Sanders as a third-party candidate.....might it work?

[Harry Dean]

Here's the problem with a serious third party (or independent) run: What happens if it fails? Quo bono?


I won't vote for Hilary. My reasons aren't sexist, but are (first) tied to all the deceit, manipulation, and obstructionism that she has demonstrated at every point in her life since she became a public figure and (second) because I think it would be a major mistake to put a sexual predator back into the White House (this time without any official duties to occupy his time). Had Hilary filed for divorce at any point in the last 20 years, I would have been willing to give her a chance; but the fact is, her ambition has so badly compromised her judgment, and she is nothing more than a shill for the moneyed interests that own her.


I won't vote for Cruz either. I happen to agree with Boehner's assessment of Cruz' character. I can see him presiding over the deliberate dismantling of the federal government, in favor of a plutocracy, with a smug grin on his face. You may as well give him a purple toga, a box of matches, and a fiddle.


I'd rather not vote for Trump either, for the obvious reasons. However, I have few choices left. I suspect that many Americans in 2016 will vote AGAINST the candidate that scares them the most, as opposed to voting FOR anyone. Too bad (like the Richard Pryor movie Brewster's Millions) you can't vote for "None of the Above."

Drew
I have landed on this same runway.

[Paul Rigby]

I won't vote for Cruz either. I happen to agree with Boehner's assessment of Cruz' character. I can see him presiding over the deliberate dismantling of the federal government, in favor of a plutocracy, with a smug grin on his face. You may as well give him a purple toga, a box of matches, and a fiddle.

The Canadian has adopted a courageous position on the most important issue facing modern America - the alleged "right" to stimulate one's genitals for non-medical purposes.

I urge all thinking Americans to gird their loins & give this candidate their support.

The Time Ted Cruz Defended a Ban on Dildos
His legal team argued there was no right "to stimulate one's genitals."
By David Corn | Wed Apr. 13, 2016

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016...ices-texas

In one chapter of his campaign book, A Time for Truth, Sen. Ted Cruz proudly chronicles his days as a Texas solicitor general, a post he held from 2003 to 2008. Bolstering his conservative cred, the Republican presidential candidate notes that during his stint as the state's chief lawyer, in front of the Supreme Court and federal and state appellate courts he defended the inclusion of "under God" in the "Pledge of Allegiance," the display of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the state Capitol, a congressional redistricting plan that assisted Republicans, a restrictive voter identification law, and a ban on late-term abortions. He also described cases in which he championed gun rights and defended the conviction of a Mexican citizen who raped and murdered two teenage girls in a case challenged by the World Court. Yet one case he does not mention is the time he helped defend a law criminalizing the sale of dildos.

The case was actually an important battle concerning privacy and free-speech rights. In 2004, companies that owned Austin stores selling sex toys and a retail distributor of such products challenged a Texas law outlawing the sale and promotion of supposedly obscene devices. Under the law, a person who violated the statute could go to jail for up to two years. At the time, only three statesMississippi, Alabama, and Virginiahad similar laws. (The previous year, a Texas mother who was a sales rep for Passion Parties was arrested by two undercover cops for selling vibrators and other sex-related goods at a gathering akin to a Tupperware party for sex toys. No doubt, this had worried businesses peddling such wares.) The plaintiffs in the sex device case contended the state law violated the right to privacy under the 14th Amendment. They argued that many people in Texas used sexual devices as an aspect of their sexual experiences. They claimed that in some instances one partner in a couple might be physically unable to engage in intercourse or have a contagious disease (such as HIV), and that in these cases such devices could allow a couple to engage in safe sex.

But a federal judge sent them packing, ruling that selling sex toys was not protected by the Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and Cruz's solicitor general office had the task of preserving the law.

In 2007, Cruz's legal team, working on behalf of then-Attorney General Greg Abbott (who now is the governor), filed a 76-page brief calling on the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to uphold the lower court's decision and permit the law to stand. The filing noted, "The Texas Penal Code prohibits the advertisement and sale of dildos, artificial vaginas, and other obscene devices" but does not "forbid the private use of such devices." The plaintiffs had argued that this case was similar to Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down Texas' law against sodomy. But Cruz's office countered that Lawrence "focused on interpersonal relationships and the privacy of the home" and that the law being challenged did not block the "private use of obscene devices." Cruz's legal team asserted that "obscene devices do not implicate any liberty interest." And its brief added that "any alleged right associated with obscene devices" is not "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions." In other words, Texans were free to use sex toys at home, but they did not have the right to buy them.

The brief insisted that Texas, in order to protect "public morals," had "police-power interests" in "discouraging prurient interests in sexual gratification, combating the commercial sale of sex, and protecting minors." There was a "government" interest, it maintained, in "discouraging…autonomous sex." The brief compared the use of sex toys to "hiring a willing prostitute or engaging in consensual bigamy," and it equated advertising these products with the commercial promotion of prostitution. In perhaps the most noticeable line of the brief, Cruz's office declared, "There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one's genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship." That is, the pursuit of such happiness had no constitutional standing. And the brief argued there was no "right to promote dildos, vibrators, and other obscene devices." The plaintiffs, it noted, were "free to engage in unfettered noncommercial speech touting the uses of obscene devices," but not speech designed to generate the sale of these items.

