synchronicity's picture


    This week many organizations will join together to fight the passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership also known as the TPP.

    Hillary Clinton worked on the TPP as Secretary of State. She even said in 2012 that the TPP is ‘the gold standard of trade agreements.’



    During the current campaign she had made a few critical comments but avoided taking a position on the TPP for many months.  Close to the first debate she declared that she did not support the TPP but her objections ring hollow.  Currency manipulation, an issue raised by both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton was never going to be part of the deal.



    And let’s by clear any expression of her concerns about big pharma are just not believable.  First of all the deal in the TPP for Big Pharma was reduced/improved from where it had previously been when she was involved. Hillary claimed drug companies as her ‘enemy’ in the first debate but that is completely unbelievable because Hillary is a top recipient of drug company campaign cash.

    This week Hillary stated publicly that she would not use any of her power or influence to fight or prevent the passing of TPP.  So she worked for it, she has mega connections giving her much advantage in this election (including a relationship with the DNC that has changed its rules to allow candidates to fund the DNC with their Super Pacs & to accept Corporate Money), And Hillary Clinton will do nothing to fight The TPP.




    “Why does this keep happening? Why is it that on this particular issue, Democratic leaders are unable to be consistent and transparent?

    The cynical answer is money—trade deals do mean big bucks for corporate interests. Ralph Nader lambastes “King Obama” and his “royal court” of “massive corporate lobbies” for engineering the “fast-track” legislative process designed to smooth passage of TPP.”

    In my view, this is as good as Hillary saying… I am just ‘telling people’ I am against it because they don’t support it but I am fine with it being passed by congress and signed by the president.

    I am disgusted by this.  It reflects a condescending attitude toward The American People that is reflected in much of Hillary’s communication with us. 

    Yes Hillary and Bill Clinton ARE Rich (And much of their money came from Wall Street) And Very ‘Well Connected’ and apparently that provides her the ability to run her campaign with a very comfortable disdain for The American People.  At a time when many of Americans are waking up to the reality that our country is becoming an Oligarchy and are feeling very unsure whether or not there is any ‘real’ democracy left or whether it has become ‘just for show’ to placate us, Hillary is running her campaign and reflecting an attitude that is barely tolerable and not at all the leadership needed to change the course significantly in favor of The People. 

    While there are certainly many who appear to be comfortable with her disdain & 'connections’ however corrupt some of them may be, others of us see the deck as ‘stacked’ against The People and Hillary as part of the problem. 

    Hillary’s corrupt relationship with the media among other organizations and the changes in public behavior make much of the polling going on in this election meaningless.  Even if we were to believe the polling roughly meaningful, president Obama was doing about the same at this point in 2007 as Bernie Sanders is now.  The pundits and media also said similar things about Obama in 2007, that he could not win and only Hillary could etc.

    I think it is very important for everyone to understand that many of us see this election as The People Vs Oligarchy and we see Hillary and many that support her as supporting the Oligarchy and the status quo. 

    While it is not new for us to be to lied to by our presidential candidates, it is a new thing that Americans are experiencing income equality that has not been experienced at this level since the great depression.  People are dying, suffering.   51% of Americans are making under $30,000 ( while costs have risen and our opportunities have greatly diminished and during this time the same ‘big money’ oligarchs that are suppressing The People are also destroying our environment and threatening our survival.

    At just this moment Bernie Sanders, a man that is often called ‘a rare politician’ based on his honesty , integrity, and consistency, has stepped up to lead the people to rally against the oppressive forces against them.  This makes what might have passed for normal or acceptable distortion from our politicians of the past intolerable to many of us today.  I regularly experience seeing criticisms of republicans to which I feel obligated to add ‘the same holds true of Hillary.’ 

    If we were playing the same old game with the same stakes we ‘thought’ we had in the past, maybe Hillary would look pretty good.  That’s not the reality we are living in now.  There is too much at stake.  Now is the time to turn the page on the status quo and fight hard for major reforms.  We cannot afford the incremental status quo change that Hillary represents. 

    Bernie wins among independents the largest growing segment of voters that will soon surpass the number of dems & republicans added together.  He attracts republican voters that see that their party has gone off the deep end.  It is the fight for the nomination that counts and with so much at stake, I hope that enough democrats support AND WORK to get Bernie Sanders elected as the democratic nominee, that we overcome the deck stacked against us in SO MANY Ways, and we can continue to work together to build a movement and fight together for the reforms we so sorely need.  A President Bernie Sanders is exactly what our country needs at this time in our real ‘eyes open’ history.

