The Clinton Campaign Is Screwed

[Jack Rabbit]

66. Do you have evidence for that rather serious charge?

Bernis is taking money from Karl Rove's organization? Do you mean this? There's nothing here about Bernie taking money from Crossroads. There is something that might suggest a pattern of propping up Bernie to tear down Hillary, which in turn suggests that some Republican believe they will have an easier time beating Bernie. The reality is that wither Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton will defeat any of the clowns seeking the GOP nomination. If Karl Rove wants to play that game, he's welcome to play it, but it won't do the GOP presidential candidate any good.

Yes, Bernie is a socialist. Dishonest? Just ask him about it and see how dishonest he is. He'll tell you he's a democratic socialist. Usually, the press spells democratic with a capital D, but I think it is clear that Senator Sanders is more committed to the principles of parliamentary democracy than to any particular political party. That may play into what some at Camp Weathervane say, but I don't have a problem with it. I would hope that all Democrats are more committed to the principles of the parliamentary democracy than to a political party, and that distinguishes the Democrats in a positive way from the party that steals elections for an incompetent spoiled brat like Bush the Frat Boy, passes laws to make it more difficult for poor people to vote, etc.

If he restores the status quo ante for banking regulation to 1999 or even 1980, how is that unworkable? Americans enjoyed 50 years under that regulatory regime with no major financial crises. Within ten years of passing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, we had a major meltdown street that crashed the world economy. What's unworkable is neoliberalism. If you like neoliberalism, vote for Hillary or for a Republican. If not, it seems the only viable candidate for you is Bernie Sanders.

He doesn't have a clue who to play (sic; do you mean "who is going to pay"?) for the programs.

They will be paid for by rolling back the tax cuts billionaires have received since the beginning of the era of voodoo economics (AKA neoliberalism, supply-side economics, trickle-down economics or Reaganomics), especially the tax cuts passed under Bush the Frat Boy that have never been repealed. Given the state of income inequality and the persistent loss of US manufacturing jobs, there is no evidence that voodoo economics works as advertised. Far from showcasing the power of the free market, the middle class has shrunk noticeably during this period, giving the lie to any propaganda about the rich being "job creators." We've been living under the regime of voodoo economics for 35 years and if it was going to produce anything worthwhile, it would have by now. Its demise is long overdue.

It is guaranteed he doesn't have any votes for this schemes (sic).

He's got mine.

Dem's (sic) are not for High taxes, we are for a progressive fair tax system.

Voodoo economics does not endorse the concept of a "progressive fair tax system." That's why don't have a progressive tax system after 35 years of voodoo economics. The underlying assumption of voodoo tax policy is that the rich are lightly taxed because they use the revenue to create jobs. Do you still believe that? During this period, Democrats have been ineffective at restoring a progressive take system. Even billionaires like Warren Buffet have a problem with the unfairness of the tax system as it currently stands. Moreover, Democrats have been ineffective at holding congressional or legislative majorities during this period when the party's establishment, personified by incompetent national chairmen like Terry McAuliffe and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, have displayed a bias toward recruiting candidates who support neoliberal policies that have less popular appeal than more robust government policies like the New Deal and Great Society.