Recent comments

  • Thom, would you tell Abraham Lincoln to "get over" his whiteness?   1 day 11 hours ago

    Nobody wants to talk about our current race problems. Nobody. Not even after a white terrorist massacres nine people and seven black churches are torched. If I wanted to brush up on my history, I'd find me the right books to read or take a class or two at the local college.

    Oh well....

    'Bye.

  • Do We Need Amtrak? (+ a side debate on firearm background checks)   1 day 11 hours ago
    Quote forever making a fool of himself, and yet always oblivious to it... mavibobo spewed: One more time for the mentally deficient ultra clown THERE IS NO GUN SHOW LOOP HOLE, SELLING TO A PROHIBITED PERSON IS ILLEGAL FOR DEALERS AND PRIVATE SELLERS.
    Gee Einstein... how many hundreds of posts on guns have you written and STILL don't understand what the so-called gun show "loophole" is?

  • Do We Need Amtrak? (+ a side debate on firearm background checks)   1 day 11 hours ago
    Quote mavibobo:
    Quote ulTRAX:

    So I want you to show me in what states private sellers do zero background checks. Resulting in felons getting almost 76000 weapons by your numbers.

    AGAIN, mister Mensa MegaTard ... and perhaps some day you'll finally comprehend the English language... FOR THE THIRD TIME I NEVER SAID WHAT YOU CLAIMED. You really need to go back to 3ed grade and deal with your reading comprehension problems.

    Are you ever going to retract your false claim?

    Didn't think so. That would mean you'd have to deal in the real world instead of your fact-free fantasy universe.

  • Do We Need Amtrak? (+ a side debate on firearm background checks)   1 day 11 hours ago
    Quote mavibobo:The atf is not the only agency that can arrest sellers fir gun crimes but you being a progressive libtard clown you have no concept of local law enforcement.
    Did I ever say it was? There are both state and federal gun laws. Whether states/LEOs can enforce federal laws depends on how the law is written and what the state's policy is. But clearly the state and LEOs can enforce state laws. Some states have better gun laws than others. Which is why some states require non-FFLs to do background checks at gunshows and others don't. As a Gun Nut I would have thought you'd know this. But I never underestimate your ignorance nor your denial of facts.

  • Why am I the first and only one to post on this?   1 day 12 hours ago

    Or, is it that racist blacks have risen up to re-create violent riots and are making ridiculous demands as if they thought they were reviving the MLK and Medgar Evers days? Since those days, blacks have managed to get a lot...welfare, reverse discrimination in hiring (which is actually discrimination against those more qualified) and section 8 housing. I doubt that many of them even care about voting once they got the vote except to vote for Obama. What they seem to want now is more handouts. If the cops won't let them get away with stealing, then they want handouts.

    I thought rebelling against the racist system was necessary in those days but the more trouble blacks cause and the more riotous they get the more whites are going to have anti-black thoughts. And we outnumber the blacks by 7 to 1. Nevermind those condescending whitey "black wannabees". You know, the young whites that listen to hip hop and rap music and go around trying to act and speak like blacks and making complete fools of themselves.

    If all those black perps had been law-abiding citizens instead of criminals they wouldn't have attracted the attention of the cops. And if they had not acted stupid when accosted by the police, many would be alive and unhurt today. And without perps, that the masses had turned into martyrs, they wouldn't have had a real excuse to riot. The blacks are causing their own problems. If they had not made such a fuss, those churches would not have been burnt and those 9 people in that church would most likely not have been killed.

    There is a very big difference between the MLK and Medgar Evers days and now. Back then, it wasn't about blacks having a high crime rate and blacks slugging policemen it was all because of an inherent inequality... they couldn't vote.... they couldn't attend certain universities... segregated seating in busses... discrimination in restaurants... and a lot of other things. Today, none of that is a problem. The only thing they are ticked off about is when cops have to shoot some black perp who presents a threat to the life of the police officer.... and when cops don't let the perps get away with their crimes.

    Some people might say that if the blacks are going to burn white owned stores then why not burn black churches. I don't think it is a good idea for anyone to burn or destroy anyone's property. But there is a bit of logic here even though some people might not like it.

