An interesting article but I found it somewhat disagreeable. I am surprise no one in the media as far as I know has pointed out the real reason for the bail out. The government depends heavily on the big banks for funding. It was out of self interest the government bail out out the big banks. That is why there is no one arrested for the fraud commit by the big banks.

The thought of someone unethical enough to lose his law license, when so many lawyers are shady, being a Justice, is just too awful. The man does not even understand the Constitution, actually seems to hate it. Since his wife also lost her law license to unethical acts, what a pair, to be kept far from our Supreme Court.

the founders were a tad optimistic about the morality
of presidents and senators, it seems. -- j
.

This is an aweful thought. Somebody wants to make sure I never sleep. I hope his ego is too big for this.

I clicked on the sentence, but didn't see any article
about the "Republican Populist Revolt", or why it
will backfire. There were remarks about what might
be done by the leftists, but no reason why the
leftists will succeed.

One more reason why electing Clinton would be the death knell of the American Dream. I shudder to think what a Supreme Court with Obama on it would be like. What a nightmare!

Nil match between title and content, and delusional assessments. Obama is not "wildly popular" with 39% approval rating. With his "citizen of the world" view, he's angling for UN Secretary General, as SCOTUS takes a lot of work when it's in session, not leaving much time for golf.

The real dilemma is for the Democrats. If Hillary sinks, and Biden is thrown in, he won't inherit the dyed in the wool Hillary supporters. Any effort to either support a failing Clinton or throw in Biden or Warren will alienate Sanders supporters.

A Bloomberg third party run just muddies the waters. He's delusional, thinking that since he successfully bought himself a third term as NYC mayor, he just has to outspend Trump to win. He should take note from his failed effort to institute gun control in a number of states that money doesn't always guarantee a win.

HA! Good.

Jan

my mightmares have a new homepage, now that I have
seen BHO in a Supreme Court Justice's robe. -- j
.

Another reason to keep Hillary from winning. The only one who can do that this election is Trump. Gulchers should stop badmouthing him and realize that its either Trump or Hillary/Sanders. Maybe not the ideal choice, but we ARE going to get ONE of these come November.

I already feel like I've just been slimed just from the sheer thought of that socialist Muslim-loving enabler infesting the Supreme Court..
That narcissist Obamanation already thinks he is a law maker. That won't change.

I hope the Democrats keep talking like this. It will scare the hell out of Republicans who don’t want to vote because the candidate does not exactly reflect their views. Keep it up Hitlary!

Only if he can be appointed to the Supreme Court.

No idea, other than the labels keep flying and changing as this propaganda cycle continues...

I do agree it is a misnomer and abuse of the english language. Populist seems interchangable with Progressive as far as I can tell, and the right side does not fit in that square hole..

That was what I was focused on, don't tell me they sold their endorsement of HillaryBeast for a SC appointment? No, that wouldn't be ethical or legal..oh, I forgot, we ARE talking about HillaryBeast (She who Will be Queen)....

While not clearly stated in the title, I agree, the issue of a deal where Obama is a Supreme Court nominee and HillaryBeast agreeing what a great idea is a horrible, horrible idea that would just help cement the government control machine more in power. While it is apparently a left winded diatribe, I did find that their position as to how the republican claims to being the only ones who will save us, therefor fueling a backlash by democrap sympathizers (on top of the clear balloon float of the obama thing) to be pretty accurate. They are characterizing the general pissed of with all of them outlook as "populist revolt" when it is really the frustration most people are having with the whole lot of them. Just MHO, of course...

Not yet but I'm optimistic, yet.

Agreed. That article has nothing to do with populism. It also seems to just conflate anti-establishment sentiment with populism when actually the original Populists in American populists were in favor of broader government powers, particularly those that would help with a social safety net.