should we accept white collar jobs are superior? Answering phones, hospitality (serving masters), exorbitant education debt intensive, sales, financial services, temporary, and Uber/gig jobs.

Jobs that historically have no labor unions.

That's the end game.

Wage theft was no secret but it took Obama 7+ years to act.

Thanks Democratic Party!

responsible for the divisive shit show. And for what? Tradition, i.e., Iowa and NH and Super Tuesday?

As much as Tweety might wish, we are not the M$M Party. And feeding pollsters and pundits at the trough should no longer be acceptable.

The fix is easy.

57 piecemeal elections over the course of 5 months lends itself to shenanigans. Everyone scoreboard watches. Often you'll hear people say, I support X, but they are so far behind I'll vote for Y. Pollsters and pundits are calling the election 2 months into a 5 month process, discouraging many and angering the rest. And why can't states that hold primaries in late May or June vote? People are furious at the notion they should be allowed to vote.

We've allowed ourselves to become the tools of every industry that sucks the blood of this sacred process like vampires. I mean, who the fuck is Nate Silver? I sure don't need to know and he deserves needs to return to his well paying job in complete anonymity.

Too much money, and many are saying it needs to be spent on the GE now.

Superdelegates can go. Open vs closed is debatable. We learned from California that people who were registering with the Indepenence Party didn't know they were getting locked out of the process. Sounds like that was the case in NY, too (they were going for Independent). Voting is hard. I'm in an open primary state and have learned a lot about the lengths the Democratic Party goes to make it a bloody farce.

Just adopting the GE process, say, every primary is held on the same day in late May, would wipe out almost all of this and, boom! it's over! No more arguing about when it should be over. No more scoreboard watching. It will reduce the shenanigans.

This would go a long way in remedying the process. And it's simple.

socially liberal. To paraphrase Thomas Frank, we're all Kansas now. The Party that overseas the distribution of wealth to the top 10% is held hostage by wage issues. It was a brilliant coup!

to do. The fact that you and the rest of you people are fretting over (1) Bernie should drop out, (2) this is hurting Hillary, (3) Hillary is fight two fronts, (4) this is really expensive for Hillary, (5) Hillary should be focused on the GE is



Stop with the crying over an idiotic process and change it!

Finally saw Michael Moore's new movie and highly recommend. It really highlights where America was prior to the Reagan Revolution and where we've drifted since, under a fiscally conservative two-Party system defined by wedge issues. It also blows up the myth about low-tax America, a Republican talking point Clinton supporters are using to beat Sanders supporters with. But that's how Democrats do. That's why they lost the fiscal battle and aligned with the Republicans.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/04/the-myth-of-low-tax-america-why-americans-arent-getting-their-moneys-worth/274945/

Reference to "What's the Matter with Kansas?"

Social wedge issues determine which Party overseas the distribution of wealth to the top 1% and race-to-the-bottom for the middle class.

Too bad there's not a candidate in the Democratic primary who is saying establishment politics is wrong, who's looking out for the middle class, and who isn't holding Democrats hostage over wedge issues. Yeah, that's top shelf sarcasm.

plausible. Too bad we have a penchant for more-of-the-same.

policy. But Rahm is, until he recently turned toxic, 4th in line. Now...sexism. No one is rejecting New Democrats/Third Way policy makers. We're conveniently sexiest. Sexism protects Hillary supporters from self-examination.

support a white male privileged Libertarian juggernaut that believes it's above rules and regulations.

For all you know, the OP is a tool.

Not one of you wants to address regulation, a level playing field, and fair competition. There's something wrong with that. I realize you don't see it. I'm trying to force people to look at it.

Like I said, if you like Uber and want to use and drive for Uber, you should want to see them regulated like all commerce.

White male privilege run wild.

Uber seeks world domination and pits the have littles against one another. Uber is a symptom of two political parties that have worked together to marginalize Labor. As a result, real wages have been stagnant for 35 years. Now self identifying "Progressives" want to defend an unregulated company that redistrubtes living, middle-class wage jobs (OMFG! In order to support families, taxi fares are higher) to tens of thousands of people who just want to make a few more bucks (while their overlords make billions.) No benefits, no protections, it's Ayn Rand's Walmart model meets Amazon.com.

And for all their talk about having a superior product, they refuse to compete on a level playing field with legal taxi companies. If you like Uber, you should want to see it regulated, just like every business that has ever opened shop anywhere. But Uber believes they are above rules and regulations, and Progressives carry their water.

The Democrats behind Uber are the Rahm Emanuel Democrats.