TOO BIG TO FAIL?

set by the Constitution. Ironically, it was to prevent the consolidation of power - some of the Founders were afraid that allowing for a smaller ratio of Reps to voters would lead to certain communities getting their own pet representative, while others favored an even higher number than 30K. The current cap of 435 was set by the Reapportionment Act of 1911, which said that America would be divvied up into 433 districts (they reserved two more seats for when New Mexico and Arizona became states). This should have been revisited in 1921 - Congress used to have to pass a reapportionment act after every census - but Republicans obstructed passage over fears of future electoral losses; they did come together in 1929 (when R's held the presidency and both houses of Congress) to make the 435 number official. James Madison may have worried that "In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the scepter from reason" (Federalist #55), but I wonder if he ever contemplated a scenario wherein three entire states (ND, VT, WY) would have smaller populations than the average congressional district.

this very notion last week--that if FSC doesn't believe that she can garner a sufficient number of Bernie's supporters (and Wild Horses could not drag my Family to the polls to vote for her), she may take a very hard right-turn after the convention.

As a matter of fact--if I had one--I'd bet the family farm that she does.

As an aside, I listen to a lot of news programs, with reporting coming from all sides, or views.

Haven't seen anyone mention it, but there are several movements under foot in the Republican/Conservative communities.

1) Renewed attempts/plans to get delegates to deny Trump the nomination, by making a new rule--right to vote conscience. (that may have been discussed here)

2) Of course, more than a few Repubs, Conservatives, and Neoconservatives are openly endorsing and voting for FSC, or, at least, toying with the idea of doing so.

3) Some Repubs are pushing the Libertarian ticket--CNN is even going to hold a town hall or forum for Johnson and Weld, within the next few days.

4) And, even more worrisome to me, there is a write-in movement to elect deficit hawk and Social Security and Medicare destroyer, Paul Ryan.

(Of course, Ryan is on track, as Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, along with our corporatist Dems, to further chip away at 'entitlements' during the up and coming Lame Duck session.)

There is no doubt in my mind that entitlement programs would be under a worse threat under FSC, than under any Republican.

Partly, because neither Party will undertake them, unless their is a split in Government. This way, they serve as convenient 'foils' for one another.

Just look at all the cuts to Medicare, the recent 'reform' of Medigap insurance policies, and the very recent 'reform' of Social Security and Social Security Disability Insurance that have been passed--some already enacted (Social Security cuts effective April 30, 2016), some not coming into effect for several years.

Oh, forget to mention the partial privatization of the VA. This Congress is set to expand the privatization to all vets, if they can pull it off. (More on this later. Doubt this train can be stopped, though.)

I seriously doubt that all of these cuts would/could have happened under a Republican President. Remember how far GWB got, when he proposed adding personal accounts?

What blows me away is--let a Dem take office, and for some reason, some (not all) Dems and/or progressives wring their hands about proposals to cut entitlements, but once it happens, they mostly go their way without uttering a peep. Never to mention it, again.

Whew!

Once the convention is behind us, I intend to post on the Clintons'--yes, including WJC's--past and present policy proposals/legislation. One thing I've learned since I began blogging, there is a lot of propaganda that has been internalized by some members of the progressive community. And, I hope to dispel some of those notions. As far back as Jimmy Carter (at least), conservative Dem Presidents have worked to diminish our Social Safety net--all the while, pretending that they are the great defenders of it.

I'm no longer in the camp that believes that FSC has no path to the Presidency. However, I plan to get out enough information, so that those who do cast a vote for her, will at least be aware that they are likely voting to completely dismantle our social insurance programs--incrementally.

Cheers!

Mollie

In Tribute To 'Barabas'
Please Visit Save Our Street Dogs [SOSD]

I think what Sanders is and will be doing is training people to take the steps forward to make the Revolution more viable. One part of that is about building coalitions.

This is exactly how I saw Bernie. He was out there teaching us and showing us that we can do great things if we unite for our common goals. Uniting for common goals transcends traditional political parties.

What Al's problem is that Bernie chose to run as a Democrat. I have contended from day one that he had no other choice. The system precludes it. He would have never been allowed in the debates. Jill Stein was arrested in 2012 for even trying to enter the debate hall. As much as the media tried to ignore him, they were forced to acknowledge him, unlike Jill Stein who has gotten zero media coverage ever.

So I have a problem with Bernie saying that Donald Trump must be defeated because it continues the duopoly which is exactly why our government was so easily highjacked by the oligarchs. But that is a problem with the system, more than it is with Bernie. Clinton or Trump are symptoms of the the problem which is the entire corrupt two party system in this country.

I am extremely disappointed that Sanders has not called out election fraud, among other things. But I am still glad that he ran. Sanders has already done our people a great service by running because he pulled back the curtain on just how corrupt the Democratic party really is. Sanders proved that the people can have real power. So whatever Sanders does from now on is not the problem that Al sees.

I think that Al is underestimating the type of people who supported Sanders. Sanders supporters are not a cult of personality. They are better informed that the average voter. They are about issues, not identity politics. So are they automatically going to go with Hillary just because Sanders says so? I believe not. Those who do would have gone for her, absent Sanders being in the race.

So while I understand your rant, Al, I am still having problems understanding the harm that Sanders brought to this race.

make peaceful revolution impossible?

Or does checking out of the whole corrupt mess by not voting at all (my option of late) qualify as "peaceful revolution"?

I'm a former yellow-dog, straight-down-the-ticket Dem voter, but, after watching this year's bizarrenesses, I've been wondering why the Dem Party is having a convention at all.

Just to throw a lavish party for themselves at the Wells Fargo Center?

Or are they hoping to create an excuse to call out the modern Police State in all its glory in the only US city (so far) whose police department has actually dropped bombs on its citizens?

10 times as many voters for local office than for President. Of course, there was a reason...you had to go to two different places to vote for locals and President. But did anyone notice? Did anyone think, 'hey, what's the message here?" not that I heard.

I drifted away after Walt Sheasby died...