Bernie needs a time out.
.@HillaryClinton press secretary: "Sanders campaign needs to take a timeout" pic.twitter.com/DbBlywB9Ou
— POLITICO (@politico) April 7, 2016
He deserves every bit of mockery.
Connect
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.
Still no response to the other three policy based charges.
So we’ve changed our rhetoric from “he needs to FUCK himself” to a “time out” eh? classic DNC loyalist.
I say no he doesn’t need a time out; he needs to press on, and btw, the odds in his favor are 44 million to Hillary’s 29.3 million in March alone, in case you didn’t know.
When you support Clinton, you support the bastion of old Democratic ideals and they are housed in a good candidate to be sure. But support for Sanders as he readily admits at the beginning of almost every speech, is not for him; he’s only there because no one else stepped up. It is for all those Americans left out of the 1%-run world we live in today. There are plenty of arguments that dismiss Sanders – he’s too old, he won’t have a compliant Congress, the people won’t tolerate a Socialist, et al. These criticisms miss the point – Bernie is a rallying point, a symbol of the progress Americans are clamoring for. Bernie Sanders stands in defense of the common American, and speaks to an anger common to both progressives and the average Trump supporter. America is demanding democracy, and the groundswell of support for Bernie Sanders is how we move towards reclaiming it…. if you have any hope for Hillary, you right now, had better explain how she will move it forward faster and better than can Bernie…
“Bernie is a rallying point, a symbol of the progress Americans are clamoring for…”
We don’t need a mascot. We need an actual intelligent and competent president.
I have no doubt Hillary is competent. But competent to do what, and for whom?
@p “I have no doubt Hillary is competent. But competent to do what, and for whom?”
Just look at her record. She was actually quite good as Secretary of State. She was a pretty good senator. She has served this nation well.
“We need an actual intelligent and competent president.”
We’ve done just fine without one for long stretches of history, so I think you mean “want” instead of “need.”
“Just look at her record. She was actually quite good as Secretary of State. She was a pretty good senator. She has served this nation well.”
Quite good as SoS? Based on what? She has served well, but so do millions of people who aren’t running for president.
Her resume is full of jobs held. It is not full of accomplishments.
“She has served this nation well.” She has…. how her campaign managers have served her is a different story. I think a lot of the animus in this race comes from the “classic” style of campaigning… where you destroy your opponent, and their ideas… is clashing with new voters who dont want to do it that way. She will face pressure from the DNC to go to the center…. it will cost her more votes than it will gain her.
‘memba that time back in 2009 when Hillary said she had no intention of running for president? Good times…..
Seriously, Ben? Her campaign managers? You think Devine and Weaver are somehow above the fray? These aren’t some soft-balling, let’s all just get along yokels trying to selflessly do right by the world. You know that, right?
For most of his campaign Bernie has been ignored by almost everyone – including every other Presidential candidate. Bernie supporters had a strong point about his lack of coverage. His string of primary wins (and the horse race narrative they generated) had the press finally turning their attention to him. And he gave them what they wanted with those comments and that interview. Not Hillary. Not the DNC. Not his or her supporters. This is 100% on Bernie Sanders.
I appreciate the cynicism that prompts the remark about doing “just fine without (an intelligent and competent President) for long stretches of history.”
In this day and age, cynicism often how we get through the day. But then that same thought has popped up time and time again in our history. If it matters so little, why bother? More specifically, why do the cynics insist on even being in the conversation? Is it sport? Something to pass the time?
It does matter and when you say we’ve done just fine in the past, what you really should have said is that we survived in spite of the leadership we’ve had. I’m certainly not going to delve into a historical analysis of how we haven’t gotten along just fine over our nations’ history and whether those times can be laid at the doorstep of the President.
What I will ask is that, even if we have done just fine, are you suggesting that streak will continue regardless of what we do or who lives in the White House? I’m not that sanguine or optimistic about it. The world is a smaller and more dangerous place today. Our nation is more complex, with more people and more problems.
