats have nothing to fight back
with. Nor do we seem to be interested in starting one of our own to counteract
the Republican lies with genuine news and the truth that the American people deserve
to know. It can be done. But Democrats are too passive, and I think this passivity
and apathy do play some role in the mess we're in, too. "

The statement that Democrats have nothing with which to fight back the Republican
News Media propaganda and lies is a fact. Do you deny it? I am also pointing out
that Democrats are partly to blame for this one-sided advantage of the Republicans
because Democrats are too passive and apathetic to try to do something constructive
and beneficial about it. The Republicans are still winning so often in spite of their
robbing of the American people blind, their lies about their bringing about the economic
crash of 2007 and 2008, and there's no way for Democrats to help make our people
any wiser.

I have also written more than once in the past that Democrats could at least try to
start having a news media that would publish genuine news and inform Americans of
the truth that they deserve. People are just not interested. Do you think it was
sheer coincidence that the Republicans own 90% of the news media today? I think
it was the result of long-term planning on the part of the Republicans.

Another example: How about militarization of the police departments throughout the
country from coast to coast? Remember how swiftly and roughly they cracked down
on the members of Occupy Wall Street and had them jailed, when they began their
peaceful protests in NYC and elsewhere in 2011?

Does our nation need militarized police departments, and if so, what for? And who
started militarizing them to begin with? What are they planning or anticipating to
do with them in the future? At the present time, your guess is as good as mine.
But I feel not much good will result from such militarization of our police. Again, who
do you think planned this militarization, and what is it for?

I agree with your "The 2 parties have largely become 2 peas in a pod." I'll add that
members of both Parties have become sick and tired of their respective Parties and
have been leaving them by the droves in recent years. The Democratic Party is also
split, just as the Republican Party is. In the case of the Democrats, the Establishment
(which has more or less capitulated to the Corporate Power people) still has more
adherents than the Progressives (headed by Sanders and Warren), who are fighting
against the corruption of the greedy corporations. With the Republicans, Trump's
rebellion is having the upper hand -- for the moment, at any rate. Being financially
independent is probably of a big help to him.

I wonder how things will turn out. We are living in highly interesting, but also
exceedingly dangerous times.

That is, corporatist Republican and Democrat. Ownership of the media is corporatist, not Republican, in my opinion. Credit the Telecommunications Act passed during the Clinton administration for helping that along. We have all seen the coverage Hillary Clinton has gotten from the corporate media during this primary season relative to Bernie Sanders. Showing the Superdelegates in the totals from the beginning, the Bernie can't win, the barrage of questions about when will he get out and will he support Hillary when he does. And more recently, the Clinton campaign states on TV that they are going to go after Bernie, and within 48 hours the corporate media has turned it to "why is Bernie attacking Hillary by calling her unqualified?" There were the 16 negative stories in 16 hours on Bernie in the Washington Post.

Have you noticed the recent purchase of DIRECTV by ATT? Or the just approved purchase of Time Warner Cable by Charter Communications? At least Comcast's attempt to buy Time Warner Cable was blocked, but that is a rarity. There were 65 anti-trust investigations in the last year of Jimmy Carter's administration, when concentration in industry was nowhere close to what it is now. There were ZERO anti-trust investigations in 2015 under Obama.

As for militarized police departments, did Bill Clinton's Crime Bill that included funding for 100,000 police and increased mandatory minimum sentences (including the 100:1 sentencing disparity for crack cocaine versus power cocaine) have anything to do with that?

I do not see these distinctions between the mainstream of the Republican and Democratic Parties that you do.

Where do you think most of the money and votes of the top 0.1% will go in a Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump general election? My guess is 99% of the money (including all of the Clinton Foundation money, the Clinton "speech" money, etc.) and 90% of the 0.1% votes will go to Hillary.

I know that the Corporatists are the big money-bags who mostly pull the strings from behind
the scenes, and the Republicans have been their puppets for the longest time. Recently, some
of the puppets have begun to rebel, with Trump as their leader.

Democrats, on the other hand, have been against the Corporatists from way back, but more
and more of them have also begun to be financially influenced by the Corporatists since the
time of Reagan - perhaps even of Nixon? Today the Democratic Establishment is composed of
more Corporate Democrats than anything else, and Sanders and Warren are leading a
separate group - the Progressives or Libertarians - that is fighting against being swallowed up
by the Corporatists.

Hillary sometimes describes herself as a Progressive. It's for political reasons, of course. She
is anything but. Yes, she is a Wall-Streeter. I also use the word Corporatist with Wall Street
interchangeably. However, there is some difference between her and a Republican. I don't
think she would nominate a Republican to the Supreme Court. Obama seems to be doing this
now, but I think he is doing it to embarrass the Republicans - it's a game of daring, which, I
think, is both childish and dangerous.

I agree that the Corporatists don't want Trump to win. But Trump is flicking his fingers from
his nose at the Corporatists at the moment. He is financially independent and can afford to do
so. I think Trump is for Trump, and nobody else. I read yesterday that he said if he should
lose, we wouldn't be hearing from him again - ever. No big loss, as far as I am concerned.
In the meantime he is probably having fun leading the Republican part of the rebellion
against the Corporatists.

There isn't much difference between the Republican and Democratic Corporatists. But I hope
Sanders and Warren have started a movement that will unite and give direction to the energies
of the Progressives, and that the movement will continue after she and he will have left the
political scene.

money and cluster bombs and austerity and war and corporate job-killing trade deals and crushing student debt.

We are not all going with it. And there are other choices, between the Devil and, well, the Devil. I happen to love the deep blue sea.

With the way that the parties are so polarized, effectively a nominee will now be seen as automatically too far to the left or right by half the country.

Couple that with an increased polarization and sorting on the part of voters, the ability to get news from sources that share the same bias, and it can become an echo chamber.

Think about Republicans mocking John Kerry's military career or Democrats calling Bush Bushitler or the chimperor.

I think it started with the Republican takeover in 1994, but because it works, people keep using it.

seeing this.