I've mostly avoided this part of the NS board because it's become nothing but the same old, same old. Once in awhile, though, a thread catches my attention, and God help me when I find myself agreeing MULTIPLE times with 92tide in the same thread. So I'll try (and fail) to keep it brief.
I think Bernie Sanders gets creamed by Trump is he won the nomination.
To say "the primaries were rigged" is factually incorrect. However - if you're saying "the outcome was predetermined," then yeah. Sanders was running for the Democratic nomination, but he was NOT himself a Democrat. HE said this!! Hell, he's quoted in "Shattered" as saying this right before he's having to figure out how to endorse Hillary. However, there's a caveat in the Democratic Party rules that make the whole thing okay called "super delegates." The Democrats decided to head off at the pass the problem the Republicans found themselves with in 2016. What a lot of you may not realize is that in 1972 there was a brief period of time where George Wallace was a viable threat to win the nomination. In 1976, Jimmy Carter really only won it because there were eight liberals splitting the vote while a number of moderates threw in with Carter out of fear Wallace, now in a wheel chair, might win it. Because of those races - in 1984 - the Democrats altered their process with super delegates to "confirm or overrule" the selection of the voters. (There had been super delegates back to the 60s, but their role necessarily changed when we went from state convention delegate selection to primary/caucus selection). The rules that beat Sanders - for the most part - had been on the books since Hillary was First Lady of Arkansas. Now - it's TRUE that if Bernie had won the most votes it would not have mattered, but it's incorrect to blame this one on the Clintons, Hillary, or the rigged game. When you have super delegates to make the actual selection, it's not a rigged game at all. I mean, she certainly didn't have it all rigged in 2008, did she? (I'll admit she tried with the whole Michigan/Florida thing but nah).
Sanders was the Trump of the Left, the Occupy Wall Street/protest vote. A lot of his voters (hell, like Trump's) didn't have the first clue what he stood for or wanted, they just knew he WAS NOT Hillary. She had no chance at many of their votes, and I honestly wonder the real number of folks who supported Sanders and then voted Trump. Folks who view elections ideologically (which is almost all of the activists and almost NONE of the non-activists) dismiss that at their own peril. Over 1/2 the voters in each state can't tell you the NAME of their Senator, much less what he stands for. (This has obvious exceptions such as when one - say Senator Obama or McCain - is actually running for Prez).
Now.....as far as the ten worst people, I think it's a stupid list and for the most part a stupid idea. Even saying this about Trump AS OF RIGHT NOW is insanely stupid since you simply have no idea how it's going to play out long term. Mark Felt? Well, if it wasn't for the Nixon administration covering up a crime (remember: Nixon was a lawyer), Mark Felt would have been irrelevant. I mean, you kind of have to have a position with some clout and power to actually do terrible things, don't you?
Hillary Clinton was a Senator in a minority party (for the most part) and then Secretary of State for four years. She didn't bumble us into WW3, so just no.
Bill Clinton was one of the most irrelevant Presidents in American history. A trained poodle making decisions with one of those 8 balls would have done almost as well because there were very few threats to the good times. The economy was growing and the Cold War was over - before he even began running. While he deserves credit for not driving the car into the ditch, he wasn't bold, and I will always regard his eight years as a wasted opportunity by a guy who insisted on having his midlife crisis shared by the entire country.
MOST folks - even with power - can't screw it up too bad. I mean, you have to be a President or maybe a powerful Speaker of the House (Gingrich doesn't count, he was only there as Speaker for four years before turning aside for that guy we should all be more like - said the press at the time - pedophile Denny Hastert), a Fed Reserve chairman, a Chief Justice, a Secretary of State. My esteemed Tide fan Gray mentions George Wallace, but while he was a contemptible man for much of his public life, his actual sphere of power ended at the Georgia State Line. He wasn't even a Senator. He did many wrong things, but calling him a "destructive American," well, sadly I say Wallace wasn't singing a solo on civil rights.
Obama? No
Cheney? Well, you have more of a case there as he was quite popular even with media types. But, no.
Bush? No
Carter? No
Cronkite? a lot of influence during his time but the Saigon helicopter escape was seven years after Cronkite declared a stalemate. He didn't have much power.
Now.....I'll play a little bit and there are three guys I can put a lot of blame for destruction on (and Joe McCarthy, the former Yankees manager turned Senator, is admittedly a decent selection). When this country made the mistake of entering, escalating, and then abandoning Vietnam, it hurt this country maybe more than any single thing since the Civil War. It deeply divided families, friends, even politicians within the parties. It made us more suspicious than ever of our government AND our press, and we had the "able to get out of service/gotta go to war" class argument. Following that, Presidents had to be much more conspicuous with yielding American military power, both for good and ill.
And for that I think you can pin MUCH of the blame on three people: John Foster Dulles, Robert MacNamara, and LBJ.
That's my two pennies.