  • Politics is obscene. Why can't we relegate Statism to the dustbin of history?   1 day 12 hours ago

    test

  • Politics is obscene. Why can't we relegate Statism to the dustbin of history?   1 day 12 hours ago
    Quote jrodefeld:

    Are you at all aware of the fact that the philosophy of liberalism and anti-statism have their "modern" (in a relative sense) origins emerging from the European Enlightenment more than 400 year ago?

    "Locke later sold his shares at a profit. Locke also held a significant share in the Bahama Adventurers -- another company which traded in slaves in the Bahama Islands."

    So there you have it. A bunch of wealthy slave and land holders thinking it is just fine if the state leaves people well enough alone.

    The reason why modern liberals broke from traditional liberals is because they realized it wasn't just rich white people that owned all the resources that needed to be 'free'.

  • Politics is obscene. Why can't we relegate Statism to the dustbin of history?   1 day 12 hours ago
    Quote Dr. Econ:

    We have argued all this before, and you lost.

    Don't you remember you were a statist once, and then something changed your mind?

    Why are you unable to learn anything since?

    Quote jrodefeld: How about you respond to what I wrote? I remember debating with you and I recall you trying to defend a number of untenable positions.

    How about responding to what I wrote?

    Look, you should know what the criticisms of Libertarianism are. You can google it. You can wikki it. You can read my posts.

    But you don't. You cannot learn anything anymore. You learned something once. But now, nothing. Why is that?

    You constantly refute straw dog arguments you learned in high school. Did you have a traumatic event around that time? It is often the case when we experience traumatic events that stop learning, and also begin to see things only in black or white. This is the 'flight or fight' response. Turning off the mind makes us better able to run or fight.

  • Why am I the first and only one to post on this?   1 day 14 hours ago
    Quote douglaslee:There was an asshole on the site commenting so not only does everyone have one but I guess every site has one, I dunno*.

    But this TH site has at least four, Douglas. From time to time they add a bit of humor. The key, I think, is to not take any of their rude and boorish comments seriously.

    The UK's Guardian probably has the best reporting on race and racism of any newspaper, anywhere:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/race

  • Thom, would you tell Abraham Lincoln to "get over" his whiteness?   1 day 14 hours ago

    Since slavery was accepted as law everywhere, RS, how could it have been the cause of the war? And since the South had already seceded once before because of tariffs, how can you deny that reinstating exactly those same tariffs would not have the same result? Those tariffs included a 100% export duty on cotton. These tariffs were necessary to protect northern bankers who had invested too heavily in unprofitable industrial mills. Then one might note that at the end of the war the US began its effort to conquer the world. It was not until the 1930s that the war became the War to Free the Slaves, about the same time the rich capitalists began hiding themselves away. Not because of taxes, as their apologists say, but because they were terrified of an American Bolshevik revolution and did not want to be conspicuous. But excessive consumption never went away: Larry Ellison recently bought the island Lanai.

    Roland

  • The Weight- Bluegrass Style   1 day 14 hours ago
    Quote rs allen:

    Ooooh, I've never heard Werewolves of London done in Raggae before! Thanks Zoe.

    Want to heard some world music (I think it's called)? I used to see these guys regularly at the locales.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adkzk4-DQnI

    Thanks, rs. Very snappy! I like the album cover art too. These are the same guys, yes? Original style, for sure. Note the guy in the skirt. Quite comfy. :-)

    You might like DL's rendition of this one too.

  • No Chance in Hell for Bernie...   1 day 15 hours ago

    Back the topic of the thread, Bernie Sanders.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but does anyone else see any parallels with todays nomination race and what happened in 68?

  • True Freedom Comes With Basic Income   1 day 15 hours ago

    Yes, Scott Santens runs a Basic Income subreddit, he's a pretty good face for the movement. He thinks in terms of tax funding; I keep pushing a zero-cost money creation solution, with indexation of all incomes to eliminate any potential inflation tax.

    Challenges stimulate innovation at the individual level, without having to work for a corporation or business or start-up. Output rises because individuals doing what they want are more productive than workers told to do what some greedy, selfish, profit-motivated, little Napoleon, unethical, and perversely incentivized boss tells them to.

  • Politics is obscene. Why can't we relegate Statism to the dustbin of history?   1 day 15 hours ago
    Quote mdhess:

    So move to Afghanistan -- it's the sort of tribal society you're advocating. If you really want to devolve then that's just the ticket for you.

