I have never seen Bernie in a good mood EVER..just my limited observation but it bothers me...he's rude to supporters at times. His campaign 2016 was embarrassingly absent of any real diversity..o yeah, this time he's cleaning up his act, but do i believe he's changed??, no not really he's 77. It's time for him to give a chance to the younger generation, he's had his turn and he (no longer) has a monopoly on free college and healthcare ideals...we need some fresh air..:praying:

I hear Bernie did well at Fox News Town Hall..that was a bold move.

Progressives DO NOT like Mayor Pete. He is getting criticized for his media coverage, his whitleblower position, his immigration position, his child care tax credit, and his frequent mentions of religion.

I have concerns about progressive calls to keep religion out of politics.

As much as that should be the ideal, religion is kicking our asses-- and has been for a couple of decades.

I feel like this is an area where there is a divide between the so-called "coastal elites" and the so-called "heartland."

I do not think progressive state people fully appreciate the influence religion has in the "heartland."

I am sure progressive state residents understand about fundamentalists and have seen JESUS CAMP and have run into Westboro and Operation Rescue at clinic defense, but all of that is kicked up about one thousand percent down here.

I do not think people who don't live/have not lived in the Bible Belt understand the intensity and ubiquity of some very extreme ideas, or the high degree of respect these ideas get even by people who don't practice them.

I agree with much of what you say, dark crystal. In my experience, one of the biggest divides between the so-called coastal elites and the alleged heartland is around being comfortable speaking about faith. One of the reasons why Mayor Pete is gaining ground amongst improbable supporters is because he speaks simply and authentically about his own personal faith. His authenticity as a Christian is really quite compelling to many. When progressives expect others to stay away from speaking about their own faith they appear to be plugging up the fountain of comfort for everyone else, as if there's something about it that should embarrass them, and that drives Americans away in droves. You can call those faith-driven people inhabitants of the 'heartland' if you like, and there probably are more of them in the southern and mid-western states, but I honestly don't think Christianity is a geographic phenomenon in the US.

Authentic faith isn't trotted out for a photo op or an election strategy. It just...is. Failure to recognize that is how we lose elections.

C. Stroop: Escape from Jesus Land: On Recognizing Evangelical Abuse and Finding the Strength to Reject the Faith of Our Fathers

Filial duty–a concept that likely seems quaint to the majority of people familiar with the names of intellectuals like Lakoff and Haidt–is a hard thing to shake when you come from a patriarchal religious background. The extent to which family loyalty, and specifically loyalty to fathers, prevails in “flyover country,” and, indeed, wherever conservative Christian enclaves exist in America, may come as a shock to many people who grew up in liberal and/or “coastal elite” families, because, for them, it is simply very difficult to imagine.

Having grown up in a very conservative state in an evangelical enclave, I continue to be surprised precisely at how surprised many Americans are at the prevailing extremism that passes for “normal” in Jesus Land. As the reactions to the revival of the #ChristianAltFacts hashtag on Twitter and the personal experiences of many exvangelicals show, things that are “normal” for evangelicals can often be shocking to those who do not know much about the subculture we come from.

I think it’s important for liberal Americans who do not come from a patriarchal religious background to hear our stories and to sit with that shock. Why? Because I remain convinced that if American civil society and the American press fail to come to grips with just how radically theocratic the Christian Right is, any kind of post-Trump soft landing scenario in which American democracy recovers a healthy degree of functionality is highly unlikely.

To put it another way, you may not come from Jesus Land, USA, but Jesus Land is coming for you. We will all be subjected to theocratic dystopia, to “one kleptocracy under God,” if we don’t stop the Christian Right.

The Christian Right has been able to acquire massively disproportionate power in part because the press has allowed evangelicals’ slick, code switching PR spin doctors–such as the Southern Baptist Convention’s Russell “journalists never ask me about my view that feminism is a heresy” Moore–to frame the national discussion of evangelicalism. The result is that the readers of major news outlets are presented with an unrealistically benign picture of a darkly authoritarian, cult-like branch of Protestantism.

"major news outlets are presented with an unrealistically benign picture" is what stands out to me here.

