Better to keep Bernie around for a while to stay in the news otherwise it'd just be talk about the Republicans all day every day. Of course the Republicans are making jack asses of themselves so maybe it's not bad to just get out of the way and let them destroy themselves. If it's Trump as the opponent for the general election she just needs to dodge the FBI catching up to her for another few months and she'll be the next President.

I'm hoping if she does win the November election she gets indicted the day after and the lol Electoral College then votes in Biden or someone not so obviously corrupt and evil. Hillary sitting in prison for the next 20,000 years while thinking about how she won the general election to be President but never actually became President would be such sweet justice.

If Hillary is in Federal Prison does she still get her Secret Service detail that she's entitled to as the spouse of a former President?

I think it's irresponsible to characterize power and wealth flowing out of the hands and pockets of average American laborers and, mostly, towards a small caste of individuals who broker (and aggressively seek rent from) the movements of money as a huge win for individual laborers in developing nations, who largely toil work under conditions that would horrify any civilized individual with basic human decency.

Particularly when the fact that there are no jobs or resources in those countries is largely the result of colonialism that historically benefitted a similar caste of individuals, and of privatization (aka forced sale of natural resources to Western multinationals) that occurred at the behest of institutions very much tied into and controlled by this caste (IMF, World Bank).

I assume your point was that falling American wages are largely flowing into the pockets of laborers in developing nations, and apologize if it was not.

My point is that globally standards of living and wages are rising at tremendous rates and while they are certainly much lower than in the US they are much better than they have ever been in human history and that is because of globalization, which is also the main driver of those graphs. So to look at those and say oh those poor Americans is frankly a disgusting in its depraved preference for the America "poor" (who are among the wealthiest people in human history) versus actual poor people. I'm fine with taxing the **** out of the wealthy in order to redistribute and even things out more fairly, as long as we recognize that means taking about 90% of yours and wookies wealth and giving it to nonamericans.

I find that thus redistribution argument is effective to Americans when they don't think they are the ones who will pay and when they realize that they in principle should "owe" most of what they have then they start talking about "we should take care of our own first hard working Americans, you are arguing for the destruction of the nation state" crap that Bernie is talking about above.

The wealthiest people have a ton of wealth, but there just aren't very many of them. There are way more people like you and me, and we are the ones who should be paying. I agree it's a little disingenuous of me to say it's racism. It's not, it's selfishness. The reason you want free healthcare for Americans only, and redistribution for Americans only, isn't REALLY because you hate brown people. It's because if we actually expanded this moral imperative to the human beings who needed it most, YOU would have to pay.

It's just that in practice it is indistinguishable from racism, so I was having a little fun mocking the side who usually calls everything that in practice has an imbalanced effect racism.

Just as a week or two ago this take is silly. Drawing the "who benefits from practices to reduce income inequality" line at the country level is exactly where a presidential candidate should draw the line. Focusing on the betterment of the US is essentially the entire job description.

All the true things in that post are essentially irrelevant to the "only redistribute if it's global" nonsense take.

vhawk,

While standards of living are indeed rising in many places of the world, that in no way explains or necessitates that the wealth disparity grows in this country, which is happening because the rich are getting richer. Additionally, a lot of what is making folks in this country wealthy, and here I am including you and I and any poster on this site, is the extreme exploitation of others who are not living great, and whose standard of living is not going up.

Yes I'm selfish, and yes I should be giving more than I do to international charities, but I can also say that we should be trying to more effectively regulate (be it through governmental or economic institutions) working conditions, environmental practices, rather than just blindly acting in the name of "free trade," and let's not act like globalization is inherently and always a force of global progressive redistribution.

All of which is to say, standards of living could easily be going up that way in those countries, and more equitably, and we could have more equitable distribution of wealth here too.

The only question is whether it's easier to influence the redistribution of wealth domestically or internationally, and I think there are fair arguments on both sides of that aisle.

Agree

generally agree that Hillary beating Bernie but not in a way that is "lolololo socialist what an idiot" is what she needs. she's going to eventually need these Bernie supporters to come out and vote for her, and a ton of these are young people where this is not a given. she only gets beat with low D turnout in the GE

lol at a literal cabal of globalist billionaires conspiring to defeat the Batman:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/aei-w...b0ffe6f8ea125d

focus groups seem about as useful as self reported surveys and the myers briggs test

Sando why are you so salty bruh?

So what? I'm rarely arguing with a president. And just because it's his job description doesn't mean it isn't a morally vacuous position. Focusing on the betterment of myself and my family is literally my job description. Is this a convincing moral argument for you? Or am I a selfish prick? You can either try to claim the moral high ground or you give it up. The president is the ONLY person for whom the national border is not an arbitrary line. The rest are scumbags. (PS he's s scumbag to he just has a better excuse)

Just look at his response to the open borders thing. It's disgusting. We wanna help as long as it isn't us paying, but opening borders would hurt ME, not some fat cat, so mumble mumble national identity blah blah

Seriously. "Let's defeat the populist by having a secret meeting at a secluded island!" These people have no ****ing idea how regular people live.

Nice narrative

It's an annual meeting that discusses many things but rove had a session on trump as part of it


The point is isolation and privacy in these discussions, not to hold meetings like normal people

How does Karl ****ing Rove still have access to people like that after swindling like a hundred million from them in the last presidential election?

Yeah how he has credibility is beyond me. Heck, bem em his quotes on the articles I've seen are hilarious. How do these people listen to him?

Hate the game not the playa

Maybe the whole point was "listen, I am Karl Rove.... and even I am raising alarm bells here"

TIL Jeb's name is actually John. Can't believe I didn't know his name isn't actually Jeb.

One of the hallmarks of the GOP establishment is absolute zero accountability, for anything, ever.

I've always assumed he has a world-class stash of blackmail material on many very powerful people.

I think the biggest political issue of our generation is the legalization of every drug, a complete re-thinking of how we handle every aspect of drug use and incarceration for it, and a similar revolution for mental health.

Since none of the candidates will likely do this and Trump is the only one who has previously been in support of legalization, he is the best hope.

It is just so ****ing dumb that each of these people have to have 20 different views in order to get elected.

As if they are going to change 20 things for the better, let alone not making everything worse.

I don't know why I get sucked into politics. I have all my life and even went to school for it. Fortunately, I am smart enough to have avoided it professionally, but it is just the dumbest thing there is.

CNN has been saying for the last hour they might be making immediate projections on Mississippi as soon as the polls close. Sounds like either Trump is crushing or perhaps they'll project that Rubio and Kasich will both fall below the 15% threshold to receive any delegates there.