when, i voted for the liberals it was because i wanted them to pass legislation - not because i wanted them to create a mess in the senate that would prevent them from passing legislation. it's really a comically absurd situation; he's obstructing his own agenda. the media should really be taking him to task for it. it doesn't matter what you think of the senate; this is the worst possible outcome from any perspective.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/philpott-assisted-dying-monday-1.3617856

the government could get a majority in the senate with a stroke of a pen. there is absolutely no excuse for having their legislation gutted, and they should be loudly called out for incompetence should that be something that actually happens. there's an easy answer to avoid this: fill the senate with liberal senators immediately. it's just incompetence to leave the senate open, then complain that they can't pass legislation.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/philpott-assisted-dying-monday-1.3617856

j reacts to clinton's appeals for democratic unity

so, yes: i think bernie should keep going. and i think he should run as an independent. but, i know that he's not going to convince any superdelegates. see, i think he should push them to the absolute brink - make them show up and vote - but i don't think he has a real chance. it's an act of protest. further, i know he's not going to run as an independent. so, what next?

i think the first thing that leftists/progressives need to do is start asking hillary some questions. if she wants to represent the left, she's going to have to start explaining how she reflects ideas on the left.

so, what you need to do is start asking questions every time you see her. questions like this:

"when do you plan to table legislation for single-payer health care?"

well, she wants to represent the left. she wants bernie supporters to vote for her. she wants unity. obviously, then, she must have plans to introduce single-payer, right?

here's another one:

"given that you don't support taxes on wall street, how do you expect to fund an opening of tuition at public universities and colleges?"

again: she says she wants bernie supporters to vote for her. so, surely she has thought through how she plans to pay for this.

this one is really key.

"can you elaborate on your plans to withdraw american forces from the middle east?"

i think you get the point.
there's two components of this.

yes, there's a bit of sarcasm, here.

but, the truth is that you're going to have to do this. even if you end up voting for jill stein in the end. you should not give her a free pass, or give up, or drop these ideas. and, this is a kind of a non-confrontational way to demonstrate that there are real differences that can at best be glossed over.

if you just let her loose, she's going to immediately bolt back to the center-right, where she's most comfortable. so, you have to keep constant pressure on her to hold to whatever concessions you can get out of her - and constantly be pushing for more.

in the end, if she decides she wants to run on the right, you should force her to broadcast it. and, you should force her to deal with the consequences of it.
you fought too hard to just give up.

j reacts to trump's invocation of critical legal theory to analyze his trump u case

to be a little provocative for a moment....

i think the facts in the trump university case are clear enough. it was a scam. and trump is deflecting.

but, it's a little curious to me that accusing an hispanic judge of racial bias is a horrible injustice, whereas accusing a white judge of racial bias is the core of a theory taught in university courses all around the continent. can we get some consistency, here?

reality check: trump has been railing against hispanics for months. i really don't think it's so outlandish to suggest that this might affect the ruling. when you deny this, what you're really doing is pushing this thoroughly debunked "justice is blind" model of legal theory. it's just not right - not as a way to describe how the legal system actually works in reality. rather, we have something called critical legal theory that explains the decisions made in court rooms in terms of things like racial and gender biases, class analyses, ideological positions....

judges don't exist in a vacuum. their opinions come out in their rulings.

so, would that mean that the ruling is invalid? no. it would mean that there are consequences for running your mouth off.

j reacts to the idea that sanders will benefit from the email scandal

dude. listen. you're half right, but you're grasping at straws.

what you're suggesting is that hillary will be indicted before the convention, and bernie will therefore be the nominee. but, this is some kind of projective fantasy thinking.

in fact, the reason that hillary has not been indicted yet - and everybody agrees that the investigation is dragging it's feet - is that bernie refuses to concede. do you think that these people want bernie sanders to be president? i mean, get real.

see, it's the great lie, right. the thing that lets the system function. the perception that the united states is a democracy. but, we all know it really isn't, that the whole thing is political theatre. every cycle. every time.

they've got great screenwriters, though. really.

here's the plot, dude:

1) they've gotta get rid of bernie, first, before they can think about indicting hillary. so long as bernie is running, she'll prolong the charges. don't be surprised if the indictment comes within hours of bernie conceding.

2) then, once bernie's gone, they can use the email scandal to take down hillary. and, don't be surprised when this happens, either. expect a complete media take down. expect it to be brutal. expect it to be final.

so, no, it won't be bernie. but, here's an interesting twist: the only way to stop the indicitment is probably for bernie to launch an independent run at the exact same time as he drops out of the democratic primary.

otherwise, you're looking at the party bosses picking a candidate - and bernie's not on the list.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/why-hillary-clinton-likel_b_10317324.html

j reacts to the consequences of trudeau's refusal to appoint liberal senators

the government could get a majority in the senate with a stroke of a pen. there is absolutely no excuse for having their legislation gutted, and they should be loudly called out for incompetence should that be something that actually happens. there's an easy answer to avoid this: fill the senate with liberal senators immediately. it's just incompetence to leave the senate open, then complain that they can't pass legislation.

when i voted for the liberals, it was because i wanted them to pass legislation - not because i wanted them to create a mess in the senate that would prevent them from passing legislation. it's really a comically absurd situation; he's obstructing his own agenda. the media should really be taking him to task for it. it doesn't matter what you think of the senate; this is the worst possible outcome from any perspective.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/philpott-assisted-dying-monday-1.3617856

this is, like, right out of the politburo. exit polls are used to determine the fairness of elections everywhere else. it's the tool. the state department insists on it, even. but, everybody knows that they're not any good here.

right. and, it was sanders that shut down the polling. sure.

hate! hate! hate!

again: what it demonstrates is desperation. we're not going to get exit poll data out of puerto rico, because they cancelled them. because they're useless, i guess. along with most of the voting stations - useless, too, apparently. so, we're not going to know whether he won day-of voting or not, like he did in arizona.

but, we do know that the dnc is clamping down pretty hard, right now.

this is no longer an election. it's now a character assassination. get ready for it.

http://www.inquisitr.com/3173097/did-bernie-sanders-suppress-voting-in-puerto-rico-officials-accuse-sanders-campaign-of-requesting-drastic-cut-in-polling-places-leading-to-long-lines/

guys.

do a report on agent provocateurs.