@Centaurea He's been consistently saying the same things for decades. The surprise was that a lot of people suddenly listened and responded positively to him.

#2 Their 2016 strategy failed for two reasons. The first, as you point out, was that Hillary was such an awful candidate. (From what I can see, the DNC and the party faithful still refuse to understand the extent to which Hillary is despised by much of the American public.)

The second reason their strategy failed is because of how Bernie's candidacy resonated with so many people. I don't think anyone, not even Bernie himself, could have predicted what happened. It's as if he woke up a "sleeping giant". As Bernie said, "Not me, us."

This is why I think that, should the Dems try the strategy again in 2020, they will fail again. It's not just about Hillary or Bernie. It's about what's going on with the American people.
Some are still brainwashed and hoodwinked by the "Russiagate" silliness. But from what I can see, more and more people are thinking critically and are pushing back.

@snoopydawg to keep everyone divided.

#7

I have asked the same question. Why was it sexist and misogynistic when I called Hillary a warmonger, but it's okay for people to say what they are about Tulsi? And just like there was a time when people wanted what Bernie was offering, people used to not want regime change and for the troops to be pulled out of the war zones.

This double standard started during Obama's tenure in my opinion. People who criticized him were called racist even though the same people used to say things like that during Bush's.

It's also not acceptable to use unnamed sources for stories about Tulsi, but it's okay to use them in stories about Trump and Vlad. Go figure.

@lotlizard air for political reasons?

#9  
I already had the feeling the U.S. had just passed peak free press.

There’s a chance that callow, immature Me was more right then than even I knew.

@gjohnsit
about Libya and Egypt was criminal propaganda. Maybe that's why Her Heinous recommended them during the so-called Arab Spring?

I haven't been back since over a dozen reporters quit because Al-Jazeera wouldn't air stories about weapons and radicals from Libya infiltrating into Syria to foment strife in an attempt to overthrow Assad.

#9
AJ has the best reporting about ME news.

@mimi  
to gamble in, whose owners are “more virtuous” / “the lesser evil” compared to the others.

As with being intellectually honest about the fascist practices of all sides in politics today, the argument can be made that no matter which one you pick they’re essentially the same, or else they couldn’t have succeeded at being casino owners.

Instead of continuing to lend the Nazi mystique power by making it taboo, sometimes I think they should just go full farcical on it and let someone open a casino analogous to “Caesar’s Palace,” but named after you-know-who, featuring a floor show like the musical in The Producers minus any ironic intent to flop.

#11
... what would we do without them? Turn into fascists ourselves, just to keep the game going?

FUBAR.

@dfarrah
with big guns too ... sometimes too long ...

As a consequence some of those countries inhabitants just want to leave and get into new countries as well, and they don't care anymore, if they are wanted there or not...the same way as those, who came to their country and stood there for too long with too many big guns, didn't care either ...

I guess it's a matter where you are at. Some borders haven't been porous and many people have suffered for that. The ones who wanted to get out. And others wanted to get in and couldn't. Both sides don't usually like that too much...

Wasn't it at first quite difficult for the Jews, who fled fascist and racist Germany, to get into the US?

Haven't a lot of people exploited other countries' people, made them poor and desperate? Didn't those, who were exploited, then want to get out and move into other countries, just to find a new home and a job somewhere else? Isn't that a humanely understandable wish?

Is it not fascist (may be not the correct label, but I don't know a better one) to first go into other people's territory and exploit people there in their own countries, and then make them flee, and after all that, then again, don't want to let them into other countries to build a new life?

May be it's not fascist, but it certainly is not what I would feel morally acceptable. I have not the vocabulary of a well educated and well read American, but I feel that as a German and a European I have some good ideas about what walls mean and that the more porous they are, the more human they get. Just my own opinion, of course.

The EU has become a territory that has/had porous borders for their member states. Now, when that is threatened again, people realize that it wasn't that bad to have porous borders.

Of course all those EU member states have once - a long time ago - pretty much gone into other peoples territory and exploited them quite nicely (ie colonialism). And those who have been exploited now want to get into their EU territory and want their piece of the cake as well. And all the discussion now is about making those borders non-porous to let 'them cake-eaters' not in. Great success, heh? Or great failure? My own two cents only.

ok, I shut up.

PS. I came into the US first as an accompanying wife of someone who got in on a half-diplomatic visa to work in an UN affiliated organization. Later then I won the green card lottery for a legal residency status for life (that was in 1987) Then some years ago the Americans changed those laws for life-long legal residenc green card holders into ones that are valid just for ten years.

Meanwhile my son, who won with me the life-long green card for legal residency in the US, joined the AF (2001) and after 9/11 was sent to Iraq into the shock and awe theater. There he had to kill some enemies for Uncle Sam. Those enemies, were they enemies or just happened to be at the wrong place and the wrong time the same way as my son has been there at the wrong place and the wrong time?

Then the Americans wanted to say 'Thank You' to my son for his service 'to kill the enemies of and for Uncle Sam' and offered him to become a US citizen as a reward. Of course they checked out, who his parents were, and apparently became a bit suspicious, because those brown half-diplomat and lefty legal resident German were somewhat 'strange'. Then my son felt he couldn't even have refused to become a US citizen, because who knows what the Americans would have thought about him not being enthusiastic to become an American. So he felt it to be better to be enthusiastic to become an American.

You know I have (or had) a multi-cultural, multi-racial and multi-national little family, and we each had to cross a lot of borders, legal ones, language ones and cultural - as well emotional - ones. When you have done that, you become grateful to anyone, who isn't suspicious of you for crossing borders and just accept the fact that everybody has to live and make a home somewhere.

NOthing for Ungood. Peace.

#12 a wall fascist?

It is just a wall to keep non-citizens out. Most borders between countries are not porous. People typically don't get to just arrive in other countries and stay.