    If our country is able to transform our current circumstances, I have no doubt we will have a woman president one day.  Bernie is a strong feminist, the causes of women will be well represented in his capable leadership.  Around the world people know that we are being lied to, and ruled by Corporations & Billionaires, that we need serious reform in the U.S., and they are hoping that we elect Bernie Sanders as our next president.  This is my greatest hope too. 


    The media's in the tank for Hillary? Too fucking funny. BTW, median income is $52k, so 50% make under that, not under $31k.

    You're confusing median household income with median wages. If you have two earners in a household, your median household income goes up.

    Fine, but AFAIK median wages includes 15-year-olds making pizzas 15 hours a week, hobby crafts income, and any other kind of piece-meal labor mixed in with folks working full-time for survival. Is that useful?

    Excellent, Sync!
    No one could have said it better. The only thing that Hillary has going for her is name recognition, and the understandable desire of women to see their first woman president. I'd like to see that too - but not this woman. I would love to see a Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren ticket. In this political climate, I don't think they could lose unless the American people are completely out of their minds.  This is the bottom line.  You said:

    "I think it is very important for everyone to understand that many of us see this election as The People Vs Oligarchy and we see Hillary and many that support her as supporting the Oligarchy and the status quo."
    We're are currently knee-deep in a class war.  There's "US," against "THEM," and Hillary Clinton is one of "THEM."


    Welcome back Eric. Hope all is well.

    The American public elected characters like the Kansas Governor even after he bankrupted the state. The voted for the Michigan Governor who appointed emergency managers to subvert democracy and poisoned a city. The government still charges the citizens for the poisoned water at twice the national water rate. They elected union busting Scott Walker. They voted for John Kasich of Ohio who openly suppressed votes. The public praises Nikki Haley as the person who brought down the Confederate flag in South Carolina, in spite of that fact that she had to be forced to take action after the massacre in Charleston. A Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren ticket would get slaughtered at the polls even with the GOP clown car candidates.

    Regarding Bernie Sanders, the Senator voted for the 1994 Crime bill and was proud of that fact on his website until recently as noted by Rachel Maddow. Sanders promises much. Single-payer could not pass in his home state of Vermont. It is unlikely that he will be able to deliver nationally. African-American activists in Vermont note that Sanders was blind when it came to issues of race. In order to address institutional racism, Sanders would have to be aware of racism, something he has come to only with prodding by Black Lives Matter.

    Hillary Clinton had to rebuild bridges after her campaign against Barack Obama in 2008. She did that. She has been active in Flint. Rep. John Lewis never heard of Sanders taking the lead on any national Civil Rights issue. Hillary used the term "superpredator" once in the context of controlling gangs (See 1st video in Rachel Maddow link). She said this two years after the crime bill that Bernie Sanders voted for boasted about supporting on his website until he decided to run for President. (See 2nd video in Rachel Maddow link)

    Hillary is LYING about her "opposition" to the un-American, fascistic TPP.

    Well put.


    Since you wrote this, happily, Bernie has emerged as a stronger candidate than HRC, for precisely the glaring chacterogical deficiencies you cite in her.

    Lessee, how silly is this?

    In 2011 RIM Blackberry was the gold standard for enterprise and government smart phone use, with 80 million users globally as of December 2012. Three years later, Blackberry usage was down to 25 million users, with its parent company exiting the hardware business. Nokia in the same period suffered a similar decline.

    Given these standards, had Hillary praised Blackberry in 2011, she would be deceitful for slamming it in 2015.

    The US-Korea free trade agreement went into effect in March 2012, while Hillary was Secretary of State. The results of the agreement have been noted as a bad deal for US workers and not protective of workplace conditions. Should Hillary for consistency sake continue to "put lipstick on a pig" and defend the US-Korean trade deal, or recognize flaws and use those lessons learned for other trade deals?

    Of course since Hillary quit the State Department as of Feb 1, 2013, so presumably besides recognition of flaws in TPP based on Korean lessons learned, there were likely other significant changes in the 2 1/2 years before the final version of TPP was announced.

