In The News

Ah, its been a while again, live happens, just like in the movie Forrest Gump. To be honest, it has been a busy week for politics... Scandals, rumors, back stabbing, end arounds, and the like have all dominated the news. There has been a ton of fun, and not everyone is feeling it.

Lets start off with what broke earlier last week. A sex scandal, yay! Apparently Cruz has been a busy fellow, and well, it wasn't with his wife. Speaking of her, from the images I have seen of her, she looks rather like a person who would rather be elsewhere. Now I could say other things about what I personally think has happened in their home, but I am not. Honestly, Cruz going all Hulk about a rumor rag article is funny and sad at the same time. Is it true, time will tell, so lets just let that dog sleep for a while.

We had Sanders sweep the three primary states on Saturday. Now, that was a good deal for Sanders and his supporters. Of course, I have seen more media coverage about a president stubbing his toe, that wasn't so good. Look, I understand that terrorist attacks are news worthy, if it bleeds and all that. Sadly, Nightcrawler isn't just a good work of fiction, its a documentary of how our news cycle really works. Bombs were used against civilians, killing many, terrorists are blamed (rightfully so), media runs with the ball getting people all paranoid about our friendly Muslim neighbors. More important news gets ignored, like current presidential primary results, possible voting fraud gets put on the back burner. So, Sanders wins three states, Hawaii goes from being one of the more diverse states in the Union, to predominately white, which has led to the #BernieMadeMeWhite hashtag. Alaska was a surprise for me, given its isolation and I don't know the demographics of the state outside of a saying/joke about Alaskans. There are two people who reside there, those who are born in Alaska, and those seeking to be left alone. Say what you will about it, and if you are from Alaska, let me know if that is true, or not.

Oh, that voter fraud in Arizona. Well, that wasn't later in the week, but the hearings were. You see, it seems that people had their voter affiliation randomly changed, were given provisional ballots, and had several hour waits just to cast a ballot for their candidate. Okay, it seems that the voter affiliation changing is a state level issue, if true, and it should be investigated like dead people voting. If there were changes made without the voters consent or knowledge, there should be heads on pikes. The provisional ballot thing and waiting 4+ hours to vote should never happen in a civilized voting society. All these things should be investigated, and I don't mean on a state level either, because lets be honest, if I cannot be trusted by the man to investigate myself for a potential crime (I will always say I am innocent just as you would), the state is not to be trusted to investigate itself (which they will always say they are innocent). So, in their hearing they said there was no real remedy for the accusations, or wrong doings (on the ballots and long poll lines). Yeah, there is, either count all the votes, or redo the primary (at the states expense), with enough ballots for everyone who wants to vote and a typical number of polling stations. Give the people of Arizona the right to have their voices heard, in full, make amends for this colossal screw up. But the chances of that happening are as likely as Pluto striking Earth in the next five minutes.

Then we have this other thing that is on my last nerve. Back when the Democratic Debate schedule was set, all six of them, shoved onto weekends, and otherwise competing with things that people might actually want to watch, people bitched about not having enough of them. I was one of them, so when it came down that if the candidates agreed to more debates, there would be more debates, I was pacified. It was a sound deal, so more debates were promised, so now we are up to ten debates... We were to have at least one in April, and it was thought it would be held in New York, and another in May, these were subject to change, as in more debates as candidates agreed to more, except.... Clinton has backed up on the deal. So, Monday morning, a Clinton aid stated on CNN:

“Sen. Sanders doesn't get to decide when we debate, particularly when he's running a very negative campaign against us.”

Sorry, but this is neglecting that a debate was agreed to for April, with details to be fleshed out. Sanders for his part wants this debate to happen before April 19 in New York, I think most people in New York would want to see their former Senator debate a man who was born in Brooklyn.

Fast forward to the next day, and his desire to debate Clinton in New York is now a “Public Stunt.” More claims are made about Sanders running a negative campaign against Clinton, and more assertions. Now, here is the thing, when the papers that endorse you say that claim is ridiculous (The Washington Post) you might want to back off your claims. Sure, I have seen some Sanders supporters get down in the mud and muck, start throwing poo at Clinton, but I can also point at those antics in every political election, politics in the good ole US of A is a blood sport, and if Sanders is being negative, I can't wait to see what Trump or Cruz drop on her in the general election, should she get the nomination.

So, before I could post this, as I have to go to the library or hospital to make entries, Clinton has apparently “re-agreed” to debate Sanders somewhere in the Great State of New York, “if they can find a mutually agreeable date in the next couple of weeks before the New York primary.” Yeah, it isn't so much that she has once again reversed course on a statement or course of action, well, yeah it was. She didn't really agree to a debate with Sanders in New York before April 19^th, as she is “perfectly willing to debate him in New York.” In other words it all comes down to the candidates, their staffs, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Always a hitch and a hangup, but apparently Clinton said she would at a rally. So I will list it as a tentative maybe, because Clinton tends to backtrack.

So once again, while I was actually sitting at the library, going through Facebook posts (I get way to many notifications checking it once a day), I noticed several articles regarding our favorite delegates, the Super Delegates (TM). I do feel that should Sanders start moving closer to Clinton, its under 250 pledged delegates at this point, before the rest of Washington's delegates are designated), once he hits tie or takes the lead in pledged delegates, the super delegates will relent and fall in line, as they did with Obama. However, based on what I have read, some people are concerned about their role. I have never liked the fact that you have a group of people who aren't beholden to the people, which is not the case for all super delegates. However, what I see is this, both groups within the super delegate crew are not following the will of the people. They are independent of our will, and our voice, take Washington as an example. None of the currently elected officials of Washington, who are super delegates are currently siding with Sanders, despite his crushing defeat of Clinton. Washington's super delegate brigade is not alone, this is happening in many places where Sanders has been victorious over Clinton. Now, I will say again that these super delegates are completely independent of the will of the people, many are beholden to us, as they represent us at various levels of government, some are like Howard Dean, who no longer holds a public office. Ladies and gentlemen those are the rules of the party, and until we the people reassert control of it, those are how we are going to be forced to play the game. I don't like it, I think its a BS way to play, but the establishment of old and new decided to play this way to protect themselves, to keep so called radicals from taking over, as the Tea Party did to the GOP.