Well, the primary season is, for all intents and purposes, over. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are going to be the Republican and Democratic nominees, respectively. The Democratic primary contest has made me think hard about what it means to be a progressive.

Before Bernie Sanders and his movement came on the scene, I was firmly in the Senator Elizabeth Warren section of the Democratic party. Down with corporate greed, Wall Street shenanigans, the whole spiel. I still like Elizabeth Warren, but I see what can happen when a movement like that is headed by a dishonest politician. I am still a fan of Sen. Warren, but not in such a blind, trusting way. If Warren ever aspires to higher office, she is going to have to show me what she can do, how she proposes to do it, and how likely it is to get done.

I have made something of a hobby, some might say obsession, perish the thought, of collecting internet articles and postings about Senator Sanders. Here is a link to one of the best ones: https://medium.com/@robinalperstein/on-becoming-anti-bernie-ee87943ae699#.l2patnkwq Bernie has never been an effective politician. He mostly proposes bills that have no chance of passing and have no cosponsors. He is a one-issue candidate. Wall St. and income inequality. That’s it. Nothing else really matters to him, and he only discusses other issues when he is forced to. His free-for-all single payer health insurance is a complete fraud. They were unable to make it work even in Vermont, a single state. When Sanders was questioned why, he evaded the question. His numbers are all phony and completely unachievable.

Up until the Sanders medicine show came along, the main purveyor of political falsehoods and bunkum has been the conservative movement. Paul Ryan, the alleged wizard and budget expert of the Republican party, has consistently put out proposed budgets that slash social programs and taxes, relying on fraudulent numbers to support his proposals. Check out this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/opinion/krugman-pink-slime-economics.html?_r=0 . Now, I know that some people on the right don’t trust the New York Times. They are mistaken. The Times is a major news organization, not a wing-nut rag. They don’t lie. That brings me to my next point. Both the far-left and the far-right use the acronym MSM. That means mainstream media. And whenever I’m reading anything and I come upon that term, I usually stop reading it. Because that term means that its user is lying. The user of that term is trying to say that the major news organizations are not trustworthy. It’s true that there is a big difference between The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, but that difference is mainly editorial. They view things from different sides of the spectrum, but neither are in the business of libel and false reporting. Paul Krugman of the NYT is a world-renowned economist, and he is routinely trashed by both Bernie followers and right wingers. They don’t like to hear the truth. Just their own reality. Both the Tea Party and Bernie’s far-left followers seem to think that people who don’t believe as they do are either ignorant or corrupt. Neither believes in compromise. It’s my way or the highway.

What the Bernie Sanders movement has done for me is that it has opened my eyes to the fact that liars and frauds are not only on the right wing. There are those on the left too, selling fake nostrums. Just take this and it will cure all your problems. Not so fast. Thank you, Bernie Sanders, for opening my eyes to the fact that fraudulent politicians come in all persuasions, and it’s up to me to do the research and find out, not only who is saying what I want to hear, but how they plan to accomplish it.

Okay, now as I’m writing this blog, Donald Trump is holding a town hall on the Today show, and he is acting quite presidential indeed. Paul Manafort has replaced Corey Lewandowski as the person in charge of the campaign. I now believe that Donald truly IS serious about running for President. He didn’t start out that way, and I don’t think he became serious until quite recently, but as of right now the second half of my last blog is obsolete. Donald Trump is really trying to get elected President. I was wwrr…uhh.wrroo….ahh can’t say it… I was wrong!

Well, it’s the day after the Democratic debate preceding the New York primary contest next Tuesday. I  watched most of it, and read up on the rest. No big surprises or game-changing moments.

The Bernie Sanders campaign has decided to go full-on negative. I don’t know if there is anything that Sanders can do to win at this point. It is next to impossible for him to overcome the math. But he is hurting his slim-to-none chances by going for the jugular. For one thing, a red-faced, angry white man with hair white as snow doesn’t make a heartwarming picture. What he might have done with better results could have been to go back to the candidate he began the primary fight as. An open, honest man who wanted to conduct a campaign on issues, eschewing negativity and personal attacks. That would have made him a white knight, portraying himself as an honest, humble, virtuous man who doesn’t have all the answers (see: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306 ) but who is a clean, honest man who is willing to learn. With his alternately smirking and chuckling and sarcasm, he has effectively ceded the high ground. Which was one of his main selling points. The only way he could have fought effectively now would have been to win hearts. He is not doing that by going negative.

