When Bernie Sanders announced his long-shot candidacy last year, he made it clear that he wanted to emphasize issues that the other Democrats were ignoring: income inequality, universal health care, increasing the minimum wage, campaign finance reform…
He may not have gotten the nomination, but I think he has done much better than even he expected.
He’s shown you can call yourself a socialist and move to the left and still get votes; you don’t have to suck up to Wall Street to raise enough money to run a campaign; and it is possible to energize a large portion of the American voting populace even if you don’t have a typical candidate profile. (Honestly, I think if Bernie looked and sounded like George Clooney, he’d have the nomination. Charisma does matter.)
But some of Bernie’s more idealistic (and naive) supporters can’t take it, which was to be expected. After all, they had shown in the past that they didn’t understand how primaries work, didn’t understand election laws, didn’t understand how fundraising worked, and otherwise made the rest of us Bernie supporters look bad.
“He’s sold out!” they claim. “He is betraying everything he stood for by endorsing Hillary. He lied to us!”
Well, no. He said from day one that he would endorse Hillary if she won the nomination. Had he not done so, then he would be be a liar.
Then they post dishonest memes like this one. 
Talk about being a liar! Bernie never said any of those things. Those kind of quotes come from radical Bernie followers. Oh, and also from Trump supporters, who love the “useful idiots” on the left doing their work for them.
“He’s just another politician!” the Bernie Bots scream. Yes, of course. That’s how he became a Senator. That’s how he has been able to get stuff done. That’s how any politician gets stuff done, since the ancient days of Rome and Greece. Bernie, like any good politician, has made deals. He’s voted for bills he didn’t like that much because it was the best he could accomplish at the time. He’s supporting the candidate who is the best even if she is not perfect. That’s how you accomplish things in politics. He knows how to play the game.
And if you don’t play the game, you can’t win.
Politics without principles is always bad. But principles without politics gets you nowhere.
The Bernie Bots just don’t get it. Playing the game is how he got his issues into the Democratic platform. It’s why he waited so long before endorsing Hillary — because he wanted to force her to embrace these positions.
The Bots should be happy. He won. He broke down walls, opened doors, and set the stage for future accomplishments.
Bernie supporters: You may not have won the war, but you won some major battles. And that is something to celebrate.
So much for the First Law.
Many civil libertarians are upset about the robot that was used to blow up the Dallas sniper. And I can kind of understand the concerns. We don’t want police blowing up people using robots, acting as judge, jury and executioner; we want people captured so they can face justice.
But you know, sometimes you can’t capture people.
Micah Johnson killed cops. He wanted to kill more. He knew he was surrounded and knew that if he surrendered, he’d be getting the death penalty (This is Texas, after all). What would a few more cop deaths matter? His goal was to lure the cops in and hopefully take a few more down before he died.
So if I have the choice between risking the life of a cop (hell, of any human being) and that of a robot, then bye-bye, Daneel Olivaw*.
The robot is a tool. Like any tool, it can be used for good things and for evil things. I don’t disagree with the police’s use of the robot here.
*go ahead and google it
“A few perpetrators of evil do not represent us,” the politician said. “They do not control us. The blame lies with the people who committed these vicious acts, and no one else.”
“Every member of this body — every Republican and every Democrat — wants to see less gun violence,” he said. “Every member of this body wants a world in which people feel safe regardless of the color of their skin. And that’s not how people are feeling these days.”
“The values that brought those protesters to the streets in Dallas, the values that brought those protesters to the streets in Washington last night — respect, decency, compassion, humanity,” he said. “If we lose these fundamental things, what’s left?”
Just another silly liberal spouting about race again? No, these words actually came from Paul Ryan. Yes, that Paul Ryan.
Another politician said this today: “If you are a normal, white American, the truth is you don’t understand being black in America and you instinctively underestimate the level of discrimination and the level of additional risk.” This radical leftist? Newt Gingrich.
Maybe they’re starting to get it. Maybe Trump’s nomination has awakened them to what they have done to America.
Why do police seem to shoot so many more people in America than in other countries?
Might I suggest it’s because of guns?
Let’s face it — being a cop isn’t an easy job, and you never know if some lunatic is going to take a pot shot at you. It’s not like that hasn’t happened before. Even the most enlightened, best trained officer worries about that.
But maybe what makes America different from other countries is that lots of people have guns. We have politicians who, instead of trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the insane and terrorists, make it easier for them to get these guns.
So when an officer makes a stop, they never know if the person they
pull over is carrying. The officer has to be on his or her guard. Sometime they’re just not trained in how to handle these things. And sometimes, of course, the cops really are the bad guys.
This, of course, does not in the slightest explain why the victims of these police shootings are overwhelmingly not white people. Many of these shootings can easily be attributed to a combination of blatant racism and poorly trained officers.
But I can’t help but wonder if our gun culture also has a lot to do with it. I mean, it’s not like there aren’t police stops and crime in other civilized countries. What they don’t have are guns everywhere — and maybe that explains the difference.
I am serious here. I am willing to examine evidence and will certainly base an opinion on that evidence. What is this terrible crime that Hillary committed (this time)?
At first it was Whitewater (where she and Bill lost a lot of money in an investment). No one could exactly explain to me what the terrible crime was there. Then there was Vince Foster’s suicide (who was a friend of the Clintons). Once more, no one could tell me exactly why Hillary was to blame for that. Then there were the millions spent investigating Benghazi (which, while tragic, seems to have been caused by the GOP’s cutting of the embassy’s security budget). 
I begged over and over for someone to tell me what the crime was there as well, and after many investigations, even the Republicans in Congress had to admit there was nothing.
Now there’s the email “scandal.”
Seriously, explain it to me. I’m a lawyer; I can understand big words.
And if you can, please explain why these emails, which were not distributed, stolen, or leaked, make a scandal while the 22 million emails deleted by the Bush administration while on a Republican server is not.
Apparently, from what I have read, Hillary had a private server for her emails, in the same way the previous (Republican) Secretaries of State did, and actually did better than they did, because hers were all on a personal server she controlled to prevent leaks. The policy changed after she left the position and apparently the GOP wants to hold her to the new standards that didn’t apply to her, hoping to entrap her in a loophole. The Republican head of the FBI did an investigation and concluded that there was no crime here.
Again.
So please, seriously, those of you Hillary haters out there (because it always seems to come from people who didn’t like her anyway and never from anyone neutral): Explain it to me.
Remember that I supported Bernie in the primaries. I didn’t want Hillary as my candidate — I don’t like political dynasties (whether Bushes or Clintons), I don’t really trust what she says, and with the exception of women’s issues (on which she is great) I don’t think she really stands for anything given how she changes her position based on the polls. I’m no “Hillary lover” so don’t call me that.
I am a facts lover. I like truth. Sometimes that means the politicians I support do bad things and I admit it, and sometimes that means the politicians I don’t like do good things and I admit it.
So. Give me some facts. Tell me why I am wrong.
ventrellaquest.com 