In a 2-1 decision issued in February 2008, the court of appeals told Cruz's office to take a hike. The court, citing Lawrence, pointed to the "right to be free from governmental intrusion regarding 'the most private human contact, sexual behavior.'" The panel added, "An individual who wants to legally use a safe sexual device during private intimate moments alone or with another is unable to legally purchase a device in Texas, which heavily burdens a constitutional right." It rejected the argument from Cruz's team that the government had a legitimate role to play in "discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex and the pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation." No, government officials could not claim as part of their job duties the obligation to reduce masturbation or nonprocreative sexual activity. And the two judges in the majority slapped aside the solicitor general's attempt to link dildos to prostitution: "The sale of a device that an individual may choose to use during intimate conduct with a partner in the home is not the 'sale of sex' (prostitution)."

Summing up, the judges declared, "The case is not about public sex. It is not about controlling commerce in sex. It is about controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the State is morally opposed to a certain type of consensual private intimate conduct. This is an insufficient justification for the statute after Lawrence...Whatever one might think or believe about the use of these devices, government interference with their personal and private use violates the Constitution."

The appeals court had rejected the arguments from Cruz's office and said no to Big Government policing the morals of citizens. But Abbott and Cruz wouldn't give up. Of course, they might have initially felt obligated to mount a defense of this state law. But after it had been shot down, they pressed ahead, relying on the same puritanical and excessive arguments to justify government intrusion. Abbott and Cruz quickly filed a brief asking the full court of appeals to hear the case, claiming the three-judge panel had extended the scope of Lawrence too far. This brief suggested that if the decision stood, some people would argue that "engaging in consensual adult incest or bigamy" ought to be legal because it could "enhance their sexual experiences." And Cruz's office filed another brief noting it was considering taking this case to the Supreme Court.

Cruz and Abbott lost the motion for a hearing from the full court of appeals. And the state soon dropped the case, opting not to appeal to the Supreme Court. This meant that the government could no longer outlaw the sale of dildos, vibrators, and other sex-related devices in the Lone Star Stateand in Mississippi and Louisiana, the two other states within this appeals court's jurisdiction.

The day after the appeals court wiped out the Texas law, Cruz forwarded an email to the lawyer in his office who had overseen the briefs in the case. It included a blog post from legal expert Eugene Volokh headlined, "Dildoes Going to the Supreme Court?" and a sympathetic note from William Thro, then the solicitor general of Virginia. "Having had the experience of answering questions about oral sex from a female State Supreme Court Justice who is also a grandmother," Thro wrote Cruz, "you have my sympathy. :-) Seriously, if you do go for cert [with the Supreme Court] and if we can help, let me know." But for whatever reasonCruz certainly doesn't explain in his bookAbbott and he did not take the dildo ban to the Supreme Court. And Cruz, who was already thinking about running for elected office, missed out on the chance to gain national attention as an advocate for the just-say-no-to-vibrators cause. Imagine how his political career might have been affected had Cruz become the public face for the anti-dildos movement.

[Magda Hassan]

::face.palm::::::rofl:: ::

[Paul Rigby]

Much of the below still holds true, almost a year on.

Why Bernie Sanders is a Dead End

by JOSHUA FRANK

JUNE 3, 2015

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/03/w...-dead-end/

Tis the season once again. You should know it well by now: a "progressive" Democrat running in the primaries for president of the United States. We've seen it all before, from Jesse Jackson to Dennis Kucinich, left-leaning voters have time-and-again been asked to support candidates that are working to transform the corrupt and war-hungry Democratic Party from within. And each and every time this strategy has failed not only to elect a progressive Democrat into the White House, but to alter the party that offer themselves up as a lighter shade of neo-con.

This time around that "progressive" Democrat is self-proclaimed "socialist" Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Even though it's early in the primary push, Bernie is hitting the trail, spreading a message of hope for working class people that he's there to fight for their cause. He wants to create new jobs, challenge Wall Street crooks and take on the corporate control of our political quagmire. These are fine positions to take, but what Bernie isn't about to tell you is that in order to radically alter the system in favor of workers, the Democrats must be abandoned altogether for it's their neoliberal policies, from Bill Clinton on down, that exacerbated the sell-out of the American workforce.

Sure, Bernie will talk tough when it comes to these failed policies. He'll criticize fast tracked free-trade agreements and corporate plutocracy, but his hardy embrace of the Democrats continues to undermine his own criticisms. It's as if Bernie got a job at a coal mining outfit in hopes of stopping the melting of ice caps in the Arctic. His bid for the White House is simply a dead end and a waste of scarce resources. Progressives would be better off working to reinvigorate the antiwar movement and Occupy than spending time and money on Bernie's hollow campaign.