    And, BTW, your notion of libertarianism is the fiction. Modern libertarianism (a la Ron Paul) was invented by right-wing corporate marketeers:

    The True History of the Libertarian Party -- Thom Hartmann

    People like you are only stooges for the interests of the Robber Baron class whether you intend to be or not. If you think you can distinguish yourself from prototypical kooky libertarians with your right-wing anarchist label then you're even kookier than ordinary libertarians. Your notion is predicated on the idea that, sans government, we'll all be cordial, reasonable and respectful to each other. That's about as realistic a prospect as unicorn races and I suggest you seek help regarding your propensity toward being delusional. Just because some recent iteration of libertarianism has tried to distance itself from the historical roots of modern libertarianism to deflect the criticism about what it really is and where it came from doesn't mean that I don't understand it. Douglaslee is correct, distilled shit is still just shit.

    I realize that you're fanaticism over this new fangled ideology you think you've stumbled upon has led you to perceive yourself as being more politically savvy than the rest of us and, ergo, more insightful but your condescension is entirely misplaced puppy.

    Are you at all aware of the fact that the philosophy of liberalism and anti-statism have their "modern" (in a relative sense) origins emerging from the European Enlightenment more than 400 year ago? Whatever you think you know about the libertarian party/movement of the past few decades has little to do with the validity or seriousness of the philosophy that underpins it.

    The issue with communicating these ideas is that people get hung up on semantics, with words meaning different things to different people. Lots of people use the phrase "libertarian" because it is fashionable or expedient.

    I've listened to Thom Hartmann many times over the years and it is almost pitiful how ignorant he is about economics and, especially, about libertarianism. I feel bad for you if you think you are learning anything of value about history from Thom Hartmann. If I were you, I'd VERY carefully verify every assertion that Thom utters because he has not proven himself to be very reliable in characterizing his perceived opposition.

    Let's suppose for the sake of argument that modern libertarianism is a belief system invented by corporations because it would benefit them. If that were the case, why can't libertarian candidates raise any money from billionaire sugar daddies like other political candidates can?

    Ron Paul ran for president three times and twice he was a high profile name in a Republican field. Yet out of the 40-50 million dollars he raised in 2008 and 2012, nearly all was from small donors. In 2012, post Citizens United, big corporate money had plenty of chances to spend millions on a SuperPac to help Paul get the nomination but they didn't do so.

    If libertarianism benefits corporations so much they would be lobbying for actual libertarian reforms.

    This is where the gross conflationism of Thom Hartmann comes in. I'm sure Thom would assert that the policies of Ronald Reagon were "libertarian" or that the policies of Alan Greenspan as chairman of the Fed were "libertarian". That only reveals Thom's ignorance.

    Are you familiar with a book called "The Triumph of Conservatism"? This was a book authored by new Left historian Gabrielle Kolko. In it, Kolko asserts that the "reforms" of the Progressive Era, the creation of the Federal Reserve and new economic regulations of the early 20th century were enacted on behalf of the big banks and corporate lobbyists. As it turns out, big business don't like the free market and, once they achieve their wealth, they desparately want to protect their market share from would-be competitors. The only way to successfully do this is by lobbying the State to regulate the economy in ways that benefit them.

    What an irony then that the truth happens to be that the Progressive Era reforms so cherished by Progressives like Thom were in fact prompted in large part by Corporate oligarchs and big banks who railed against the very market that allowed them to achieve their wealth! They cartelized under the guise of populist sounding reforms.

    Big money has managed to transform our system of government very successfully over the past hundred plus years. Are we to believe that big monied interests really secretly want libertarian reforms but are just all of a sudden unable to get the State to alter its policy towards freed markets and anti-Statism?

    Are you at all familiar with the writings of 19th century liberals Lysander Spooner and Frederick Bastiat? What about modern left libertarians Gary Chartier, Sheldon Richman and Roderick Long?

    I don't expect you to have a perfect understanding of a competing ideology, but it irks me when leftists criticize a philosophy without even a passing familiarity with the movement or its history.

    And lastly, you claim that "your notion is predicated on the idea that, sans government, we'll all be cordial, reasonable and respectful to each other". Nothing could be further from the truth,

    All I argue is that we must hold all persons to the same standard. We need laws and police and courts exactly BECAUSE we know that people won't always be cordial and reasonable to each other. However, we should not tolerate some people being exempt from the laws that apply to everyone else.

