i can't edit though i found a grammatical booboo i made -- although i can tell by the initial caps that i typed the above on my phone, so autocorrect may have done the deed. anyway the above should read "i would not place a band-aid over a gaping wound either. i disagree that voting for anyone you named (none of whom is my primary choice) fits that metaphor." hmm, i don't see how autocorrect could have messed that up. it must have been my own error. anyway, there ya go.

g

@altschmerz Lol obviously I didn't catch it in time myself!

That would be a breath of fresh air for the Democratic party. I'm sick of the DLC Democrats, who are, as you say, repub lite!!!

i don't think he will purge anyone. first of all, the president doesn't control the dnc. second of all, purging is something dictators do. third of all, the president does not nominate congressional leadership. the houses of congress nominate their own, and the VOTERS choose who those people are... theoretically. one thing bernie might have a chance to do it he's in office (and warren as well, if she is elected) would be to appoint judges and justices who will acknowledge the illegality of gerrymandered maps and make our votes count.

g

@genessa He may not chose the House/Senate leadership, but he Can and would push to Replace Pelosi and Shimmer..as to the DNC upper echelon He Can Suggest who sits on the board..Hell Hillary demanded changes before she bailed out and bought the DNC.

@Charlene hillary did not buy the dnc, and pelosi is wonderful. any president can push for this and that but congress does not have to listen. and pelosi isn't staying forever anyway. by the way, there is no one named shimmer. chuck schumer is the minority leader in the house and i don't know what you expect a minority leader to be able to accomplish in the face of someone like mitch mcconnell anyway. no one has a magic wand.

g

@Charlene calling names, SO mature. now, you can say she made the dnc bed but do you have any evidence of that, or did you just hear that somewhere? pelosi did the right thing; she waited for the votes, and she waited for the simple article. she didn't need her arm twisted and she didn't HAVE her arm twisted. you are totally mischaracterizing her. and HOW should schumer protect the courts? he did not have the majority! you are misplacing your anger, you seem unaware of how government works, you seem to be believing rumors you cannot support with facts, and you further damage your credibility with your namecalling.

g

@altschmerz centrists may say what they will, but some of us progressives say "nobody is perfect, and if we don't support someone because they're not perfect, we will end up with someone who is not only not perfect but loathesome. hillary supported the war -- back when she and the others were lied to, and only some people knew the truth. she didn't support it once she found out. she worked hard on trying to get universal health care when she was first lady; her not yet being on board with medicare for all would have been a small matter if congress had been democratic and passed such a bill; she would definitely have signed it. since congress was NOT democratic, her being on board for it also would've been meaningless since no such bill would have come to her desk. and she certainly would not have done any of the horrid things trump has done and is doing. so purism got us trump and voting for hillary instead of trump would not have been "settling." it would have been getting a highly competent, qualified person into the white house with even fewer of the usual imperfections, and actually the things you name are not the main reason i heard people give for not voting for her. people who care about those things would've voted for her anyway. the reasons i always heard were that she was a criminal, she sold uranium to the russians (not true), she is a corporate whore (not true) and all the pizzagate-type propaganda that has been dogging her since before she was even first lady (google "david bossie" ). purism isn't "i won't settle." purism is 'i didn't get everything i wanted so i am taking my ball[ot[ and going home." it's juvenile and it's unreasonable. and our country is suffering for it.

g

I don't know that all of the "Dems" will put us back on the right track, but stopping its run on this track is worthwhile too. As I've said before there are some of the current candidates I don't like much, but none I like less than Trump.

I've given up on arguing with the purists. Good luck!

@jerry99 they can be as pure as they want in the primaries. i do not see the point in NOT voting blue no matter who after that. a used piece of toilet paper is better than trump. just be sure we keep the house and take back the senate and as many state houses as we can. the most important things a president can do after trump are appoint justices and a cabinet that isn't made up of erstwhile mafios, try to explain to our allies what happened and make it up to them, refrain from kissing dictatorial ass and overturn as many of trump's executive orders as possible -- and get those kids out of cagesi. ANY democrat will do that. congress will do the rest. (that may require some judicial impeachments!)

g