THIS^^^^^^^^^^

And thank you for your post, FSogol. Unfortunately, we have to be realistic. We are ALL voting for a Supreme Court picker. THAT. IS. IT. THAT is what it boils down to.

I've also noticed that many Hillary-supporters tend to be pragmatic - supporting her alright, but MORE than happy to vote for Bernie Sanders or whoever else might wind up winning our party's nomination. I'm certainly one of those. I would be DELIGHTED to vote for Bernie, and support him wholeheartedly! It won't be any hold-yer-nose-and-vote thing for me, if MY first choice doesn't get the nod! I also notice such pragmatism is somewhat more difficult to find within the "Not Hillary" camp. I find that troublesome.

PLEASE GUYS - my DU brothers and sisters - please consider the recollections of one who's old enough to remember when people who were on fire for Gene McCarthy back in 1968 refused to vote for Hubert Humphrey who won the Democratic nomination - just because it was more important to stay home and pout than get out and vote for the team. Or take one for the team. Or however you word it. Because the result was - Humphrey got beaten by RICHARD NIXON AND SPIRO AGNEW. The DIRTIEST Dirty Duo back then (that was before reagan/bush and bush/quayle and bush/cheney, of course).

I'll make this point again. And I say this as one who supports Hillary Clinton but who also is really LOVING Bernie Sanders and is very willing to stand with him if he's our nominee. I fear I see too much rigidity among those who support her Democratic challengers. There are too many on that side who insist they'll stay home (and pout) rather than vote for Clinton if she's the nominee. WE CAN'T AFFORD THAT. If I can compromise (and I am EAGER to make such a compromise if it comes to that), I would hope they'd come around to that same compromise too. And what concerns me is - I don't see a lot of that coming back from that particular arena.

Hey, we could do a lot worse. As a matter of fact, we HAVE.

First - with reagan. Then bush 1. And CERTAINLY, bush 2. And you know jeb doesn't feel well-dressed - and won't - unless HE gets his little king's crown, too. He certainly doesn't want to be the pauper in THAT "royal court." I strongly suspect dubya felt the need to one-up his dad. Now, the unfortunate jebbie needs to double down on THAT "double-down," and go BOTH his dry-drunk war criminal brother AND his father one better.

And I DESPISE that term "double down" in the political context. I always wonder where that one came from, as it arose in the run-up to the so-called "surge" with our lovely philandering general petraeus. Remember hearing it all the time - how that fucking squatter in the White House wanted to "double down" in Iraq. Made him sound all macho and gutsy and everything, painting him as some sort of ballsy, hot 007-style high-roller in Vegas or Monte Carlo or some such thing. Always wondered who came up with that one, because all of a sudden that talking point flowered and sprouted all over the airwaves, every anchor, every Pentagon correspondent, every everywhere. I bet it came from frank luntz or the somewhere else in the bowels of the RNC.

Bigger and WAY more impressive than anything Kanye West can put on

Kim Kartrashian's ring finger, THAT'S for sure!!!

Well, maybe only temporarily...

HEY DEMS!!!! Fresh meat! Let's EAT!!!

And I'm sure Big Oil will be there to talk them down from there.

We have to figure out a way to bypass them.

Oh God, Pennsylvania! PLEEEEEEEZE get rid of toomey!

We sure could have used some of that out here in CA.

We'd take ALL your extra floodwaters, Texas. AND Oklahoma. I'd drive a tanker truck from here to there if I could.

OOOOh... GOOD one, hootinholler!

THIS^^^^ THIS is the problem. Right here.

jeb bush has lived in coddled elitist luxury for his entire life. There is no way on earth he could EVER understand what it's like to live from paycheck to paycheck, AND/OR what it's like to live in fear because either you don't even have that paycheck-to-paycheck reality, or you've just lost that paycheck and you still have a family to feed. He has NO CLUE. So he won't ever understand.

The republi-CONS say the answer is "get a job!" OR - "start a BIZZZNISS!" As if that "sacrosanct" "sanctity of the free market" crap is some magic wand that just fixes everything... Has it never occurred to them that maybe not everybody is cut out to start a business? Has it ever occurred to them that maybe a lot of these folks already have a job but it pays shit, so some of 'em have to go get a second job, and that one probably pays shit, too.

I think it would be lovely to figure out some way that a very rich individual would be compelled to learn a little bit about what life is like to live without all those privileges. Maybe write it into the tax code?

Then how 'bout this?

ANYBODY in the so-called investor class who wants to keep those luxuriously low tax rates they now enjoy - has to spend a full week, every year, living on food stamps and a welfare check. No chauffeured limo hanging out around the corner so they can run and climb in and hide out from their responsibility. No cell phone to call "the help" to bring some extra little doggie bags with the caviar and imported crackers. No NOTHING. And they wouldn't be hand-carried back to their estates at night, either. They'd be in some flop house or maybe on a bus bench under some newspaper. They'd be compelled by law to "earn" those lavish tax-cutting/minimizing/sheltering gifts from the American taxpayer by walking in the shoes of the least among them for a few days every year.

It'd be good for the soul.

And more's the pity, in my opinion.

But then again, I'm about as anti-gunner as it's possible to be. Why do their rights trump my rights?