    Here's how this works. A just law would be something like this: It is morally wrong and therefore illegal to steal the justly acquired property of another.

    If you acquire private property in a legitimate way, either homesteading unowned or unused land or contractually, voluntarily exchanging for legitimately acquired property, then no person has the just right to take your property through force.

    We all agree with that. Where you and I differ though is that you permit agents of the State to sieze justly acquired property. You call it "taxation". If the people vote in a political process, they are allowed to sieze the just property of their neighbor. But they cannot directly take the property of their neighbor outside of the political process.

    THIS is the contradiction that I oppose. Theft and aggression ought to be seen as equally immoral when done by States as it is when done by individuals.

    Libertarians believe in the existence of collective defense agencies, courts and dispute resolution organizations, infrastructure, society and all these necessary trappings of civilization.

    What we demand as a moral imperative is that these things be provided voluntarily. People voluntarily pay for the common defense, they are not forcefully stolen from to pay for some peoples concept of defense. We oppose a violent monopoly on the provision of these necessary services.

  • The Weight- Bluegrass Style   1 day 16 hours ago

    Ooooh, I've never heard Werewolves of London done in Raggae before! Thanks Zoe.

    Want to heard some world music (I think it's called)? I used to see these guys regularly at the locales.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adkzk4-DQnI

  • Banks Looting US Treasury $85 billion a month with Toxic Mortgage Bond Swaps until Triggering a Greek Style Collapse.   1 day 16 hours ago
    Quote rscottm:

    This thread is funny, how it starts almost two years ago predicting impending doom and gloom, but it hasn't happened.

    Funny how events one doesn't want to see are not seen. Macroeconomic trends have a different time scale than microeconomic events. Five years is a minimum time frame for a pattern to appear after financial polices, like tax law changes, take effect and it takes sevens to even start to draw conclusions of the effects of such polices. So the time frame is greater than most person assume. Even before the 2008 financial crash Bush was saying "The fundamentals are sound" and then the crash. You ask, "Where is the crash?" The crash is happening now. AIG crashed, Lehman crashed, millions of Americans lost their homes, massive unemployment has sweep the country, wage deflation, retail businesses are going bankrupt like Sears, JC Pennys, Best Buy, Zynga, Red Lobster, Abercrombie & Fitch, Washington Mutual, World Com, General Motors, Enron, Conseco, Chrysler,Thornburg Mortgage, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and Texaco just to name a few. One also has to take into account the media propaganda to protect Wall Street by not reporting or minimizing bad economic news.

    If you are talking about Greece's financial state, you are not reading enough.

    Jack Rasmus discusses the latest events of the past week in the Greek debt negotiations,

    "To the distant observer the course of events is a rushing flood; to those inside it is a whirlpool.–JACQUES BARZUN, From Dawn to Decadence (2001)"

    Quote rscottm:

    The lesson of QE is that the Fed can create trillions of dollars without negative consequence. Now we must elect Congressional representatives to tell the Fed to finance a "QE for the people", a direct cash transfer to individuals in the form of a Basic income.

    Let the Fed create $6 trillion a year. They can gussy it up with finance instruments, but it comes to money creation in the end. As a hedge against possible inflation, index all incomes to inflation. Then purchasing power does not change, since by simple math if today's income-to-prices ratio is 2/1 and tomorrow's is 4/2 and the next day's is 8/4, it still reduces to 2/1 so nothing has changed.

    To say there are no negative consequences to QE is a hasty generalization. The QE money has been sterilized by being directed to the financial sector only causing the Stock market and other assets to hyper-inflate. This has distorted the market with companies only making technical trades like buying back there own stock to trigger bonuses for themselves. There are no productive investments and creating no aggregate demand with means price deflation on the one hand, but on Wall Street assets inflation on the other.

    John Maynard Keynes explained why “increasing the quantity of money” in the financial system would not revive an economy stuck in a balance sheet recession. Here’s what he said 80 years ago in his “Open Letter to President Roosevelt”:

    “Rising output and rising incomes will suffer a set-back sooner or later if the quantity of money is rigidly fixed. Some people seem to infer from this that output and income can be raised by increasing the quantity of money. But this is like trying to get fat by buying a larger belt. In the United States to-day your belt is plenty big enough for your belly. It is a most misleading thing to stress the quantity of money, which is only a limiting factor, rather than the volume of expenditure, which is the operative factor.”

