According to the latest polling, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) presidential campaign has more support than the campaign of media favorites Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and every other Republican candidate.

The latest Quinnipiac Poll revealed that five Republicans are tied at the top of the Republican field. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Ben Carson, and Mike Huckabee each were at 10%.

Do you know who is more popular than even the most popular 2016 Republicans? Sen. Bernie Sanders. In the same poll, Sanders was supported by 15% of Democrats for their party’s nomination. Sen. Sanders trailed Hillary Clinton 57%-15%, but his fifteen percent made him the second most popular presidential candidate in the country.

The media treats Republicans like Carly Fiorina (2%), Ted Cruz (6%), and Rand Paul (7%) like they are serious candidates, but Bernie Sanders has two to seven times more support than these three Republicans. Why does the media treat Sen. Sanders like he is token opposition to former Sec. of State Clinton instead of as the legitimately popular stand alone figure that he is?

* * *

Bernie Sanders is legitimately popular. The prism that the media is trying to force this election into doesn’t fit. Sen. Sanders has a larger base of support than any Republican hopeful, which is why it is time for the media to stop pumping up GOP pretenders and face the reality that Bernie Sanders is legit.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/05/29/bernie-sanders-support-2016-republican-presidential-candidate-poll.html

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Bernie Sanders has got Hillary Clinton insiders concerned.

Politico writes it is Vermont Sen. Sanders, not former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who Democratic strategists and Clinton insiders expect will pose a bigger threat to the former secretary of state as she seeks her party’s presidential nomination. Insiders familiar with the Clinton campaign’s thinking described it as “frightened” of Sanders, Politico wrote — not that he would win the nomination, but that he could damage her with the activist base by challenging her on core progressive positions in debates and make her look like a centrist or corporatist. Sanders has declared his candidacy; O’Malley is expected to later this week.


http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hillary-clintons-camp-is-fearful-of-bernie-sanders-2015-05-28

“Hillary Clinton can be for the trade agreement — the president is. She can be against the trade agreement — I am, Elizabeth Warren is, many of us are. I just don’t know how you don’t have an opinion on this enormously important issue, which is her view.”

Sen. Sanders' most direct challenge to Madam Secretary yet.

State claims it will take a full year to review 30,000 emails that Hillary and her team were able to got through in pretty short order. And Hillary claims she didn't use her email for classified information. Strange it will take State this long.

The federal government has not executed a prisoner since 2003. There were 2 in 2001. The most recent federal execution prior to that was 1963. A total of 37 federal prisoners have been executed by the US government since 1927.

Setting aside the Dubya Bush administration, who was a blood thirsty sociopath, the federal government has not bee in the business of killing its prisoners. By and large, it is just the 32 states who still kill that carry the executions.

There is a de facto moratorium on federal executions. Obama and Holder each have personal distaste with executing prisoners. Which makes their sanction of the US Attorney's blood lust against Tsarnaev all the more troubling.

The Supreme Court is coming to realize that there is no humane way to execute a prisoner. There is no non-cruel way to intentionally take a healthy human's life. And as more states and more countries cease the barbaric practice, it becomes all the more unusual.

I don't believe the federal government will ever execute Tsarnaev. I don't think it was ever really the objective. This was all simply to throw red meat to the sadistic, blood thirsty ignorant minority of this country who believe they are entitled to say who lives and dies. Whatever. The fuckers got their archaic verdict. They won't get the execution. And one day in the not too distant future, they will live in a country where no one, no matter how reprehensible their acts, will be sentenced to death for their crimes. They'll have to get their vengeful hard-ons elsewhere.

The DNC has sanctioned 6 debates for our side, starting the fall. Let's get ready to rumble.

In the Freddie Gray matter, six cops have been charged, but only one with murder. And he has been charged with second degree murder, not first. Maybe the Gray charges indicate the worm is turning, but we have a long way to go to repair social inequities. Had six black men killed a white man under similar circumstances, you can bet there would have been more serious charges meted out to all involved.

Maybe we are slowly moving, but remember, in Michael Brown's killing, the prosecutor gave Darren Wilson the royal treatment before the grand jury. No other defendant, none, gets that type of treatment. When prosecutors go to the grand jury in non-cop-killing-unarmed-black-man cases, they will distort and twist and withhold the evidence to ensure an indictment. They overcharge, too. Prosecutors are ambitious and vengeful and don't hold back. Unless it is a cop who has killed a black man.

We still have a long way to go. Sadly, until cops are held to the same standard that a black civilian man accused of a crime is, little will change. In a matter of weeks or months, we'll be back here again. We'll be watching another shaky video of some cops killing a black man and watching to see if another American city erupts in anger and flames.

Killer-cops must be held to the same standard when it comes to being charged.