Even so, while Bernie may come across as sincere about class politics, make no mistake, he's is a militarist that isn't about to challenge U.S. supremacy. He supported the ugly war on Kosovo, the invasion of Afghanistan, funding for the endless Iraq disaster as well as the losing and misguided War on Terror. He voted in favor of Clinton's 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which expanded the federal death penalty and acted as the precursor to the PATRIOT Act.

As for Israel, Bernie has been a hawkish advocate that would never halt the $3 billion the U.S. government sends to the country every year. Last summer he backed Israel's murderous bombing of Gaza. He's even had some nasty words about Palestine's right to resist. It shouldn't come as a surprise then that several former members of Bernie's staff have also been employed by AIPAC, including Israel apologists David Sirota and Joel Barkin. His is a disgusting record. Want to change in the U.S.'s meddling in the Middle East? Bernie isn't your guy.

If the Senator's support for ongoing war and the occupation of Palestine don't make you squeamish, then you may as well stop reading. I doubt you'll grasp the importance of challenging empire by refusing to cast a vote for a party that pumps fuel into the war machine's tank. Such an effort requires a willingness to step out on the Democrats, especially at the national level, where they have waged war on workers at home and employed a blood-thirsty foreign policy abroad.

The Bernie Sanders campaign, while a slight breath of fresh air in the national debate on class issues, is a complete loser in terms of impact. There's no sign he'll break from the Democrats and challenge both parties down the road. Bernie doesn't oppose U.S. power, nor does his campaign do a single thing to build independent politics in the country, perhaps the last chance to salvage any democracy we may have left. In the end, Bernie Sanders will play the lesser-evil card and plea for us all to hold our noses and vote for Hillary Clinton, who guarantees a future of more war and economic inequality.

That's why Bernie's is not a bandwagon I'll be jumping on anytime soon.

[Paul Rigby]

I urge all thinking Americans to gird their loins & give this candidate their support.

The Time Ted Cruz Defended a Ban on Dildos
His legal team argued there was no right "to stimulate one's genitals."
By David Corn | Wed Apr. 13, 2016

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016...ices-texas

The really great thing about the Druze campaign is the overwhelming sense that one is eavesdropping on a day-excursion from a sex offenders' prison. This clip conveys that impression rather well:

[video=youtube_share;lM-oPUqhMBc]http://youtu.be/lM-oPUqhMBc[/video]

[Magda Hassan]

Much of the below still holds true, almost a year on.

Why Bernie Sanders is a Dead End

by JOSHUA FRANK

JUNE 3, 2015

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/03/w...-dead-end/

Not much to argue with there but I still think the US working classes have more to gain under Sanders than any of the likely others. Obviously they would be better served with some one who was going to abandon the whole rotten system altogether but that's not going to happen nor is the political reality at that stage. Far from it. There is a lot of work yet to do in the US before that would be remotely possible but I would hope Sanders is a beginning towards that end.

[David Guyatt]

The Canadian has adopted a courageous position on the most important issue facing modern America - the alleged "right" to stimulate one's genitals for non-medical purposes.

I urge all thinking Americans to gird their loins & give this candidate their support.

May god strike you down for helping to improve his eyesight!



Bloody catholicks...

[Dawn Meredith]

I fear it would ensure a Trump presidency. Third Party Candidates don't do well in the US.

[Tracy Riddle]

I fear it would ensure a Trump presidency. Third Party Candidates don't do well in the US.

Yes, it's likely to split the Democratic vote so you might get 38% for Trump, 34% for Bernie, 28% for Hillary. Or you could get some other combination with Hillary or Bernie in the lead, but the GOP House would decide the winner if no one takes the Electoral College.

[Peter Lemkin]

Third Party candidates get no MSM coverage, often are not allowed to participate in debates on TV, are often threatened or shot [Perot & Wallace, for example], and so on...the system is built to destroy them.

That said, I never ever have been in favor of voting for a lesser of evils and it is about time the People speak out that both left and right think the system is broken and rotten and undemocratic. A viable third party candidate like Sanders may not win, but he may break up the one party, two wing system and start the house of cards to fall......for that alone he would be the best choice and my vote. In most elections in the past I never voted Dumbocrap or Rebubbacan - I voted Peace and Freedom or Green.....parties that got 1-4% of the vote [but were never even mentioned on the day after election day as to how much they even got].....you have to start somewhere in dismantling this insane and destructive structure. We really need lots of parties and proportional representation....not the .01% controlling both 'parties' and the real power behind the 'thrones' of power: President/Congress/Supreme Court/Intelligence/Military/Media/et al.

Trump will destroy the US and the World if President. Hillary will do the next best job of doing the same, if more politely. Only Sanders or someone like him can even begin to steer things towards better changes...of course, if he really won, they'd kill him in no time...but maybe someone would 'catch on' that that is how the 'game' is played. This year is a real hoot, as most mainstream Republicans hate Trump and many mainstream Democrats are not very enthusiastic about Hillary Dillary Mena and her spook and drug-running hubby who will be 'shadow president' if she is elected. Sanders is the only person of any integrity in the race! Perfect he is not...but light-years ahead of the other two!