Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Your position? After I remove all the inert ingredients? And boil down your position to its radioactive element? Your position is the same as a retweet by Jayne:

Quote:

---

Adam Baldwin Retweeted
Kurt Schlichter @KurtSchlichter 19h19 hours ago

One US Soldier's life > Hiroshima.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Your position? After I remove all the inert ingredients? And boil down your position to its radioactive element? Your position is the same as a retweet by Jayne:

Quote:

---

Adam Baldwin Retweeted
Kurt Schlichter @KurtSchlichter 19h19 hours ago

One US Soldier's life > Hiroshima.

---

---

Not even close, and why I don't bother talking to you.

---

Quote:

---

The allied bombing campaigns might seem cold-blooded and vindictive, and to an extent they probably were. But that doesn't mean they were pointless slaughter. They undoubtedly shortened the war and thereby saved lives, possibly even more than they killed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I always wondered why Hillary gave me a big case of the willies every time she tried to be charming. Now I know why:

HILLARY CLINTON, WARMONGER

- Stupid, quickie anti-Hillary Video -

---

I finally watched this... you have to be really all-world stupid to believe any of it. It's obviously extremely edited from a multitude of clips, sources borrowed from different times and places, like a really bad, hack photoshop job. You'd have to be a complete moron to believe any of it or post it as factual.

Enter Signym.

---

Quote:

---

But despite Bernie Sanders’ apparent annoyance with the “damn emails,” the scandal just exponentially intensified, when Judge Andrew Napolitano revealed on Monday that Russia has possession of around 20,000 of Clinton’s emails — leaving open the possibility her deletions might not have been permanent after all.

“There’s a debate going on in the Kremlin between the Foreign Ministry and the Intelligence Services about whether they should release the 20,000 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails that they have hacked into,” Napolitano told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly in an interview for The Kelly File.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/14/this_is_one_weak_nominee_hillary_clint
ons_problem_isnt_bernie_sanders_its_hillary_clinton/

This is one weak nominee: Hillary Clinton’s problem isn’t Bernie Sanders. It’s Hillary Clinton
Clinton's camp thinks her résumé will be enough to carry her to the White House. No one should be that sure
David Niose

No matter what you think about Hillary Clinton as the presidential primaries wind down, there is one undeniable fact that lingers in the background. Despite having had enormous advantages from the start of the campaign—no serious competition from within the party, solid support from national party leaders, a massive war chest and a nationwide grassroots network built over the course of decades in national politics—Clinton has struggled to put away a 74-year-old Jewish socialist who has had almost no establishment support.

Say whatever you want about Clinton’s lengthy résumé—and her credentials are indeed impressive—her performance this primary season is hardly indicative of a strong candidate.

Indeed, Clinton concedes that she’s not a natural politician, lacking the charm of her husband or the charisma of Barack Obama. But what should be troubling to those who hope to see a Democrat in the White House next year is that Clinton seems to suggest that this weakness isn’t problematic, that her résumé and policy-wonk reputation will be enough to carry her on Election Day.

Maybe. But don’t be too sure.

Look no further than the 2000 election, when another policy-wonk Democrat with little charm or charisma—Al Gore—failed to ride his impressive credentials to the White House. Gore, a two-term vice president with prior lengthy service in both the Senate and House, lost to an anti-intellectual GOP opponent with no Washington experience. Sound familiar?

Many Democrats are having difficulty accepting the fact that Clinton, despite her résumé, is a weak politician. In this state of denial, their defense of Clinton becomes aggressive, as they lash out at Bernie Sanders for staying in the race, implying that Clinton has earned the right to glide to the finish line unopposed.

A prime example of this Clinton-entitlement mentality can be found in a recent Boston Globe column by Michael A. Cohen, entitled “Bernie Sanders declares war on reality.” Cohen insists that Sanders is “illogical, self-serving, hypocritical” and “intellectually dishonest” in trying win the nomination by swaying superdelegates away from Clinton. “Instead of coming to grips with the overwhelming evidence that Democratic primary voters prefer Hillary Clinton to be the party’s 2016 presidential nominee,” Cohen writes, “Sanders continues to create his own political reality.”

Unfortunately, Cohen ignores the fact that the “overwhelming evidence” isn’t strong enough to allow Clinton to claim the nomination with pledged delegates alone. Had the evidence been so overwhelming, courting superdelegates would be irrelevant. Because Clinton has been far from dominating in the primaries and caucuses, the true “political reality” is that she will need superdelegate support to secure the nomination. Fortunately for Clinton, she appears to have the support of an overwhelming majority of superdelegates, but those allegiances can change up until the time of the convention vote, so Sanders is alive as long as the race comes down to a fight over them.