Down here in the Bible Belt, esp. in the cities, there are huge numbers of people who nominally identify as Christians but don't go to church.

Those people also view religion as universally benign. Evangelicals-- especially the women-- have a very wide-eyed pose that tearfully whimpers "all we want to do is raise wholesome families and save little babies how could anyone possibly have a problem with that????" and their nominally-Christian-but-don't-attend-church neighbors are very impressed by that.

These people are even harder to reach than the die-hards, because they don't have a working knowledge of Scripture but do feel the cultural prohibition around poking at it. You can quote scripture at a die-hard and get a response, but quote scripture at the nominally Christian and they just run away.

This is that "filial duty" Stroop mentions above. They don't know much of anything about their religion and they don't practice it but they're not about to question it. Not necessarily because they lack critical thinking skills in general, but because of "the extent to which family loyalty, and specifically loyalty to fathers, prevails"

I grew up with Evangelical aunts and cousins, but fortunately not parents. I grew up in small town Ohio, so not a coastal elite. And I STILL find it hard to understand how people can accept these beliefs, versions of Christian nationalism. I don't understand how people who believe in demons were able to look at Donald Rumsfeld and not see Beelzebub. I don't get it.

i just hope we all can remember that the true intentions of the Democratic Party is to elect Trump out, i hope the liberal base will keep in mind that Socialism is not a popular idea among moderates and will definitely fire up Trumps mob...i get very concerned that the AOC part of the party is bordering on the lunatic fringe if they feel an ultra liberal candidate will win the presidency..even with my limited IQ it's obvious he/she wouldn't. Don't get me wrong i'd love to be 28 and full of !8&^%! but (having unreachable ideals in this day of 22 trillion dollar debt) won't pay the bills or make me more free..so i'm voting moderate in the primary

Joe Biden Formally Announced His Candidacy Today With This Video
 

Bernie is the most popular candidate right now. I really don't think he reads like a scary radical, and the same populism, minus the racism and social Conservatism, is what got Trump elected. There are folks who voted Trump who are now supporting Bernie. No idea what the numbers are, but some are pretty vocal. People HATED Hillary. Not just didn't like or were unimpressed by. They HATED her. Some of that was sexism. But a lot of it was that she was in so many ways more of the same. I am not sure people are as hungry for change since Trump, and the Dems have appropriated the Bernie message (which is great), so we won't be in the same position again. I do think Bernie can reach mainstream voters. I don't have any concerns about that if he can make it through the primary. That, IMO, is a crapshoot. You never know what will happen out there.

2020....
 

The Dem's hit the 20* mark to date.

My vision is not 20/20 with either eye ... left/right/center etc. Tis why I medically wear trifocals.

My peripheral vision remains intact for the time being.

Ks-:glasses:

I'm on a few political email lists and somehow I end up with emails from a bunch of people like Bernie Sanders, Beto (like tons a day asking for money), Kamala Harris, etc.

Interesting today. Beto talking about how he needs money more than ever now that Biden is in the race,

Bernie - there's only one Bernie to save the day and the establishment is all against us.

Then there was Kamala Harris - my friend Joe Biden has entered the race. Great the more the merrier, I look forward to debating the issues.

Now that is smart and appeals to me. I think a Biden/Harris ticket would be great. I would rather she was the presidential candidate but I think Biden has a much better chance to beat Trump, but the two of them together would be great. I liked Biden's video. I think he can go for the jugular with Trump but still have something to offer beyond just negativity.

It's very likely that the emails were written by staff, but they are coming from the campaigns and represent the candidates. Two of them sounded like they were coming from small-minded, insecure people (and Bernie always thinks he's such a special snowflake). Kamala sounded confident and classy.

I'm impressed by Harris, too. No, I don't think her terrible choices while she was DA disqualify her. I'm far more impressed by Elizabeth Warren and her dazzling array of specific plans. No, I don't care that she made a serious misstep by claiming Native American ancestry.

My fantasy ticket would be Warren/Harris. Yup, it's a fantasy, but I'll be unhappy if neither of those women ultimately end up on the 2020 Dem ticket.

I like Warren too, but I don't think she can win. :(

But yeah Warren and Harris would be awesome.