Hillary did well, as expected. She acted and sounded presidential. The only thing I wish she would do is to come up with a more effective answer to why she won’t release her Wall St. speech transcripts. I know why she won’t. It’s because, if she did, the Sanders and Republican oppo researchers would go over them with a fine-tooth comb, looking for anything that can be taken, either in or out of context, and used against her in attack ads. She really is damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t. And the same thing goes with if she is honest about why she won’t release them. The next question would be “what do you have to hide?” Duh. She is screwed all four ways. So maybe she is doing the only thing she can do. I don’t know. It just doesn’t sound good, and I wish her team would come up with something better. Hillary has a tough row to hoe. The glass ceiling is, perhaps, made of bulletproof glass. Sexism writ large. If anybody can’t see it, it’s because either they don’t want to or they are stupid. Take your pick. I truly believe that Hillary will be our next President. All this stuff will be in the rear view mirror, and we will move on to her administration, which I expect to be breathtakingly competent. To believe that the electorate would reject her for a double-talking old socialist from Brooklyn beggars the imagination. And upright, honest Bernie wants to try to sway the superdelegates, after complaining that they are undemocratic. And so it goes. Bye, bye Bernie. His departure from this campaign can’t come soon enough for me. I just wish he would stop taking money from his supporters when he hasn’t any chance of victory.

Now, on the Republican side, we have Mr. Trump. He is the mirror image of Bernie on the right, in the respects that he is doing unexpectedly well, and he is also a populist with plans that belong on an episode of Fantasy Island. He is pretty much clueless about any details of how his policies could be implemented, even more so than Sanders. The thing about Donald Trump, which I don’t see mentioned very often, but it is mentioned here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-trump-sabotaging-himself/2016/04/14/ef568004-025a-11e6-b823-707c79ce3504_story.html . I have long believed that Trump doesn’t really want to be President. He never really did. He didn’t expect to have the success that he’s having (nobody did). And now that he’s being confronted with the possibility of actually becoming POTUS, he is either consciously or otherwise sabotaging himself. He is an attention seeker. A narcissistic adrenaline junkie. Even though he lost some of his old businesses due to his extreme positions, he could possibly gain even more with this much notoriety. And even if that isn’t true, that he doesn’t rise to his former successes with the TV show and the Macy’s clothing brand, he couldn’t help himself. A junkie will get his fix regardless of the possible negative consequences. It’s part of the disease. Like it says in the Washington Post article I referenced above, all he had to do was shut his mouth for a few weeks and act presidential. And he certainly could have spent some time researching policy. The fact that he couldn’t or wouldn’t submit to that minimal amount of self-discipline means, to me, that he was never serious about becoming President. After all, despite all his promises, he knows damn well that he won’t be able to enact the things he is proposing. He may be many things, but Donald isn’t stupid. A President, in many ways, is a combination figurehead, cheerleader, and whipping boy. He/she has little actual power. Virtually anything important has to go through Congress before it can be enacted. The President can set the tone, point the way, and try to advocate for his/her causes. He/she might get the credit for good things that happen, but he/she will surely get the blame for any catastrophes on his/her watch. Can you picture The Donald submitting himself to that type of humility and humiliation? Neither can I. Donald Trump will not become President because he doesn’t want the job. He bit off more than he could chew, and he may well come to regret the spotlight that has been cast upon him. I really don’t see how this benefits him. Nobody wants a self-identified bigot as a spokesperson. Donald has screwed up and he is trying to back out. We should just let him. In my view, he has done a public service by ripping up the Republican party and showing itself as the Trojan horse it always was. Appealing to class and race prejudice in order to get a right-wing agenda passed. Turns out many of the troops aren’t as interested in slashing their own benefits and laying waste to their families’ safety nets as was previously assumed. Good going, Donald.

