Besides, I think Qin is over 20 now, anyway. That said,
If FDR’s court-packing scheme had succeeded, we’d now be living in a system with only two branches of government. Or probably only one, in practice: The checks and balances would allow the execudiciary to very quickly and effectively nullify Congress. That’s too much power to entrust to any one man.
(and what’s “smh”?)
The BLM movement did not dismiss those women in fact they understood that activism is messy and unpleasant- and now Bernie has a Social Justice platform that directly addresses their concerns around police brutality. Bernie even consulted with the leaders of the movement in drafting the plan. This all occurred after the podium disruption, and Bernie was smart to get endorsement from the movement.
Contrast the optics of that and of Ramos, a respected journalist/activist, who may have let emotion dictate his interaction with Trump, but when Trump dismissed and then had him removed, then brought him back in to berate him, Trump did nothing to make gains in the Latino vote.
smh-shaking my head.
I don’t think that is the only reason, I think a big part of it is that Sanders is a genuine progressive who is hostile to the health care industry, financial industry, criminal justice industry, etc. I don’t think the dems want a progressive to get the nomination because that will scare corporations who will dump money into the GOP as a response.
It ain’t that simple. The corporations control the machine, they control Clinton, but they don’t control Sanders.
True. Clinton’s got Wall Street. Sanders has an army of white men. So what? The Republicans have an army of white men and Wall Street.
Yes, “like you, I also have a vagina” is a pretty simple message for her to put out there.
I was at a Bernie Sanders meeting recently and about 20 people were there. A full 5% of them were non-whites. So that is progress brah.
I am optimistic that he can make progress. He’s certainly making an effort. I’d like to see Sanders be the nominee. Not for cynical reasons, but just to show that Democrats are just as dissatisfied with the establishment as Republicans. Things need to change.
That does not mean its purpose was anything other than what FDR said it was.
That was what FDR wanted it to be, but the Democrats in Congress, especially the Southern Dems, had less pure motives. And they wrote the legislation, controlled the committees.
Its purpose was to violate the Constitution. I know, you’re OK with that, the rest of us are not.
That is irrelevant to the question of whether it or any other minimum-wage law was intended to “keep blacks from competing with whites by accepting a lower wage.”
Its purpose was not to violate the Constitution. Its means violated the Constitution, but it’s not like FDR woke up, rubbed his hands maniacally, and said “Mwahaha! I want to undermine our system of government, how can I most effectively do so? I know, I’ll impose a minimum wage!”.
Actually, FDR, like many progressives of the time and to some extent even now, was critical of the limits the Constitution placed on government.
See The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy, by Daniel Lazare; it’s a real eye-opener WRT constitutional history.
The Constitution is supposed to paralyze democracy. That’s a feature, not a bug. Democracy is a means. Liberty is the end. Where democracy can threaten individual liberty, democracy has to be curtailed. And thus the Constitution does so.
Serious question I’d like to piggyback: His name is pronounced “Sanders” as in “Colonel Sanders,” right? Because the Brits on BBC keep pronouncing it “Saunders.” Or have I just been away from the US too long?
No, sir, it’s a bug, not a feature. The point of democracy is not liberty. The point of democracy is to make the state do what the people want it to do – as it should, regardless of whether that serves liberty or not.
That’s another way of saying the government must exist because it must exist. Whereas I say, and the founders say, that the purpose of government is to secure the blessings of liberty. The government exists as a means to an end, whereas you are arguing that the government is the end.