    Monetarism has never worked to end depression (posts #74, 77, 80)--that is why it is being used today. Keeping the US and Europe in economic depression provides an opportunity to install more Neoliberal polices, and allows banks to asset strip in the meantime.

    Chomsky: Greece Faces "Savage Response" for Taking on Austerity "Class War"

  • No Chance in Hell for Bernie...   1 day 16 hours ago
    Quote Dexterous:

    Alberto: What is the minimum wage in Mexico where you live?

    Let me answer that for you Alberto. Currently, it is less than $5.00/day. Perhaps your efforts should be directed at improving the income of your countrymen and rid them of the maquiladora labor system, or would that not sit well with the local and national politicians.

  • Thom, would you tell Abraham Lincoln to "get over" his whiteness?   1 day 16 hours ago

    First of all roland, I said earlier slavery was firmly codified in Amerikan law at the time. Secondly; the tariff side issue is complete bullshit and is an attempt at whitewashing. The division was about slavery plain and simple beginning to end.

    And lastly; to tell me to read up on political economic theorists of the period so to compare how SLAVERY equates with the northern working class of yesteryear or of the working class of today insults mine and everyone elses intelligence.

  • Banks Looting US Treasury $85 billion a month with Toxic Mortgage Bond Swaps until Triggering a Greek Style Collapse.   1 day 16 hours ago

    Kenneth Rogoff writes in a review of Martin Wolf's book:

    "Without question the best and most effective approach to the problem would have been to bail out the subprime homeowners directly, forcing banks to take losses but keeping them manageable. For an investment of perhaps a few hundred billion dollars, the US Treasury could have saved itself from a financial crisis whose cumulative cost, counting lost output, already runs into many, many trillions of dollars. Instead of “saving Wall Street,” a subprime bailout would have been targeted, almost by definition, at lower-income households. But unfortunately, this approach too would have been politically impossible prior to the crisis."

    I don't often agree with Rogoff so I was surprised at this passage. I think the Fed can learn to do the right thing, which is to finance debt-free, unconditional, periodic cash transfers to individuals in the form of a basic income. We direct the Fed; it is up to us to change the "politically impossible" to possible.

  • Basic income   1 day 16 hours ago

    "End the privately owned Federal Reserve, replace it with a public central bank, where new money is issued debt free"

    The Fed is structured like a corporation but it is not a private sector entity because Congress writes its charter, its Governors are appointed by the President, and it returns profit (after the 6% profit on shares it pays its 12 "stockholders", or member banks) to the Treasury. Last year the Fed gave the Treasury nearly $100 billion in profits.

    The charter Congress gives the Fed directs it to work in the Public Interest. No private company is so controlled by government.

    We can tell our representatives to direct the Fed to finance a basic income. The Fed can create debt-free money as a liability against a "General Welfare" asset.

    https://www.edx.org/school/new-york-institute-finance is a very short, free, edx MOOC that describes the Fed's structure and operations. Coursera's Economics of Money and Banking goes into much more detail, including the history of central banking and how the private sector creates money daily. I just discovered another MOOC, The Past, Present, and Future of the Federal Reserve, which I just signed up for.

    I think we can work with the Fed we have. We just have to tell them to finance a basic income and they can do it at zero cost to taxpayers. Indexation of all incomes to price rises eliminates any potential inflation tax, since purchasing power would not change.

  • Politics is obscene. Why can't we relegate Statism to the dustbin of history?   1 day 17 hours ago

    So move to Afghanistan -- it's the sort of tribal society you're advocating. If you really want to devolve then that's just the ticket for you.

