@gjohnsit What makes anyone think that the money in donations won't be siphoned off. This time Bernie is getting (most) funding online through ActBlue (about which I recently mistook for David Brock's ShareBlue and which sucked up 2016 funds). Does he not remember the Great Railroad Heist of 2016? That's when Slick Willie and the DNC bestowed $220M of Bernie donations into the ample lap of the Evil Queen.

When egomaniacal, sociopathic Hillary wants something, she finds ways to get it. If she survives to primary time, there are probably schemes afoot, signing over complete DNC control to HRC once the campaigning begins--or perhaps this transfer is already in the works.

For those of us who do not believe Bernie is spineless, witness his recent lukewarm support for Venezuelan regime change. He licked HRC's ring all the way from July to November 2016. He still sings songs of Russians under the beds of Trump.

When elderly people start regressing their principles as he is doing, something deleterious is occurring. Despite his talk of "too many issues" for mass comprehension, we should remind ourselves of Jimmy Carter's too-much-of-everything campaign. This talk of "immorality of borders" places him just as much at odds with Americans as M4A puts him in favor.

If the MSM doesn't smear him as much as before, and if he is the candidate of the Dims, his policies on regime change war, to be generous, is tepid at best. His anti-wall stance will hurt him in red states and some purple ones too. Whether he is called a socialist or democratic socialist or social democrat will not matter. If the economy continues doing well, by current manipulated standards, Trump will have a walk in the park. Plus, if there is Korean peninsular peace, rosebuds will be sprinkled at his feet. Not at Bernie's feet. He is on a path of tripping over his feet already.

Summary:
1. History will repeat (unless HRC is indicted)
2. Too much anti-wall but insufficient anti-war from Bernie.
3. Bernie will be sucked into the globalist interventionalist cadre with barely a whimper.

fundraising

By Monday, after less than a week as a presidential candidate, Mr. Sanders has collected $10 million from 359,914 donors, campaign officials said. But perhaps just as daunting a figure for his rivals is this: Nearly 39 percent of those donors used an email address that had never before been used to give to Mr. Sanders.

For Mr. Sanders, the flood of money from fresh email addresses suggested to his team that he was dramatically expanding a donor network that had already dwarfed his 2020 competition.

“Our second day,” said Ari Rabin-Havt, a senior adviser to Mr. Sanders, “was bigger than anybody else’s first day.”
...
Of Mr. Sanders’s wave of day one donations, only 17 people gave him the maximum allowable amount of $2,800, meaning he can ask more than 99.99 percent of his donors to give again. As of late Monday, only 20 donors have given Mr. Sanders the legal maximum; another 46 gave $2,700, the limit in the last campaign.

More than 48,000 donors have already agreed to give to Mr. Sanders over and over, signing up for recurring donations to be drawn from their credit cards worth a combined more than $1 million each month, according to statistics provided to The New York Times by the campaign. The average overall contribution was just under $26.

@chambord

I don't for one minute believe Kamala Harris

..... about anything at all.

I see MFA as an empty slogan from some candidates. I don't for one minute believe Kamala Harris is going to promote the necessary changes if elected.

@Amanda Matthews but he is definitely going along with the imperialists.

This is not Bernie 2016--despite decades of voting progressively. After 40+ years of exposure, he has now been infected by the Potomac Plague>

Tulsi to the rescue--nah, Dem elites won't allow that--but she is making herself better known in advance of 2024.

crap out on the campaign trail?

Just curious.

@apenultimate

I don't agree with either of them on everything, I recognize that they're better than most Dems.

However, I'm one of those folks who can't see pulling the lever for anyone running under the auspices of the corporatist Dem Party.

Would like to see them run together on "third party" ticket. IMO, the best ticket would have Gabbard at top, Bernie as VP.

One can wish, I suppose.

Blue Onyx

“I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.”
~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne

Was listening to snippets of it on KPFA radio yesterday that Reich gave a couple weeks ago in Berkeley. He mentioned conducting town halls for his political research in 2015, and at every town hall many individuals would mention being interested in both Bernie and Trump.