It really is about obedience and conformity. We were literally brainwashed as children, exposed to so much horrifying rhetoric, that there is a visceral repulsion that rises up when one of us is put in a position where we might find ourselves at odds with the way we were raised.

It is not rational. And people who are outside of it tend to dismiss it or roll their eyes because it seems so babyish. Outsiders think critical thinking or common sense should be self-evident to us, but there are literal blind spots built into our brains from birth.

There are things which are placed beyond question, and this process is largely concluded before we even start school. We have no idea those blind spots exist and we have no way to see them working when they are active.

Facts and logic aren't going to help, because loyalty is stronger.

Converting these people cannot be our goal, but it would behoove us to do outreach and show them that the government we want is not a threat to them. When we roll our eyes at their ignorance or dismiss them as a vote we can afford to lose, we support the rhetoric-- rhetoric that is pouring into their ears 24/7 and blasted from the pulpit every Sunday-- that says we are coming to destroy them.

We ignore most of this rhetoric, because it is ridiculous. When we're not ignoring it, we try to argue from their terms, quoting scriptures that should clearly contradict that rhetoric. Neither of these tactics are ever going to work.

What we need to do is create a viable substitute rhetoric. Democrats need to show that the government we will build includes a respected position-- and a valuable and valued role-- for faith communities, and we need to build a productive channel for their energy. It may not be anything they will ever support, but it can be something they needn't fear.

When they hear from the Pastor that we want to destroy them, and then hear from us that we want their help, the result we are after is not to change their vote, but to suppress it through paralyzing cognitive dissonance. We need to continually be dumping sand on the fires their leaders are trying to feed.

Yes, i said voter suppression. The method of voter suppression i outlined above seems ethically fine to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

Bernie's support of felons serving out their sentence should have the right to vote is nuts.

Every American citizen should have the right to vote.

I have to agree with you Martina!

A felon is paying for a crime by serving time in a prision facility, the felon did not lose their citizenship because they are paying for or have paid for a crime. What does that really say to people...”you have to follow the rules, pay for your crime, and then become a non person?”

Sometimes, concepts that others see as correct paths, seem tortuous and illogical to me. The felon, serving or who has served time in prison, is still a citizen. Why take certain civil rights away from people that the corrections system is attempting to "rehabilitate?" Should we, instead, be "role models," exhibiting "good American citizen behavior?" It is known that people involved in criminal activities do not vote in large numbers.

Also, here's a PI idea in the tone of Jonathan Swift. Perhaps, the Feds could begin administering Intelligence and Common Sense tests to ALL citizens registering to vote...no...in elementary school. Common sense testing might help us avoid some of the nitwit imbeciles who elect Presidents like Tr**p.

If Trump isn't paying Kellyanne Conway at least $5,000,000 per year, he is seriously underpaying her. She easily runs roughshod over every "adversarial" interviewer, particularly on CNN.

I don't even know why they invite her. She's a spewing propaganda machine that skillfully sidesteps all their questions and then floods out all her irrelevant talking points without taking an interruptible breath.

It's painful to watch.

We had to stop watching CNN...partially for this reason, and partially because i no longer care for the constant bickering. I read and watch a variety of news sources, but my go to top 2 are Fox News and MSNBC (love me some RM), although the BBC news is sometimes a better source of reality.

Kelly Ann has always been a source of frustration for me, and life is too short to give the bitch my attention.

On a side note, I find it refreshing that Mayor Pete is not shying away from talking about religion...so many in this country (especially middle America) find their religion to be interwoven in all areas of their lives.

They may not like the gay, but he can talk to their fears about the “commies” making everyone Muslim. **

** I have relatives that actually believe that crap.

IMO when crime and punishment issues can only voted on by people who have never committed a crime or been punished, that is a recipe for inhumane treatment, and more crime

I think if you've murdered someone you don't deserve to vote..because the person you've murdered won't ever ever ever get the chance to do something in this world again. You should lose that privilege and a few more. Sorry, if you disagree, but serving time will never make up for that loss to a family or the country. Other then that non violent crimes i'm fine with them retaining voting rights.