You’re entitled to your opinion. Maybe some folks will agree with that opinion. I don’t.
Actually, I agree that we’ve survived despite the imbeciles like Reagan and W. But no president is immune to poor judgment.
Herbert Hoover was probably the most qualified person ever to hold the presidency if you go by prior public service — not just advocating, but accomplishing. But his judgment, based on his economic philosophy, was that the government shouldn’t step in to fix the economy, and given the Supreme Court’s reactions to many of FDR’s programs, his thinking wasn’t out of step for his times. Neither is Hillary’s, and my sincere concern is that she won’t handle another economic crisis as well as Obama did. I do not trust her judgment, and I base that on what I perceive as her willingness to say whatever is necessary and her well-earned paranoia, which I think leads her to value loyalty above competency. I think that deep under the women’s/children’s issues, on which she is very liberal, she’s the same upper-middle-class conservative she was raised to be.
“Our nation is more complex, with more people and more problems.”
I strongly disagree with this. Almost all of our current problems are of our own making. The last 70 years are the only time in our history in which we could set the terms of world trade and world peace. Look what we’ve done with it.
We are an irresponsible nation.
“This is 100% on Bernie Sanders.”
By “this” do you mean the pearl-clutching among insiders on the left? I don’t think regular voters are feeling the outrage. There’s no “this” there except here.
@puck: You know what should be fun? When the attacks on the Clinton Foundation start. A $200 million “charity” that refuses to donate money; instead it hires its own people to do the work.
If you think that baby is on the up and up, you probably love the Clintons. But most people, despite conventional wisdom that everything about the Clintons is well-known, haven’t read the donor list or what the Clintons do with the money (lots of spending, no accountability on what has been accomplished — sound familiar?). Republicans haven’t attacked it because the same corporations fund them, but I doubt Trump or Cruz would care.
Bernie hasn’t attacked it, either, I guess because it masquerades as a charity (I’m sure it is, but mostly for those who landed the jobs) and she’s not involved in it day-to-day, nor has she ever been so far as I know. But how can she deny her family’s chumminess with so many corporate personhoods? She can’t.
Despite all this, I expect minority turnout to put her over the top (racism alert!) because they are the Democrats who are fired up. I’m not just talking about blacks, or even mostly — from what I’ve seen the Hispanic attitude toward Trump is somewhere around “seething rage.” I trust they can transfer that anger against Cruz. Redo his signs to read “haTED.”
Nope. I mean that embarrassing interview and his calling her unqualified. No one but Bernie made him give those answers in that interview. No one made him make up a quote (that was never said).
But I guess Bernie can never fail. He can only be failed.
I will say it is interesting to watch how Sanders has handled all of this.
Badly, I’d say. I’m telling you, he’s Aspie.
I just watched the ABC evening news to see how it was covered. First of all, it was all Trump all the time. Bernie’s Daily News interview wasn’t mentioned. His “not qualified” comment was buried late in the newscast, and they played his whole quote with all the other charges, without cherrypicking the “not qualified” quote. I thought it did Bernie more good than harm. It was covered as just ordinary campaign back and forth, nothing embarassing about it. Apparently both Hillary and Bernie embarrassingly flunked the NYC subway, so that at least was a draw.
Meanwhile, Bill needs a time-out.
Well, look at you working the internet you couldn’t work earlier! 😉
I am sure Hillary being asked 3 times if Bernie was qualified to be president (and not answering) had nothing at all to do with this. uh-huh.
Some more grist for the easily faux-outraged who have largely turned this blog into a campaign propaganda organ:
Hillary claiming that Obama wasn’t qualified to be Prez in 2008:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/7/1512264/-Clinton-repeatedly-said-that-Obama-is-unqualified-in-2008
BTW, does anyone think that Bill needs a TO after he went after the Black Lives Matter folk today?
I only bring these up to point out the selective nature of the relentless pro-Hillary/anti-Sanders barrage here.