Sanders has correctly criticized the superdelegate system as undemocratic, but there is nothing hypocritical or illogical in his continuing the fight within that system. To denounce the rules of a race does not preclude a candidate from competing within those flawed rules. With party insiders having disproportionate power as superdelegates, the system tips the scales strongly in Clinton’s favor, as Cohen surely knows, yet he still cries foul at Sanders pressing on within that system.

Such specious arguments not only distract from the uncomfortable reality that Clinton is an extremely vulnerable candidate, they also fail to recognize that the Sanders campaign represents an agenda that is fundamentally different from Clinton’s. This is not a debate between two candidates with slight differences in substance or style, but of two vastly disparate philosophical views.

Even if Sanders loses the nomination contest, which at this point appears likely, he represents an egalitarian, democratic vision that is highly skeptical of corporate power and the neoliberalism that Clinton represents. This agenda has resonated, fueling a surprisingly strong campaign that has energized many, especially younger voters, and those supporters expect that their message will be carried all the way to the convention. For Sanders, stopping the fight at this point would be senseless.

Clinton herself has the tact to refrain from urging Sanders to exit. She instead is doing the smart thing by basically ignoring him and focusing on Donald Trump and the general election. Still, there can be no doubt that she would love to be in Trump’s position, having no opponents remaining with any mathematical chance of seizing the nomination.

The fact that she’s not in such a position, and that her race for the Democratic nomination continues to be pestered by an old lefty who has served three decades in politics without even registering as a Democrat, should be a grave concern for her and her supporters. Although her credentials are strong, her candidacy isn’t—and blaming that on Sanders would be nothing but a form of denial.



>

---

Quote:

---

What DOES that make her, I wonder? A democrapublican? A republocrat?

---

Quote:

---

What DOES that make her, I wonder? A democrapublican? A republocrat?- KIKI

I think the word you're searching for is "centrist".- KPO

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

What DOES that make her, I wonder? A democrapublican? A republocrat?- KIKI

I think the word you're searching for is "centrist".- KPO

---

I think the word you're searching for is "plutocrat".

The USA is an oligarchy and there's no getting around that fact. It's the wealthy who determine policy, not the people. And Hillary has her nose up the butts of the wealthiest of the (international wealthy) like Goldman Sachs. She's so much in the pocket of international capital, she doesn't need the (national) capitalists, like the Koch brothers, who are mere dirt under her fingernails.

---

Quote:

---

What DOES that make her, I wonder? A democrapublican? A republocrat?- KIKI

I think the word you're searching for is "centrist".- KPO

I think the word you're searching for is "plutocrat".

The USA is an oligarchy and there's no getting around that fact. It's the wealthy who determine policy, not the people. And Hillary has her nose up the butts of the wealthiest of the (international wealthy) like Goldman Sachs. She's so much in the pocket of international capital, she doesn't need the (national) capitalists, like the Koch brothers, who are mere dirt under her fingernails. - SIGNY

The United States is an oligarchy, but as is being witnessed today, we still have the power to take the country back. If Hillary wins and does not stay left leaning, she will not be reelected and the march to move the Democratic party back from whence it came will continue. -THGRR

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Either that, or the USA will become a completely totalitarian state, where people are being held in thrall while the banks suck the life juices out of them, like "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."

---

Quote:

---

BTW - I've asked you a number of times and you've never responded (of course).:
How did you get your house? Cash?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Either that, or the USA will become a completely totalitarian state, where people are being held in thrall while the banks suck the life juices out of them, like "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."

---

You mean like Russia, I don't things will ever get that bad here.

---

Quote:

---

This is another SIGNYM 'so very obvious' habit - trying to denigrate the US and just be generally insulting (Troll) by comparing it to Russia. The whole "Oligarch" thing for example. Kind of funny when you think about it.

---

Quote:

---

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics — which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism — offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented. A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism

---

Quote:

---

Pansie.

---

Quote:

---

It's not a hard question and it IS about the topic, and no, it's not that personal. I have no idea who you are IRL.

---

Quote:

---

Clinton rival Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, leads Trump 46 to 42, according to the same poll.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Who's poll? Oh, right.
Donald Trump edges out Hillary Clinton by 3 percentage points in a hypothetical general election match-up, according to a new Fox News poll.