I don’t much care for Trump or Sanders, but I don’t wish them harm. I would like to see them go back to where they came from and enjoy the last decade or two of their lives, and let our country survive and, hopefully, thrive.

I have had a hard time thinking of something to post about lately. I don’t like repeating myself too much. Anybody who reads my blogs knows by now that I despise Bernie Sanders and I’m a Hillary supporter. I thought I would challenge myself a little.

One thing that doesn’t get much attention in the media is the subject of tolerance. I used to think tolerance suggested a kindly attitude. I now realize that tolerance isn’t necessarily approval or affection. It just means letting something, an idea or some other entity, alone. Not trying to stop or interfere with whatever it is you are tolerating. For example, in the Netherlands, they are lenient about recreational drug usage, public nudity, and prostitution. It doesn’t mean they like it or it has their blessing. It’s just that the government tolerates what are commonly called vices, by not passing draconian laws, although there are some regulations. Usually tolerance is a good thing, although not always. One ought not to be tolerant of violent crime or property crime, although there are limits as to what a civilian should do when confronted by a crime being committed in their view. It depends very much on the circumstances and the people involved, I guess. I think anybody who tries to catch a bank robber who isn’t a cop is an idiot. Banks are insured, don’t endanger yourself. Many other crimes occupy more of a gray area.

In my life’s circumstances, tolerance manifests itself mostly as a feelings issue. It has to do with how I feel about things that are going on in the news, and how much I allow things to upset me. I go back and forth. When I just don’t censor myself, I can be very intolerant. Self-righteous. I know that’s not good, so I do have a pretty active mental editor. When I’m stressed out about something that has little or no direct effect on me, I know that I’m not seeing things in the right light. Whether I correct myself or not is another story. Like I mentioned in my first paragraph, I have quite definite political ideas. I can get completely intolerant, just angry at all the people who don’t see things the way I do. That doesn’t help me. My heart beats faster, I get fatigued. It’s bad for my health. It doesn’t even help my cause, because I can get very pointed and sarcastic. That isn’t going to help. Tolerance in this situation would be saying to myself: I know that a lot of people believe ******. I don’t believe what they do. I don’t really know why they believe what they do. That’s their business, not mine. All I can do, positively, is be a pleasant advocate for whatever cause I’m promoting, and if somebody disagrees, oh well. If everybody was the same, my favorite stores would be pretty crowded.

There is a circumstance when the issue of tolerance can become a public problem. When Donald Trump advocates intolerance towards Muslims and Mexicans, and intolerance to different international norms, he’s not just hurting himself. He is making foreign governments nervous. President Obama has said that he gets a lot of flak from officials of other countries, wondering if they have something to worry about. Obama, as always, handles the issue with class, gently pointing out that the candidate doesn’t speak for anyone but himself. I don’t expect Trump to be elected president. He is a gadfly, and he will probably remain a gadfly. He just needs to be handled carefully by people who actually do have power, not to take him too seriously, but not to trash him, either.

See, the thing is, anger begets anger. I can be right right right all the way down the line, but if I express myself with anger, I’m more likely to turn people off. For every angry person, there is an object of their anger. Nobody likes being the subject of somebody’s rage. I sure don’t. The issue becomes secondary and it becomes a personal thing. I think a lot of who a person is is determined by how they were raised as a young child. I was raised by very kind, polite people. So I’m polite myself and usually kind. I know that in this crazy world that is not always the case. I could have had a dad who said something like, “Son, the world’s a tough place. Nobody gives you anything. You have to go out and take it. Do what you have to do. Get them before they get you”. If I had a message like that growing up, I would be a different person. So usually people are the way they are for a reason. Like criminals are frequently drug addicts. They need something in their body that costs a lot of money, hence the criminal activity. Take the addiction away, they can be as nice as anybody.

So when I am on top of my game, I know that people don’t usually do things maliciously. It’s just who they are for whatever reason. To stay mentally and physically healthy, it’s important for me to try to be tolerant.