I had deliberately not commented on the presidential stuff until recently, but these constant screeds from Hilary supporters verge on making unreadable what I thought was a blog promoting liberal and progressive ideas.
Never thought those progressive ideas would include “He damn well better start accepting money from Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs.”
Bill’s outburst just shows that cranky old white guys say the darnedest things. Ask Bernie.
I never thought I’d find myself defending William Jefferson Blythe Clinton…but he wasn’t wrong w/ his comments about the crime bill.
The “assault weapons ban” was a fucking joke. It banned nothing. That said, he was dealing with a crack epidemic. Folks from all walks of life and political bents wanted him (the federal gov’t) to DO something about it. Liberals fucking LOVED the “assault weapons” ban and conservatives loved the mandatory minimum sentences for rock cocaine.
The “assault weapons” ban went away. Nothing changed. The mandatory minimums are finally going away. They accomplished nothing other than enriching the private prison corporations and keeping a generation of mostly Black men in jail for 2 decades. But hey, Bill was great because he rode the tech bubble until it burst & took credit for every positive thing that happened during his Presidency, whether or not he or his policies had anything to do with it.
Long story short:
Bill Clinton’s Presidential “accomplishments” looked great from his point of view at the end of his Presidency. They don’t look so great to the American public these days. In Bill’s eyes, he left the country in better shape than he found it. He’s not wrong, but he’s also not right.
I know some will not want to hear this, but, Bernie Sanders does not appear stable. I seriously believe he is showing early signs of dementia.
AQCI seriously believe he is showing early signs of dementia.
Based on what, exactly? Have you ever dealt with someone who suffered from dementia?
I lived with a person who suffered from dementia for nearly 3 years.
1.5 years ago, I buried my friend’s dad. He suffered from dementia and diabetes and other problems in the last years of his life.
I KNOW what dementia looks like. Bernie does not exhibit the symptoms of dementia.
Nice try, Hillary supporter. Imagine how angry Liberals would be if Bernie or one of his supporters accused HRC of exhibiting the “early signs” of hysteria:
PSYCHIATRY
a psychological disorder (not now regarded as a single definite condition) whose symptoms include conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms (somatization), selective amnesia, shallow volatile emotions, and overdramatic or attention-seeking behavior. The term has a controversial history as it was formerly regarded as a disease specific to women.
There are two forms of dementia.. One is brain deterioration. That is the fault of the person’s brain. But more and most commonly, accusations of dementia really mean this: “THAT person does not think like I do”… which puts one half the onus on the person making the qualifying decision.
A conservative who discovers the real truth and suddenly supports Sanders, would by family, friends, and former party be considered to be demented. Likewise the opposite journey, from progressive to Cruz. Yet in both peoples’ mind there was no massive neurological dysfunction.
Without brain scans there is no proof of dementia. Which is great for AQC, because based on his statement, large numbers of readers, especially those who saw Bernie in person last night, now assume he is starting to feel dementia’s effects….
Joking of course. Point being, be careful to accused others of dementia because without brain scans to back your assertion, it comes right back on you…
This is just a hunch, by my guess AQC is that you are referring to the Daily News Interview?
“A conservative who discovers the real truth and suddenly supports Sanders, would by family, friends, and former party be considered to be demented.”
I know conservatives who haven’t even discovered the real truth and they still decided to support Sanders, and nobody’s calling them demented. Just two people, but still.
“BTW, does anyone think that Bill needs a TO after he went after the Black Lives Matter folk today?”
Of course not. Nor will anyone say boo about Obama being called disqualified.
Bill should live in a time-out until the primary is over.
Boo! And, while she never uttered the actual words, “Barack Obama is unqualified to be President” she took a LOT of heat, and received a ton of bad press, over saying similar things. You seem to want Bernie to get a pass – that for some reason what he says should never be called out.
Here’s what bothers me: Every time someone criticizes Bernie the response from Bernie supporters seems to be, “But look at what this other person did.” Okay, but that’s not really defending your candidate.