Are you sure you're not a Republican politician?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

This is another SIGNYM 'so very obvious' habit - trying to denigrate the US and just be generally insulting (Troll) by comparing it to Russia. The whole "Oligarch" thing for example. Kind of funny when you think about it.

---

The United States is an oligarchy. A study from one of the most radical universities ... Princeton ... found that the wealthy get their way, virtually all of the time.

---

Quote:

---

I wonder if KPO will put this in the predictions thread?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Assume you’re either Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Arthur Travers Harris or Brigadier General Paul Warfield Tibbets Jr. or General Curtis LeMay. You’re put on trial in Switzerland, a neutral country, because your side lost. Where would your Swiss defense lawyers go to get proof in a Law Court of any of those points you made? Saved more lives than killed? Not vindictive? Undoubtably shortened the war?

---

Quote:

---

Operation Gomorrah killed 42,600 people, left 37,000 wounded and caused some one million German civilians to flee the city.[3] The city's labour force was reduced permanently by ten percent.[3] Approximately 3,000 aircraft were deployed, 9,000 tons of bombs were dropped and over 250,000 homes and houses were destroyed. No subsequent city raid shook Germany as did that on Hamburg; documents show that German officials were thoroughly alarmed and there is some indication from later Allied interrogations of Nazi officials that Hitler stated that further raids of similar weight would force Germany out of the war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

I'm probably going to regret this, but...

---

Quote:

---

Hiroshima perspective

Regarding “Should America apologize for Hiroshima?” (Page B14, Sunday), I believe President Obama is going to throw one of the best presidents in my lifetime, President Harry S. Truman, under the bus.

Can anyone imagine the hours he spent before he ordered the bombing of Hiroshima to save thousands of lives?

Maybe President Obama should visit the National World War II Museum in New Orleans before the visit to Hiroshima. Then maybe he would understand the shoes President Truman wore that he has not walked in.

Ken Rosenberger, Houston

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

I'm probably going to regret this, but...

---

I predict you won't.

The military thinking about strategic bombing runs precisely this shallow: We’ve got millions of tons of bombs, but not enough military targets. Valuable military targets are really dangerous for our bombers to approach. We can calibrate exactly how valuable military targets are to Japan or German because the most valuable targets are the most highly defended by anti-aircraft guns and fighter planes. Instead, why not make our lives easier and longer by bombing women and children where there are fewer anti-aircraft guns and fewer enemy fighter planes shooting down our bombers? We can justify it after the fact by claiming there were some soldiers home on military leave and we killed those soldiers. If we win, nobody will be able to prove differently because we will be in control of all the records!

Hiroshima was the ultimate soft target. Where are Hiroshima's anti-aircraft guns? Where are the Jap fighter planes? Not there! Perfect target for testing one of two bombs of alternate design.

On the opposite side, from today’s Houston Chronicle

Quote:

---

Hiroshima perspective

Regarding “Should America apologize for Hiroshima?” (Page B14, Sunday), I believe President Obama is going to throw one of the best presidents in my lifetime, President Harry S. Truman, under the bus.

Can anyone imagine the hours he spent before he ordered the bombing of Hiroshima to save thousands of lives?

Maybe President Obama should visit the National World War II Museum in New Orleans before the visit to Hiroshima. Then maybe he would understand the shoes President Truman wore that he has not walked in.

Ken Rosenberger, Houston

---

The Trinity test bomb was July 16, 1945. Hiroshima was bombed Aug. 6, 1945. Truman had 3 weeks to think about stopping the A-bombing, but if he gave no orders and did absolutely nothing, General Curtis LeMay had all the authority he needed to drop or not drop whatever bombs the Navy delivered to Tinian Island in the Marianas.

After the Hiroshima bombing, Truman issued a statement announcing the use of the new weapon: "We may be grateful to Providence" that the German atomic bomb project had failed, and that the United States and its allies had "spent two billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history—and won". Truman then warned Japan: "If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware."

Big talk from a little pipsqueak of a man that wasn’t trusted enough by FDR to know about the A-bomb until after FDR was dead. When Truman became president on April 12, 1945, upon the death of President Roosevelt, he had no knowledge of the actual bomb project itself and his first information about what was really being done came from Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson on April 25th.

Truman didn't want to waste that two billion dollars. Bombs away!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

I do not wish to go into a protracted opinion about our dropping the bomb except to say, we would have had to land our troops on the shores of a country that believed its emperor was a god. The number of American dead could have exceeded two hundred and fifty thousand. I would add that their treatment of others who had fallen victim to them was to say the least, abominable.