    But even if not, as Secretary of State, her boss was Obama. As a candidate, her boss is the American people. In 2008 she sucked up defeat and took the somewhat humiliating position, and did her job - the people spoke. If they're upset with Obama's position on TPP, they should take it up with him. Her job was not to buck her boss, but to negotiate his intent. If they wanted Hillary's "transparent" preference, well, Democrats should have chosen her instead. Obviously not everyone is unhappy with Hillary's new position:

    Liberals hailed her decision and urged Democrats on Capitol Hill to join her in bucking the president. “If Hillary Clinton, who worked on the Trans-Pacific Partnership as secretary of State, can change her mind about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, so can the small number of Democrats in Congress who have previously voiced their support," said Murshed Zaheed, deputy political director of CREDO, one of the groups working to kill the pact.

    Hillary could piss all over the agreement or her former boss, neither of which would be appreciated by much of anyone, so she rather diplomatically stepped back from it without too much fuss - which yet again draws criticism.

    What are the consequences of rejecting the TPP?

    Are tariffs going to be higher?


    Edit to add:

    Is the TPP something the US initiated or is it the result of a group of nations banding together to flex economic muscle?

    Well researched and well presented, synch. The case you make is obvious to some and some others will never agree.  Somewhere in the middle are the voters willing to consider a new direction. I hope it happens. 

    Everybody always thinks their arguments are obvious. The people who agree with those arguments always know them already and think they are obviously true too.

    What a marvelously astute observation. I bet even you agree with yourself on this one. I know that I agree with myself on what I said. We are both brilliant. How can we possibly disagree on who should be our choice for President?

    Just parallel universes, split horizons - like Schroedingers cat, there are 2 boxes with 2 different realities. Just you're wrong in both of them. But thanks for playing.

    Well, there are oceans of Kats out there and some are jumping out of the old boxes so anything is possible, even the possibility that you are not always as 'right' as your displayed certitude would suggest. 

    ah well, humor misplaced

    Well researched and well presented, synch. The case you make is obvious to some and some others will never agree.  Somewhere in the middle are the voters willing to consider a new direction. I hope it happens. 

    On paper, Bernie sounds pretty darn good. He's pissed off, along with a good-sized chunk of the Democratic electorate. But, pissed off isn't a plan. And the PLAN, as far as I can tell, is a wholesale over-haul of the system. With the pushback we've gotten on something as small (relatively speaking) as the ACA, how can that possibly happen? This revolution of his, although it sounds good on the surface, just isn't going forward in today's political climate. Taking back the Senate will help, but w/o the House it's DOA.

    My constant question is, and has been from the beginning, "how?"

    The only answer I get is that the people will make it happen. There will be such a ground swell of support for him that it will just happen. 

    Well, I don't know if you've noticed, but voting numbers in the Democratic primaries are down from 2008. Bernie is doing well in caucus states, where independents can vote for who the Democratic nominee will be (which in itself pisses me off, but that's another conversation) but if those indies in states with closed primaries couldn't be bothered to get off their butts and change affiliation so they COULD vote for Bernie, where is the "bern?" Sounds like "revolution" is a fun kinda thing to get behind, but not if you actually have to take the time to re-register for the primaries.

    In the meantime, Hillary is fund-raising for down-ticket candidates, and helping financially with their campaigns. Bernie NEEDS those down-ticket Dems if his "revolution" has any chance at all, but has he given them a nickel? If he has, I haven't heard a word about it. He's out fundraising Hillary by a a lot, but he's keeping that money in his coffers to spend on helping the righties trash her. 

    If somehow Bernie pulls this off and is the nominee, I will suck it up and vote for him (through my tears) but I'm not going to like it. I hope the Bernie supporters will do the same for Hillary if she is the nominee. One way or the other, either of them is a hell of a lot better than any Republican.



    First I will say that talk of 'incrementalism' and settle for 'pragmatic change' sound a great deal like telling us to settle for 'trickle down economics'.

    Second. I am sorry but I consider Hillary to be extremely corrupt and a practiced liar.  

    Bernie has gotten more done than Hillary EVER has unless you want to count the things she has gotten WRONG! 

    Bernie has demonstrated good judgement time and again... 

    This movement is going to take the people fighting and we have to keep building the numbers, waking people up to the corruption that is robbing us of better lives and a better country.