Not picking on you, just musing.....

Say you are right...what else shouldn’t they be able to do?

Drive a car?
Get married?
Have children?
Get life saving surgery?

I mean, of all the things their victim can never do again, we pick voting? Most felons will get out of prision, even murderers. They will have paid their debt as society decided it should be, so they keep on paying in an “eye for an eye” kind of trade-off?

Like I said, just musing.....

So, I did a bit of research on whether "citizenship" is a right or a privilege and found this:

"Citizenship is understood as a "right to have rights" since it serves as a foundation of fundamental rights derived from and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, such as the right to freedom of expression, vote, due process, live and work in the United States, and to receive federal assistance."
(Anonymously posted)

So, it would seem that to revoke someone's right to vote, you'd have to first go through the process of revoking their citizenship.

The Rights and Responsibilities of Canadian Citizens are outlined/defined somewhat differently and on the basis of a Charter. The issue of prisoners voting was settled by the Supreme Court in 2002.

Kathleen Harris · CBC News · Posted: Aug 25, 2015 :

"More than 22,000 federal inmates eligible to vote ...

Polling stations will be set up in Canadian prisons on Oct. 9 so inmates can exercise their right to vote.

When Canadians vote in the federal election in October, thousands will cast their ballot from behind bars.

Inmates in federal prisons and provincial jails are eligible to vote for a candidate in the riding where they lived before they were incarcerated.

In the last federal election in 2011, voter turnout was 54 per cent in penitentiaries, not far below the 61 per cent who exercised their democratic right in the general population.


"They are part of the polity and they want to be part of the democratic process," Catherine Latimer, executive director of The John Howard Society of Canada, told CBC News.

Prisoners are informed voters, advocate says

Because prisoners have time to read and watch television news, they are just as informed - if not even more so - than Canadian voters on the outside, she said. Kits will also be distributed to help them with the voting process.

A 2002 Supreme Court of Canada judgment gave federal prisoners the right to vote on constitutional grounds, ruling 5-4 that voting is a fundamental right in a democracy.

Ms Tinkerberry, I always enjoy hearing your thoughts! As to your musings...as to what other things i think a murderer should not have access to...I haven't given it that much thought but lets start with guns, running for a public office, having custody of minor children in a divorce settlement..at least...you bought up paying for their crimes, but exactly how can you pay for taking a life???..will serving a sentence restore that person's life? There is nothing that this person can ever do to repay that debt. And while it's just my perspective, I'm very comfortable living with it. I don't want a known murderer living next door to me. Not very woke, I suppose but i would feel threaten ...

All are good points, thank you for sharing your thoughts!

Ms Tinkerbelly..you always make me think and smile at the same time! It's very welcoming ty :heartbeat::praying:

Wish I had your skills, MsTinkerbelly :bowdown::bowdown:

Did you all see where Joe Biden raised over $6 million on his first day?

My biggest fear has come to pass...unless someone ( anyone) can pull a rabbit out of their hats, it will come down to a bunch of white men fighting it out in the end for the nomination.

Older America is going to vote for good old Joe, and younger America is going to vote for Bernie; the party will be split, and the orange POS will win again.

Fun times!

After multiple time outs, I have learned to bite my tongue. It is practically ground meat at this stage of my life, but I get to keep this community for another day.

Sometimes it’s hard to be me:jester:

I miss reading posts by Anya and the links to articles she used to supply on forum boards, concerning political issues. I often wonder what she'd say or what kernel of truth might emerge by Anya sharing with the community.

I've been quietly thinking about a plethora of things, mainly fall-out type things, concerning all the ways the pillars of American democracy are under assault and crumbling daily, under the dictatorship of the current WH occupant. In my mind, it's like an unveiling of the massive prejudicial attitudes which have long been a part of the fabric of American life: Inequalities present in everyday life which affect people because of their color, orientation, or other particular status' relevant to each person, in individual and collective ways. It's terribly painful, truly.

I hold hope that unexpected voices will make their choices heard when it comes time to elect people to VIP positions in DC and beyond.

I think our country deserves better than the end result of the 2016 election.