The second bomb was dropped because the first did not bring them to the table. After the second bomb was dropped it still took more than two weeks for them to surrender. Russia declared war against Japan at this time, and it is believed it was because they feared the Russians more than us that they surrendered.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

I'm probably going to regret this, but...

---

I predict you won't.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

I'm probably going to regret this, but...

---

I predict you won't.

---

You predict wrong.

In my post to you I posed 3 main questions (and some sub-questions):

1. What specific actions you would put the Allied air commanders on trial for
2. Whether you think the Allied bombing campaigns were broadly morally acceptable, outside of the most egregious raids
3. What you think of the 1943 bombing of Hamburg, and did it constitute a war crime

And in your response you addressed... none of them.

As I say, like arguing with a television set.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

I do not wish to go into a protracted opinion about our dropping the bomb except to say, we would have had to land our troops on the shores of a country that believed its emperor was a god. The number of American dead could have exceeded two hundred and fifty thousand. I would add that their treatment of others who had fallen victim to them was to say the least, abominable.

The second bomb was dropped because the first did not bring them to the table. After the second bomb was dropped it still took more than two weeks for them to surrender. Russia declared war against Japan at this time, and it is believed it was because they feared the Russians more than us that they surrendered.

---

That's a nice story that appeals to Americans' vanity, but it is not true. On 9 May 1945 (Moscow time), Germany surrendered, meaning that if the Soviets were to honour the Yalta agreement, they would need to enter war with Japan by 9 August 1945. The Japanese were caught completely by surprise when the Soviets declared war an hour before midnight on 8 August 1945, and invaded simultaneously on three fronts just after midnight on 9 August. The Russians waited until the last day so that Japan would run low on fuel, food and ammo. Japan did as predicted, using up its fuel, food and ammo.

The million Russians rolled up the Japanese Army like it was a carpet. Americans were too afraid to invade and, to justify being chickens keeping as far away from Japan as possible and only lobbing bombs at it, the Americans gave grossly inflated predictions about American deaths. Fortunately for America, Russians didn’t believe the American predictions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War_%281945%29

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

I stand by what I posted. The fact that you suggest these facts are a nice story and appeals to Americas vanity suggests a bias on your part in interpreting the facts. You like many others need to research the Japanese psyche before you judge. Remember, they were about to defend their god. Remember the suicide bomber, it started there with planes and what I remember being called bonsai attacks that sent thousands of Japanese at a time to their deaths.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

I stand by what I posted. The fact that you suggest these facts are a nice story and appeals to Americas vanity suggests a bias on your part in interpreting the facts. You like many others need to research the Japanese psyche before you judge. Remember, they were about to defend their god. Remember the suicide bomber, it started there with planes and what I remember being called bonsai attacks that sent thousands of Japanese at a time to their deaths.

---

My bias is that I dislike historical reference material written by liars.

While you’re claiming the high moral ground, I claim you’re standing on a hill of dung. Less metaphorically, a hill of lies and misinterpretations and missing information. Here is one little story about how war is truly fought by people who are incompetent at the art of war.

Morley Safer wrote a newspaper column about a visit to Saigon by Arthur Sylvester, the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs — i.e., the head of all the U.S. military’s PR.

Sylvester said, “Look, If You Think Any American Official Is Going To Tell You The Truth, Then You're Stupid.”

Sylvester didn’t stop there, saying, “I can’t understand how you fellows can write what you do while American boys are dying out here,” he began. Then he went on to the effect that American correspondents had a patriotic duty to disseminate only information that made the United States look good.

A network television correspondent said, “Surely, Arthur, you don’t expect the American press to be the handmaidens of government.”

“That’s exactly what I expect,” came the reply.

The Pentagon hated having these words and much more accurately printed in the newspaper. “Unless you get Safer out of there, he’s liable to end up with a bullet in his back,” said the Pentagon to Safer’s boss. With high quality people like this in the Pentagon, it is easy to see how America has gotten its ass beaten in war after war.

And I don't find it one tiny bit surprising that the US Army Air Force killed civilians to impress Emperor Hirohito under the assumption he cared what happened to Hiroshima despite him not caring at all about anything but himself and his glorious lineage being pissed on by the Russians.

If you want to win a war with place organized on Japanese lines, start killing the people at the top of the hierarchy, not the bottom, because you have to kill millions since the top cares nothing about those on the bottom.