    First and foremost Bernie is leading US in a fight to RECLAIM Democracy.  And in my experience he is far more 'democratic' that the establishment/party democrats themselves.  They have sold out and sold US Out!  I will fight through this election and beyond. I may even run for office myself in 2018 and it will be up to the democratic party whether or not I do that as a democrat... either they become 'more democratic' or I leave.

    I met with my county democrats Sunday and they voted unanimously to pass resolutions I offered at my precinct caucus (also passed unanimously) to END the practice of giving special voting status in the form of super delegates to anyone. The other was to END having caucuses and move to an open primary with mail in ballots.  This gives me some hope.  

    In my view we don't need any more incremental changes and Hilary can NOT be trusted to do what is most important for our people, our country, and our planet because she has sold out.  She lies like its nothing because that's what 'the public' needs to hear... I believe there are some quotes from Kissinger like that.

    I have learned far too much about Hilary to vote for her at all....  All I can say is that if you get your information from Corporate Media... then you are being sold a LOAD of propaganda.. Hilary has corrupt connections throughout media.  Bernie Sanders is a chance in a life time, Honest man of integrity with the GUTS to take on the Billionaires & Corporations having a hey day with our government at our expense.

    Hilary Clinton is NOT qualified to be President based on her character and actions:

    A Growing List Of Disturbing Clinton Financial Connections!
    (She & Bill Must REALLY think we are stupid!)

    A List Making The Case That Hilary Clinton In Charge Means More Violence, War, & Death! AND Money Added To Our Debt, paid to the Billionaires & Corporations.

    Corporate Media Serve Their Masters.
    Hillary's Corrupt Relationship With Corporate Media:
    A Compilation Of Hillary's Media Ties

    You are very confused as to what democracy is. Sanders is not leading us to reclaim democracy. We already have it. Sanders, Hillary, Trump, Cruz, and all of us who vote are participating in the democracy we already have. Democracy doesn't mean I vote, my candidate gets elected, and then does the things I want. I've always voted, many times the candidate I voted for didn't get elected, and then the candidate that won did things I didn't want. Since many elections are close, almost half the people end up voting for the person that doesn't get elected. That's democracy, the people get to choose. Sometimes they choose badly. I'll be honest, democracy often sucks as a system because so many people choose badly imo. The thing is, all other systems suck more and more often than democracy sucks.

    I doesn't look like your candidate will win. I know how you feel, many times the candidate I voted for lost. It doesn't feel good. But that's democracy.

    NO! In fact, I am NOT confused about what democracy is.  President Carter who started the Carter Foundation and worked to support fair elections around the world 


    WE are trying to use a BROKEN system to FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY!  THAT IS REAL!

    In my experience it is one of the things Hilary supporters REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!

    Jefferson said we need a free media to have democracy. WE now have CORPORATE MEDIA(propaganda) and Oligarchy!

    As we try to use this broken system we are seeing election fraud & voter suppression like I've never seen before in a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY!


    Synch, just curious...was it you who had an arm injury a few years ago (back when TPM was more like this site?), and missed a lot of work?  Just trying again to find out.

    [Commented edit for ad hominem attack]

    Certainly people can find Counterpunch, Mother Jones, even Salon has been way in the tank for Bernie. It's not Iran - you choose the biased site that fits you and you get your news. All the issues were reported. Some are just unhappy that *OTHERS* didnt have to hear *THEIR* preferred version of the news. Like you, I look at RealClearPolitics to get a mix of sane and crazy.

    Re caucuses, they depress voting and create a horserace and chance for an unknown where theyd lose in a fair primary. Somehow I see that as good. (Of course with my preferred candidate winning), though if I look at the results in 2000 the additional beating Gore got from the left didnt help the messaging going into Bush generals. Hillary would have been weak as her 2007 version, and I'd say she's more focused now then in Dec/Jan.

    Of course the superdelegates help to temper the worst extremes, as does the split between caucuses and primaries. 7 caucus losses in a row at 15% of electorate, then a spanking like yesterday or in New York restores balance and the overpresumptious claims.

    All's good, no?

    I really don't like caucuses. With the 24 hour news cycle an unknown can get known pretty fast. But it's only a slight skewing without much meaning so it's not a big issue for me. If my candidate was losing because of it I'd feel differently. But Hillary is winning handily so Sanders undemocratic caucus leg up is meaningless.