Reich said he found this very hard to understand because the two were at opposite ends of the political spectrum, and when he pressed for an explanation, people would always respond that those two would be able to "shake things up" in the establishment. The people didn't care who it was, just so someone would shake things up and change things. Reich realized from hearing it so much that Clinton was in trouble.

I think Bernie and Tulsi both have that quality--the impression that they would shake the establishment up. I think Tulsi has more of that vibe and has more cross-over appeal to the libertarian/Trump/Republican side than Bernie has coming from the military and denouncing wars (remember who denounced wars in 2015? Trump, who won!). Frankly, I think Tusli would wipe the floor with Trump if they were head to head. Bernie versus Trump would probably be a closer race.

My personal hope is that Tulsi pulls it off. If Bernie wins, though, I will support him. I'll take a great domestic policy even if his foreign policy isn't as good as Tulsi's. I, personally, can live with that. However, I'd be really disappointed if Bernie does not put Tulsi in a key position--VP, SOS, or Sec Defense--and just goes with Warren and establishment figures.

I fully respect people who would not support Sanders, though. We all need to make that decision--has a candidate really earned our vote. For me, Sanders has. But also for me, Tulsi is the best.

@apenultimate @apenultimate @apenultimate "Reich said he found this very hard to understand because the two were at opposite ends of the political spectrum" just don't get it.

They don't just not get it; I would go so far as to say that they are clueless.

First of all, the left and right overlap, especially when it concerns jobs and the preferential treatment of the wealthy. Second, the clueless people just don't understand the impact of genuineness in a candidate. With both Trump and Bernie, what you see is what you get. And with both, you get fighters.

BS (as in bullshit) just isn't as appealing anymore. Neither of them (Trump or Bernie) are mealy mouthed like most politicians are.

Just edited to add the info in ()

Was listening to snippets of it on KPFA radio yesterday that Reich gave a couple weeks ago in Berkeley. He mentioned conducting town halls for his political research in 2015, and at every town hall many individuals would mention being interested in both Bernie and Trump.

Reich said he found this very hard to understand because the two were at opposite ends of the political spectrum, and when he pressed for an explanation, people would always respond that those two would be able to "shake things up" in the establishment. The people didn't care who it was, just so someone would shake things up and change things. Reich realized from hearing it so much that Clinton was in trouble.

I think Bernie and Tulsi both have that quality--the impression that they would shake the establishment up. I think Tulsi has more of that vibe and has more cross-over appeal to the libertarian/Trump/Republican side than Bernie has coming from the military and denouncing wars (remember who denounced wars in 2015? Trump, who won!). Frankly, I think Tusli would wipe the floor with Trump if they were head to head. Bernie versus Trump would probably be a closer race.

My personal hope is that Tulsi pulls it off. If Bernie wins, though, I will support him. I'll take a great domestic policy even if his foreign policy isn't as good as Tulsi's. I, personally, can live with that. However, I'd be really disappointed if Bernie does not put Tulsi in a key position--VP, SOS, or Sec Defense--and just goes with Warren and establishment figures.

I fully respect people who would not support Sanders, though. We all need to make that decision--has a candidate really earned our vote. For me, Sanders has. But also for me, Tulsi is the best.

@artisan
10 years. interesting.

Eliminating this cap will fully fund it for years into the future. There is no cap on Medicare, currently 2.9% split between employer and employee, self employed pay both halves. The ACA adds an additional .9% on income above $250K for married and $200K for single taxpayers.

Eat tax the rich.

@The Wizard on situations like yours is a huge cost burden.

Insurance companies and the burdens they impose have to account for at least 25% of overall health care costs.

I just spent a good 8-10 hours trying to get Rx for my Dad that needed "preauthorization." We changed drug companies this year because Aetna was not going to cover a Parkinson's drug. So, his Rx is now covered by United Healthcare - whose executives are paid millions, but they can't hire enough pre-auth employees to get the job done. (oh, and I'm still trying to get the RX)

Health care insurance companies are stealing our lives.