    And, BTW, your notion of libertarianism is the fiction. Modern libertarianism (a la Ron Paul) was invented by right-wing corporate marketeers:

    The True History of the Libertarian Party -- Thom Hartmann

    People like you are only stooges for the interests of the Robber Baron class whether you intend to be or not. If you think you can distinguish yourself from prototypical kooky libertarians with your right-wing anarchist label then you're even kookier than ordinary libertarians. Your notion is predicated on the idea that, sans government, we'll all be cordial, reasonable and respectful to each other. That's about as realistic a prospect as unicorn races and I suggest you seek help regarding your propensity toward being delusional. Just because some recent iteration of libertarianism has tried to distance itself from the historical roots of modern libertarianism to deflect the criticism about what it really is and where it came from doesn't mean that I don't understand it. Douglaslee is correct, distilled shit is still just shit.

    I realize that you're fanaticism over this new fangled ideology you think you've stumbled upon has led you to perceive yourself as being more politically savvy than the rest of us and, ergo, more insightful but your condescension is entirely misplaced puppy.

  • Demystifying the "Global Economy" Trope   1 day 17 hours ago

    Very good, Grasshopper. (Same for "Service Economy".)

    Roland

  • The US is HATED around the WORLD????   1 day 17 hours ago

    You have just seen the tip of the iceberg. American ignomy during the past hundred and sixty years is unequaled. It is no surprise the US is known as the Great Satan and the Evil Empire and that people the world over hate Amerika passionately.

    Roland

  • The Clinton Doctrine   1 day 18 hours ago

    Qaddafi was going to finance it with his independent pan-African bank plan. The Globalist Banksters has to have him killed and Libya "freed" because of that. Look up ELLEN BROWN: LIBYA: ALL ABOUT OIL, OR ALL ABOUT BANKING?

    http://ellenbrown.com/2011/04/16/libya-all-about-oil-or-all-about-banking/

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/libya-ten-things-about-gaddafi-they-dont-wa...

    "...1. In Libya a home is considered a natural human right

    In Gaddafi’s Green Book it states: ”The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others”. Gaddafi’s Green Book is the formal leader’s political philosophy, it was first published in 1975 and was intended reading for all Libyans even being included in the national curriculum.

    2. Education and medical treatment were all free

    Under Gaddafi, Libya could boast one of the best healthcare services in the Middle East and Africa. Also if a Libyan citizen could not access the desired educational course or correct medical treatment in Libya they were funded to go abroad.

    3. Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project

    The largest irrigation system in the world also known as the great manmade river was designed to make water readily available to all Libyan’s across the entire country. It was funded by the Gaddafi government and it said that Gaddafi himself called it ”the eighth wonder of the world”.

    4. It was free to start a farming business

    If any Libyan wanted to start a farm they were given a house, farm land and live stock and seeds all free of charge.

    5. A bursary was given to mothers with newborn babies

    When a Libyan woman gave birth she was given 5000 (US dollars) for herself and the child.

    6. Electricity was free

    Electricity was free in Libya meaning absolutely no electric bills!

    7. Cheap petrol

    During Gaddafi’s reign the price of petrol in Libya was as low as 0.14 (US dollars) per litre.

    8. Gaddafi raised the level of education

    Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were literate. This figure was brought up to 87% with 25% earning university degrees.

    9. Libya had It’s own state bank

    Libya had its own State bank, which provided loans to citizens at zero percent interest by law and they had no external debt.

    10. The gold dinar

    Before the fall of Tripoli and his untimely demise, Gaddafi was trying to introduce a single African currency linked to gold. Following in the foot steps of the late great pioneer Marcus Garvey who first coined the term ”United States of Africa”. Gaddafi wanted to introduce and only trade in the African gold Dinar – a move which would have thrown the world economy into chaos.

    The Dinar was widely opposed by the ‘elite’ of today’s society and who could blame them. African nations would have finally had the power to bring itself out of debt and poverty and only trade in this precious commodity. They would have been able to finally say ‘no’ to external exploitation and charge whatever they felt suitable for precious resources. It has been said that the gold Dinar was the real reason for the NATO led rebellion, in a bid to oust the outspoken leader....."

  • America The Failure: A long list of failures   1 day 18 hours ago

    This is a reply to all of your posts, and thanks for hiliting* them- my advice is get the hell out .

    *Hilite™

Currently Chatting

Community Archive

Bernie Sanders Could be the Next FDR

Tuesday night, I appeared on the Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell to talk about Elizabeth Warren, the rise of progressives within the Democratic Party, and what this means for Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign.

At one point in our discussion, the conversation turned to whether Bernie represents the closest thing to an Elizabeth Warren candidacy.