The governor Skeletor segment, with him boasting about how he's going to steal businesses away from Connecticut, and Joe saying Connecticut needed to give up taxing businesses and start providing crappier levels of service to the residents was pretty craptacular too.

Mine goes up fairly often during it. I wish MSNBC would quit pretending Scarborough is reasonable, and put up some better political show in the mornings.

wants them to pay a fair share in keeping the state's infrastructure, education and other services that benefit the large corporations as well as everybody else.

I wish Joe would move out of our state...maybe to New Jersey where at least he would have a better buddy for governor...and they can sit and piss and moan all day about taxes on the poor businessman...

He's a radical, he's not worried about debt, he wants medicare for all.... bah blah blh

Corporate money. Why does Missouri, keep that sorry excuse for a rep around? She was terrible on the Ferguson, Michael Brown, tragedy as well. Hillary certainly has her surrogates working overtime to bash Bernie. She should probably give more thought to those backing him, the crowds of people he draws. There is little to non chance they will vote for her.

They are both fine examples of what is wrong with the Democratic party.

blaming a repub for the ills of the Dems? Not sure what that means.

both parties have members that range from moderate to the extremes. The difference is in the extremes - us to the left and them to the right. But to say the parties are the same is ignoring reality.

So Collins and McCaskill both tend toward the middle.

I am still baffled by that post I responded to - that the problems with the Dem party can be attributed to McCaskill and Collins.

wierd.

now I have to go look. Yep you're right. There is an R after her name.

BTW, I did not blame them for what is wrong with the Dem party. I said they were an example of what is wrong with Dems. I think there is a difference.

her choice as the Dem candidate. Isn't that a good thing? Don't we want folks fighting for their Dem-of-choice?

She is certainly more of a Dem than some here who are declaring they will not vote for another Dem if their choice does not survive the primaries. I am 100% certain Claire will vote for the Dem candidate. I will.

btw - I am still undecided - so neither upset with nor grateful for her comments re Bernie.

He doesn't want to run that sort of campaign. I will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, but I don't think that fellow Dems are going to be instrumental in electing Bernie. However, I do think republicans will be. I don't foresee Republicans crossing over to vote for HRC like I think they will for Bernie Sanders.

a self-proclaimed socialist. Particularly if they happen to chose a far-right candidate - cruz, rand paul., etc.

What so many politicians and the media leave off is that Bernie identifies himself as a "Socialist Democrat", again, I do believe there is a difference.


Socialism vs Social Democracy — What’s The Difference?

One is about collective ownership of the means of production;
the other about organic social solidarity with private ownership of production.

One is restrictive;
the other libertarian.

One is metaphysical (excessively abstract reasoning);
the other empirical (demonstrable, verifiable reasoning).

One is dogmatic;
the other scientific.

One is emotional;
the other reflective.

One is destructive;
the other constructive.

Both are in pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all.

– One aims to establish happiness for all;

– the other to enable each to be happy in one’s own way.

The first regards the State as a society “sui generis,” of a unique essence, the product of a right outside of and above all society, with special rights and able to exact special obediences;
the second considers the State as an association like any other, generally managed no better and no more efficient than others.

The first proclaims the sovereignty of the State;
the second recognizes no sort of sovereign.

One wishes all monopolies to be held by the State;
the other wishes the abolition of all monopolies.

One wishes the governed class to become the governing class;
the other wishes the disappearance of classes.

Both declare that the existing state of things cannot last.

– The first considers revolutions as the indispensable agent of evolutions;

– the second teaches that repression alone turns political evolutions into revolution.

The first has faith in a cataclysm;
the second knows that social progress will result from the free play of individual efforts.

One wishes that there should be none but proletariats;
the other wishes that there should be no more proletariats.

The first wishes to take everything away from everybody;
the second wishes to leave each in possession of its own.

The one wishes to expropriate everybody;
the other wishes everybody to be a proprietor.

The first says: Do as the government wishes;
the second says: Do as you wish yourself.

The former threatens with despotism;
the latter promises liberty.

The former makes the citizen the subject of the State;
the latter makes the State the employee of the citizen.

One proclaims that labor pains will be necessary to the birth of a new world;
the other declares that real progress will not cause suffering to any one.

The first has confidence in social war;
the other believes only in works of peace.

One aspires to command, to regulate, to legislate;
the other wishes to attain the minimum of command, of regulation, of legislation.

One would be followed by the most atrocious of reactions;
the other opens unlimited horizons to progress.

The first will fail;
the other will succeed.

One desires equality; the other seeks equity.

– The first by lowering heads that are too high;

– the other by raising heads that are too low.

One sees equality under a common yoke;
the other will secure equity in complete liberty.

One is intolerant;
the other tolerant.

One frightens;
the other reassures.

The first wishes to instruct everybody;
the second wishes to enable everybody to instruct one’s self.

The first wishes to support everybody;
the second wishes to enable everybody to support one’s self.

One says:

– The land to the State

– The mine to the State

– The tool to the State

– The product to the State

The other says:

– The land to the cultivator.

– The mine to the miner.

– The tool to the laborer.

– The product to the producer.

One is the infancy of Socialism;
the other is its manhood.

One is already the past;
the other is the future.

One will give way to the other…

Based upon the writing of ~ Ernest Lesigne – Liberty V, 10 (December 17, 1887), No. 114, p. 5.

don't think you can do it - good luck with that

independents have never swung an election.

Time will tell

Bernie is the candidate that best reflects what the people want.

--imm

Claire McCaskill can go screw herself to a broken toilet seat...
meaning the government she helped create.

Between the obnoxious hosts to the celebrity "news" to the moronic Republican talking points, the show struck me as a garbage rag in TV form. Mika Brzinski (sp?) is useless and Joe Scarborough is a pompous douchebag. The show seems like it belongs on Fox News, but MSNBC isn't so great either.

disgust it's such garbage. And he thinks he's god's gift to the universe. And Mika usually sits there preening. Frankly, the show is somewhat tolerable when he is off, but when he's on, most of the time, it's just unwatchable. MSNBC under NBC under Comcast targets a market segment for profit. They are not progressive crusaders. They are in it for the money. Liberals/progressives are just a profit line market segment.

he is just so exasperating. they should get rid of him and keep mika and mike barnacle

That's my girl!!!