Last I remember, Anya was going to devote personal time to helping out in the S. California League of Women's Voters. I always wonder where she is and how she is doing.

I appreciate reading member's posts in Dark_Crystal's 2020 Presidential Election forum thread. I think DC made some highly articulate points in recent posts, so I am grateful for her latest thoughts about conformity and I think conformity definitely plays a critical role in how people make decisions, whether it is personal decisions in their own life, or how they perceive making useful decisions which impacts the greater community at large, in collective ways.

I think both DC and MsTinkerbelly have made critical arguments on ways we (the general 'we') might see another split among party-lines, concerning voting issues. But I have always been concerned about voting rights, the suppression and opposition to voting rights, and matters inextricably linked to voting processes, which in the end, as we've seen for the past decade or so, has affected the outcome of particular voting/election processes.

Like many, I think America is done with Toxic Politics and Toxic forms of oppression and I hold faith and hope that the next election in 2020 will produce a better result, so we and allies across the world, are spared another four years of the monster (and their cronies) currently residing in the WH.

I have to say I am seeing more Dems attacking other Dems. It's a primary. I guess you have to. But after my choice of Bernie and Kamala, I just don't care. I don't hate any of the other candidates although with Booker I come close. That Tulsi Gabbard definitely makes me uncomfortable. But really, none is so God awful that I wouldn't vote for them if they got the nomination.

A lot of mainstream Dems are getting on Socialist sites and shaking their little fists, saying you better vote blue no matter what. That shit so backfires. And the progressives picking apart every vote and decision the mainstream Dems have made have me rolling my eyes. I'm like, no shit, they're Democrats.

It is frustrating though. Trump is actually looking stronger. And the world, IMO, is getting more fucked up by the day. The news about the environment is terrifying. It would be good to field a strong alternative who could excite independents and disaffected Republicans.

The thing about Kamala is that people respect her. I think that is especially meaningful in this election. People might view her as someone who could make them feel safe. Bernie can really inspire people. Mayor Pete, people seem to like. We definitely need a candidate people can feel good about voting for for whatever reason. We can't risk another hold your nose candidate. Or even an I don't care that much candidate. It doesn't matter what quality, whether it's strength or vision or whatever, we definitely need someone people can feel good about voting for.

The only one I'd have trouble backing at this stage of the race would be Kirsten Gillibrand!

I just read for the second time that Obama voters who went Trump in 2016 are not likely to in 2020. Those voters and stay-at-homes lost Clinton the election. I'm more sure than ever that we got to get someone voters feel something good about. That's not necessarily likeability. But something positive. Something in addition to hating Trump to get them to wait in line. Kamala's strength inspires confidence, IMO. Obviously, I like Bernie best, but Kamala would be a good candidate.

Harris is my first choice but I think Biden has the best chance to win. We'll see.

Oh my, Harris destroyed Barr. It was a true work of art. She's good.

Unfortunately, I think Biden will probably get the rust belt and the rest of the Mid-West. He's blue collar relates well to that portion of the electorate. I think Gillibrand is too meek to fight in the bull pen. Kamala could survive the fight, but not my 1st choice. Got my eye on Mayor Pete. He's got his finger on the pulse on a large section of the country; because, he's skin and bone of the body of the center of America.

Trump’s Tariffs Are a New Tax on Americans
 

Trump’s Tariffs Are a New Tax on Americans

By The New York Times Editorial Board.

May 10, 2019

President Trump is undermining the credibility of his trade policies by falsely claiming that China is paying the bill.

https://i.postimg.cc/3RqpxPXZ/175026...uper-Jumbo.jpg
The more President Trump escalates his trade war with China, the more American shoppers will notice higher prices in their favorite grocery stores, hardware shops and big-box retailers. Photo Credit: Callaghan O'Hare/Bloomberg

President Trump’s new tariffs on Chinese imports, which took effect at 12:01 a.m. on Friday, are taxes that will be paid by Americans. That is a simple fact, and it remains true no matter how many times Mr. Trump insists the money will come from China.