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/20/pentagon-official-once-told-morley
-safer-that-reporters-who-believe-the-government-are-stupid/

There is a fascinating article today about how we’re really good at forgetting all the terrible things we’ve done. It is not about War.
www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/20/were-really-good-at-for
getting-all-the-terrible-things-weve-done/

---

Quote:

---

Pansie.- THIRDSTOOGE

troll- SIGNY

It's not a hard question and it IS about the topic, and no, it's not that personal. I have no idea who you are IRL. -ONEOFTHETHREE

Why does it matter who I am IRL? Aren't we here to discuss "real world events", not each other? Either there is evidence supporting an interpretation of an event, or there isn't. Or do you prefer just to gossip and backbite? -SIGNY

It matters that I DON'T know who you are - it means you can drop the pretense and be honest. Or at least it should. But instead, you go out of your way to be fraudulent. Take this for example - very much on topic - you rail against banks but you use them all the same.

---

Quote:

---

So which is it?

---

Quote:

---

Would you have taken speaking money from GSachs if offered? Of course you would. Would you be better off as president to be in conflict with banks, or have a professional and even good understanding and relationship with them? Besides Health Care and Defense, it is one of the most critical structures any nation has. But go ahead, be a hypocrite. It only underscores how faulty your logic is and few people agree with your observations. Maybe you should observe that?

---

Quote:

---

Just so we're clear I was referring to Sig's repeated use of the word "Oligarch." As far as I am concerned, when haven't the very wealthiest not had more influence over our government? That just seems obvious. I certainly don't need a Princeton study to tell me that.

---

Quote:

---

The way this works, THIRDSTOOGE, is that if I said I used cash you would have said I was "rich", and if I said I took out a loan you would have said I "took money from banks". It was a no-win, disingenuous question. Since you're not being honest with me, why should I be honest with you. Troll. - SIGNY

Here we go again... nice try. Your honest answer would force you to admit your lie. - THRIDSTOOGE

---

Quote:

---

Just so we're clear I was referring to Sig's repeated use of the word "Oligarch." As far as I am concerned, when haven't the very wealthiest not had more influence over our government? That just seems obvious. I certainly don't need a Princeton study to tell me that.- THIRDSTOOGE

Not "more". Nearly all.- SIGNY

Meh.- THIRDSTOOGE

---

Quote:

---

Fury against Bernie Sanders is growing in Clinton World.

In public, Hillary Clinton's aides and allies have kept their anger checked, decrying the rowdy outbursts at Nevada’s state convention last weekend but saying they believe Sanders will ultimately do the right thing by helping to unite the Democratic Party.

Behind the scenes, however, they are seething that statements by the Vermont senator are just making matters worse by further alienating his supporters from Clinton, the front-runner for the party's presidential nomination.

The continued combat on the left is also complicating Clinton’s efforts to fully turn her attention to presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, who is reveling in the Democratic feuding.

“This is the worst-case scenario and the one people feared the most,” said one Clinton ally and former Clinton aide.

“Unfortunately, he’s choosing the path of burning down the house,” the ally said. “He continues with character attacks against Hillary. He continues with calling the Democratic Party corrupt, and he not only risks damaging Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party but he's currently doing it."

---

Quote:

---

Clinton allies say Sanders is only piling on by insisting that Clinton join him for a debate ahead of California's primary on June 7. The debate would be aired on Fox News, a network Clinton supporters see as fanning the flames between Sanders supporters and the former secretary of State.

A second ally said Sanders should stop criticizing the party and the front-runner’s supporters even if he continues to fight for delegates through the six state contests on June 7.

“It’s inappropriate at this point, and I hate to tell him, it’s not helping him in the long run. It’s only hurting her,” the ally said. “The Republican Party has their nominee, and he’s free and clear of his Republican opponents and is taking shots at Hillary. We need to move closer to that process, and he’s not helping."

---

Quote:

---

In an interview on CNN Thursday, Clinton projected extreme confidence that she will be her party’s nominee.

---

Quote:

---

The remarks could be read as a signal to Sanders that he should get real with his supporters about his chances of winning the nomination.

“I will be the nominee for my party, Chris,” the former first lady told CNN's Chris Cuomo. “That is already done in effect. There is no way I won't be.”

She added that Sanders “has to do his part to unify the party.”