    Super delegates can rig the system totally. They are theoretically dangerous. But that rigging has never kicked in and I doubt it ever will in a normal election. I think it's good to have a safety value for some extraordinary event.

    sync was just so stupidly self righteous that I was a bit hyperbolic  in response. All just for effect you know.

    Theres some perversity to the superdelegates - twice Hillary has collected superdelegates in advance as the rules say, and twice it was "unfair" - until Obama got the lead or until Bernie could find a way to flip them. Coming out ahead for delegates in states he lost was clever for Obama, "establishment" for Hillary. There will always be hypocritical bitching involved.

    Oh yeah - last time she was denying the dreams of black voters, this time she's denying the dreams of millennials and disaffected whites. She's a heartbreaker, isn't she...

    BTW, Salon's leaving up their summary from 9:30pm - "Hillary wins at least 3 states". Guess it was too late for their staff's bedtime, or just allows a few more "Bernie's path to the convention" and "Queen Bee is archevil incarnate" articles before they do or don't face reality.

    [Comment edited, ToS warning for ad hominem attak]

    [Comment edited]

    Ocean-kat, this is not your first warning about ad hominem attacks. If it happens again, your account will be temporarily suspended.

    -- Michael W.

    Sanders is full of crap. He talks about revolution but has done nothing to build a political coalition. John Fetterman, a Progressive Democrat endorsed Sanders reached out to the presidential campaign. He got no response.

    Sanders admitted that he did not know Fetterman

    Sanders is not qualified to lead a revolution.


    Why so harsh? This just proves Sanders is better than Jesus. Jesus gathered together 12 disciples to help him. Sanders doesn't need any. This messiah can change the world all on his own without any help or cooperation from congress.

    Sanders, like Hal, is beginning to spin out of control with desperation over his loss. He just sent his wife out to insist that he won't release his tax returns unless Hillary releases speech transcripts. He won't do what nearly every candidate simply does as a matter of course unless Hillary does something no candidate has ever done before. It's deja vu from the Romney campaign when Romney said he wouldn't release his tax returns unless Obama released his college transcripts. I expect that sort of stupidity from the republicans but Sanders should know it won't work on the democratic side. Ah well, the candidate that never released his taxes in his senate campaigns has successfully delayed in his presidential campaign. Now that it's clear he's a loser he'll never release them. All the while hypocritically ranting about a lack of transparency from the other side.

    You're right RMRD.  Sanders has disappointed in his failure to champion plausible progressive candidates.  He did not support a great progressive Jamie Raskin in Maryland's 8th Congressional District.  Fortunately, Raskin won anyway.  I am not aware that he is helping Tim Canova unseat the  execrable Debbie Wasserman Schultz in Palm Beach.  Regarding the PA Senate primary, I would have liked it if Bernie had supported Joe Sestak (rather than John Fetterman) against Katie McGinty.

    All that said, Sanders is still much better than Clinton who frequently supports the wrong candidates.  Sanders, by contrast, hasn't done enough for the right ones.

    Okay, we agree that progressives need to do more to bring about the revolution that Bernie isn't leading as well as he should have.  How do you think we can work together to do this?

    Note to my many detractors here - because I am confident that my opinions are well-supported by the facts I have no problem agreeing with criticism of my preferred candidate when the criticism is, as it is here, justified.

    Sanders Progressives will have show up in midterm elections. Progressives will have to reject the Susan Sarandon nonsense of electing Donald Trump to bring on the revolution. Gore and Kerry were not deemed Progressive enough, and we got the Republican. The people did not rise up in revolt. Instead people suffered. 

    Conservadems helped pass Obamacare. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Mary Landrieu were not Progressive enough so we went from people who voted with Progressives most of the time to Republicans who voted with Progressives none of the time. Sanders supporters are going to have to come to terms with political realities. Sanders purity criteria means that people will suffer.

    When a woman at the Pennsylvania townhall told Sanders that pre-K education was underfunded and taxing soda beverages was the only option, Sanders was dismissive. Sanders feels soda tax is a burden on poor people. Sanders supports cigarette taxes which place a burden on the same poor people. Sanders explains that cigarettes are cancer causing poisons. Cigarettes can be taxed. Sanders does not reflect on the fact the soda beverages are part of the reason there is an epidemic of adult-type diabetes in childhood.