Mr. Trump’s latest escalation of his trade fight with China is a 25 percent tariff, or import tax, on products that compose about one third of China’s exports to the United States, including Chinese bicycles, circuit boards and wooden doors. The tariff rate on those goods was previously 10 percent. Mr. Trump also has threatened to impose the 25 percent rate on virtually all products imported from China — more than $500 billion in goods last year.

Mr. Trump could make an honest case for this tax increase. He could argue that Americans must endure higher prices because China will suffer too — while China does not bear the direct cost of the tariffs, it is likely to suffer a loss of sales — and the United States needs that leverage as it presses China to change its economic policies.

Instead, Mr. Trump continues to repeat the false claim that the money will come from China, even though he has been told repeatedly that this claim has no basis in fact. He is willfully peddling a falsehood for political gain.

The mechanics of tariffs are not complicated: The government sends a tax bill to the company that brings goods into the country. Most of those tax bills go to American companies, often import firms that specialize in dealing with the customs process.

It doesn’t really matter who gets the bill, however. The important question is where the money to pay it comes from. And in broad terms, there are only two options: It comes either from the firms that make, move and sell the products or from the pockets of the buyers.

Consider the case of washing machines. In January 2018, Mr. Trump imposed a tariff on washing machines, initially at a rate of 20 percent. The tariff caused a 12 percent increase in the price of washing machines, according to a study by economists at the Federal Reserve and the University of Chicago. It also resulted in a similar increase in the price of dryers. Americans responded by buying more domestic washing machines, creating about 1,800 new jobs. But the cost of the tariffs was borne entirely by American consumers. The study estimated that each of those new jobs came at a cost of more than $815,000.

The Trump administration has tried to focus the China tariffs on the industrial supply chain: products used in making other goods, rather than products sold directly to consumers. That means much of the cost initially is absorbed by faceless corporations.

But the bottom line remains either lower profits or higher prices.

Some of the money could, in theory, be squeezed from Chinese manufacturers. But a pair of recent studies by prominent academics, including the chief economist at the World Bank, have concluded that the full cost of the Trump tariffs is being paid here in the United States, although China has suffered a loss of access to the American market.

One of the studies concluded that the cost of the tariffs has fallen disproportionately on the parts of the country that have supported Mr. Trump most strongly, in part because China and other nations subjected to tariffs have targeted their retaliatory tariffs at agricultural products and other goods produced in those parts of the country.

The cost of a tax is not just the money extracted from the private sector but also the disruption of economic activity. Here, too, the tariffs are proving painful. The second study estimated that tariffs were extracting $3 billion a month from American companies and consumers — and causing an additional $1.4 billion a month in lost economic activity.

Mr. Trump’s tariffs also have prompted China to retaliate, and that is causing particular pain for Midwestern farmers who have lost a major market for their crops.

Mr. Trump tweeted on Friday that the federal government would collect $100 billion in tariff revenue and that he would use some of the money to purchase American agricultural products, which would then be shipped to “poor & starving countries.” The rest of the money, he said, could be used for “Infrastructure, Health care or anything else.”

It’s a good idea to raise taxes to pay for foreign aid, infrastructure and health care.

But a tariff is a consumption tax, much like a sales tax, and such taxes tend to be regressive, meaning they cost lower-income families a larger share of their income than they cost upper-income families. There are better ways to raise the money. For example, the ill-considered tax cuts for the wealthy that Mr. Trump pushed through Congress in 2017 could be reversed.

Moreover, there is growing reason to doubt that tariffs are serving Mr. Trump’s stated purpose of persuading China to change its trade policies. There is widespread agreement, both in the United States and among America’s allies, that China is engaged in unfair practices, such as state-subsidized manufacturing, theft of intellectual property and both formal and informal constraints on foreign businesses. Those are real problems, and enforceable commitments to enact reforms could deliver significant economic and environmental benefits. Mr. Trump’s tariffs could yet prove a painful success story.

But the cost of Mr. Trump’s approach has just gone up: Americans will be paying higher prices on a wide range of goods. And Mr. Trump — who famously declared in March 2018 that “trade wars are good, and easy to win” — has yet to show he can strike a deal.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/10/o...gtype=Homepage

According to CNN, Beto is not polling well. Tied for sixth with 2%. Maybe he wasn't "Born to Run."