---

Quote:

---

“He said the other day that he'll do everything possible to defeat Donald Trump. He said he'd work seven days a week. I take him at his word,” Clinton said. “I think the threat that Donald Trump poses is so dramatic to our country, to our democracy and our economy that I certainly expect Sen. Sanders to do what he said he would.”

---

Quote:

---

Clinton currently leads Sanders by 274 pledged delegates, according to The Associated Press’s totals. Including superdelegates, the party officials who have their own votes in the contest, Clinton is 760 delegates ahead of Sanders and just 90 total delegates away from the 2,383 needed to clinch the party's presidential nomination.

Sanders has argued that he can convince superdelegates to switch their loyalty and that he could cut into Clinton’s lead with pledged delegates by winning California. But Clinton only needs to win 10 percent of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination.

Clinton's comments to CNN triggered a fiery response from the Sanders campaign.
“In the past three weeks voters in Indiana, West Virginia and Oregon respectfully disagreed with Secretary Clinton," campaign spokesman Michael Briggs said in a statement. "We expect voters in the remaining eight contests also will disagree."

---

Quote:

---

Supporters of the Vermont senator have claimed the primary has been stolen from their candidate because of the use of superdelegates and closed state contests at which only Democrats may vote.

Some Democratic officials have criticized Sanders for feeding those sentiments, which have frustrated Clinton supporters given their candidate's lead in virtually every metric in the race.

“To his supporters who are grousing about the fact that everything is rigged — it’s not rigged,” Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who was booed off the stage by Sanders supporters at the Nevada convention, said on CNN on Wednesday.

“You know, we’ve had elections. Hillary has more votes,” Boxer continued. “And Hillary has more delegates, not even counting superdelegates. So I think we need to look at … what is at stake here. And let me tell you what’s at stake here: everything. Everything that we believe in.”

---

Quote:

---

Several polls this week have forecast a competitive general election fight between Clinton and Trump, unnerving some Democrats.

“He needs to stop doing this or Donald Trump will win,” one of Clinton allies said. “While his intentions started off in the best of ways, he’s shown he has no loyalty to the Democratic Party. One hopes he understands that his actions could result in giving Donald Trump the nuclear launch codes.”

The polls, however, could give more ammunition to Sanders, who says he would be a stronger candidate in the fall against Trump.

"With almost every national and state poll showing Sen. Sanders doing much, much better than Secretary Clinton against Donald Trump, it is clear that millions of Americans have growing doubts about the Clinton campaign," Briggs said in Thursday's statement.

Democrats continue to point out that the party survived a bitter 2008 primary between Clinton and then-Sen. Barack Obama.

---

Quote:

---

Seth Bringman, who served as a spokesman for the Ready for Hillary super-PAC, said he believes the party will inevitably come together.

“The events in Nevada and some of the posts on social media get a lot of attention, but it doesn't represent the sentiment of the 10 million Americans who have voted for Sen. Sanders,” Bringman said.

“What I hear from Sanders voters in Ohio is, 'I agreed with him more on this issue or that issue, but I'm voting for Hillary in November.'

“Sen. Sanders will decide what he does and when, but the vast majority of both candidates' supporters don't wrap themselves up in every latest statement or headline — and that's reassuring for everyone who wants to stop Donald Trump.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

I do not wish to go into a protracted opinion about our dropping the bomb except to say, we would have had to land our troops on the shores of a country that believed its emperor was a god. The number of American dead could have exceeded two hundred and fifty thousand. I would add that their treatment of others who had fallen victim to them was to say the least, abominable.

The second bomb was dropped because the first did not bring them to the table. After the second bomb was dropped it still took more than two weeks for them to surrender. Russia declared war against Japan at this time, and it is believed it was because they feared the Russians more than us that they surrendered.

---

That's a nice story that appeals to Americans' vanity, but it is not true. On 9 May 1945 (Moscow time), Germany surrendered, meaning that if the Soviets were to honour the Yalta agreement, they would need to enter war with Japan by 9 August 1945. The Japanese were caught completely by surprise when the Soviets declared war an hour before midnight on 8 August 1945, and invaded simultaneously on three fronts just after midnight on 9 August. The Russians waited until the last day so that Japan would run low on fuel, food and ammo. Japan did as predicted, using up its fuel, food and ammo.

The million Russians rolled up the Japanese Army like it was a carpet. Americans were too afraid to invade and, to justify being chickens keeping as far away from Japan as possible and only lobbing bombs at it, the Americans gave grossly inflated predictions about American deaths. Fortunately for America, Russians didn’t believe the American predictions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War_%281945%29

---