    Sanders supporters have to realize that in the world of politics, there are no pure decisions. Sanders cannot admit a mistake in his 1994 vote for the crime bill. He and his supporters Bernie-splain the vote. Hillary is evil, Bernie is pure. We can work together once Sanders supporters shed their purer-than-thou attitude. 

    Edit to add:

    Original paragraph began with "Progressives". This was changed to the more proper "Sanders Progressives"

    So by your reasoning there's nothing Clinton voters or Clinton herself should do differently to bring about a political revolution. Yet you also insist Sanders voters are purist and holier than thou even though I agreed with your claim that Sanders hasn't done enough for other progressive candidates. Do you see a disconnect there?

    No disconnect. I read commentary from Sanders supporters online. They demand concessions. 

    But you're not willing even to suggest ways to work together unless they first meet your demands. That sounds pretty purist and holier than thou doesn't it?

    Early reports suggest that the economically unfeasible Medicare-for-all plan will be a demand. The Affordable Care Act would be on the chopping black. That would be a non-starter for me.

    Suggesting Supreme Court nominees who would reverse Citizens United is reasonable.

    Universal single payer is the cheapest most efficient way to deliver healthcare. It leads to better outcomes at a lower cost. It's better than Obamacare. Obama himself said if you started from scratch it's what you'd pick.

    Cut the crap

    Here is a link to the full context of statements Obama made about single-payer


    I'm trying to understand you RMRD.  As your own cite shows, the President has said on a number of occasions that he thinks single-payer ultimately makes the most sense.  Even if he never said it, single-payer would still make the most sense.  Through 2014, 32.3 million Americans remained uninsured.  These are mostly poor and near-poor people in the south and west.  Despite (because of?) the Affordable Care Act, we spend much more per person on healthcare than other countries to get worse results. 

    No other advanced country even comes close to the United States in annual spending on health care, but plenty of those other countries see much better outcomes in their citizens' actual health overall.  Yet you insist Sanders supporters abandon their call for single-payer before you agree to work with them to try to make our country more progressive.

    Hal, you cherry-pick data

    Once again, I will send you the full context of Obama's statements about single-payer. Please note the parts where he talks about the fact that we had a health care system in place prior to Obamacare. Single-payer was not an option that he supported.

    Don't know why we're even discussing this.

    What Obama has done is working. Not the "cheapest most efficient"? Sue him.

    There're still 30-35 million uninsured, but the trend's in the right direction: 16 million more insured. Start over? Hardly.

    Note 15% buy their own insurance, 20% get it through Medicaid.

    I had a guy replace me one time as I transferred overseas. Instead of focusing on new tasks, he spent most of his time redoing things I'd done to put his stamp on them. Was his better? Hell if I know. Was it needed? No.

    If "starting over" means passing universal single-coverage then everybody would be covered, we would spend less money, and have a healthier populace immediately.  Why exactly is it you oppose this outcome?

    Look at the curve. It took 2 years to pass ACA, and another 4-5 to kick in. That's as "immediately" as we can get. Your "outcome" is wishful thinking. It ain't gonna happen, and any time and political capital wasted on it takes away from needed work on police reform, new energy / global warming, winning legislatures, etc. Fix it in 20 years if it's still bothering you.

    We're not starting from scratch. Case closed.

    I don't think I dismantled your claims because you refuse to reply to them.  I know I dismantled them because I did dismantle them.  I also know that I don't need to resort to obscenities or insults in a desperate attempt to win debates with you.  Evidence and well-reasoned arguments always do the trick.

    Evidence and well-reasoned arguments always do the trick.

    A typical example of your reasoning.

    I know I dismantled them because I did dismantle them. 

    /shrug what ever.


    Evidence and well-reasoned arguments always do the trick.

    What trick, Hal?  Do you mean that if you have evidence and well-reasoned arguments (which you claim to have), you can always convince others that your way is the right way?  People who come here are thoughtful, and we all take the time to read before we form opinions.  How many of us have you convinced with your "well-reasoned" arguments, etc, etc,,etc?  

    That comment, that "evidence and blah blah blah blah" reminds me of the typical dialogue we saw in "Leave It To Beaver."  Unfortunately for you, Bernie Sanders is the current Eddie Haskell.  

    Latest Comments