Our current medical costs could provide total care for all of our citizens twice over, if our costs were comparable to other developed nations, and the care would be better. My point here is that Tulsi and/or Bernie should stress medical reform. It would help to paint the picture of the insurance industry as a bunch of blood draining vampires. Another clear point should be made that costs in the US are so high that the industry is rationing care. We have short stays, minimum beds and almost no staff in hospitals here. My doctor has to limit procedures because the insurance company will not pay for it. So the solution for a very expensive health care system caused by a greedy few, is to limit health care for all of us.

Here's a personal anecdote:
As a comparison I was visiting a major Eurasian country and I had a bout of sinus infection. If I were a citizen, my costs would have been free. I had two x-rays, and three doctor visits, two with an otolarygologist and one with a Pneumonia specialist to rule that out. My total cost was $64 USD equivalent. From the time I called to the time I was diagnosed and was taking the 8 prescription drugs was less than 24 hours. I had the same flare-up in the US. My guess is that you know what happened. I had to call my primary care doctor and get an appointment the next week. Had to go to the x-ray lab in a different city. Then had to see a specialist, otolarygologist. She called in the prescription and I could pick it up the next day. Total calendar time was 12 days from first call to taking the two prescriptions. My co-pays were $100, $20 for PCP and $40 for each specialist visit. I saw the insurance bill -$3200. She would not do a follow up x-ray of my sinuses because the insurance company would not pay. I had a nasty post nasal drip for many weeks after that.

@The Wizard

My point here is that Tulsi and/or Bernie should stress medical reform. It would help to paint the picture of the insurance industry as a bunch of blood draining vampires. Another clear point should be made that costs in the US are so high that the industry is rationing care. We have short stays, minimum beds and almost no staff in hospitals here. My doctor has to limit procedures because the insurance company will not pay for it. So the solution for a very expensive health care system caused by a greedy few, is to limit health care for all of us.

This is such an excellent point. Doctors that work for hospitals because they don't want to deal with insurance companies and office crap don't really know patient's medical history and often have time limits for how much time they can spend with people. The hospitals put so many restrictions on what meds and treatments people can have because it cuts into their profits. Same with insurance companies because they have to answer to their shareholders... and then people have to ration their meds because they can't afford them. I couldn't get one of mine because I didn't have an extra $4 one month. Imagine how people are not being able to afford their insulin and other meds because the drug companies keep raising prices. No restrictions were put on them when congress was debating the ACA. This piece of shit bill could have been so much better if congress wanted it to be. They didn't and here we are. Bankruptcies are still happening, but people can get help if enough people see their gfm and think their cause is worth throwing strangers some money.

I could go on all night, but I'm preaching to the choir here. F'ck Obama and the democrats for not even trying and the republicans too. Democrats let the republicans remove every piece in the ACA that was good.

Great comment, wizard!

Our current medical costs could provide total care for all of our citizens twice over, if our costs were comparable to other developed nations, and the care would be better. My point here is that Tulsi and/or Bernie should stress medical reform. It would help to paint the picture of the insurance industry as a bunch of blood draining vampires. Another clear point should be made that costs in the US are so high that the industry is rationing care. We have short stays, minimum beds and almost no staff in hospitals here. My doctor has to limit procedures because the insurance company will not pay for it. So the solution for a very expensive health care system caused by a greedy few, is to limit health care for all of us.

Here's a personal anecdote:
As a comparison I was visiting a major Eurasian country and I had a bout of sinus infection. If I were a citizen, my costs would have been free. I had two x-rays, and three doctor visits, two with an otolarygologist and one with a Pneumonia specialist to rule that out. My total cost was $64 USD equivalent. From the time I called to the time I was diagnosed and was taking the 8 prescription drugs was less than 24 hours. I had the same flare-up in the US. My guess is that you know what happened. I had to call my primary care doctor and get an appointment the next week. Had to go to the x-ray lab in a different city. Then had to see a specialist, otolarygologist. She called in the prescription and I could pick it up the next day. Total calendar time was 12 days from first call to taking the two prescriptions. My co-pays were $100, $20 for PCP and $40 for each specialist visit. I saw the insurance bill -$3200. She would not do a follow up x-ray of my sinuses because the insurance company would not pay. I had a nasty post nasal drip for many weeks after that.