That is what happens when you (or the title of a post) make(s) someone start from the position of “X should fuck them self and drop out”. Right away I said it was wrong. Never tried to defend it at all.
Everybody including me wishes that when Bernie pointed out that Hillary accepts vast sums from Wall Street and other special interests, supports disastrous trade agreements, and voted for the Iraq War, that he had structured the statement around something other than “not qualified.”
I was not using “dementia” as a pejorative term. I do know, love, and care for people with dementia. I was not a Hillary supporter until very recently. Dementia is rarely diagnosed simply by doing brain scans, but rather by observation of a multitude of symptoms, i. e., “selective amnesia, shallow volatile emotions, and overdramatic or attention-seeking behavior”. Why has it become so damned difficult on this blog to simply offer an opinion? The best some of you can do is start to throw insults my way rather than have any discussion.
Pandora says:
“You seem to want Bernie to get a pass – that for some reason what he says should never be called out.”
Nope. Just tired of every day being some sort of faux-outrage from a pro-Hillary flak. Some days, more than one faux-outrage.
Well, we won’t get that wish, puck, since his campaign is doubling down on it. If this is the path Bernie and Co. have chosen to travel, fine – but no more freaking out when fire is returned.
Saying things without actually saying them is what every politician does – Just like how Sanders implies, but doesn’t actually say, that Clinton traded votes/support for Wall Street money. See how that works?
But there’s a difference in roles here. Given the delegate math and Sanders’ chance of winning the nomination he should be careful in attacking our eventual (barring a miracle) nominee. He has two choices: 1) keep on keepin’ on with his agenda and focus his attacks on Republicans, or 2) Go after Clinton and risk berning (Sorry, couldn’t resist) the house down. Meanwhile, Clinton, as the primary leader, has to be careful not to alienate Bernie supporters. The ball is in his court on how this plays out. He has a responsibility here.
Personally, I think his time would be better spent issuing a statement on how he would break up the banks and other questions raised during that NY Daily News interview. I wouldn’t let that interview hang out there like low hanging fruit, ready to be picked.
Everybody needs to take a step back here and remember what is at stake.
Either Trump, or a 3rd party Republican who wins the presidency because of a Electoral-denial/congressional election strategy, the chances of D’s wining are 1 in 3 already.
LOL! Flak? I’ll just toss that into the pile of names I’ve been called. Or we could actually have a discussion? I’ll try not to go on a screed. 😉
That’s it dammit. Now I’m sending Bernie a check
I wasn’t referring to you. Which should have been obvious. It’s real clear who I’m talking about.
I’ll give you a clue:
Bernie Sanders Can Go Fuck Himself
Bernie Needs A TO
Pretty much every Daily Thread.
Those aren’t ‘discussion starters’, they’re verbal Molotov cocktails, especially aimed at progressives who come here to read a progressive/liberal blog. So excuse me if your condescending allusions to ‘actually having a discussion’ ring hollow to me.
“Clinton had training in “how to say a lot of things without actually saying them.””
So pretty much Clinton says whatever I decide she says because I don’t have to really prove she said those things because she is a Jedi Master and can squeeze my head to pulp just by holding her index finger and thumb close to her eyes while looking at me and pressing her fingers together.
Yep, got it.
They don’t call it the silly season for nothing. And here I am thinking that this election is important. That it matters. Come to find out that we’ll get along just fine regardless of who is in the White House. Now that I know that, I can just have some fun. Fire off the zingers and play smash mouth. Vote for Trump or even for myself.
Silly me! What the hell was I thinking when I was considering competence, intelligence, and reason?
You should write a post, El Som.
As for me… I’m not commenting on these venomous anti-Sanders post which only seek to shatter Democratic unity, and belittle a significant number of Democrats in the pursuit of what…? An even more worry free afternoon (day, week, decade?) for Goldman Sachs executive.
LOL! That wasn’t a venomous comment.
No comment.
@ Dave. Care to explain why your presidential vote DOES matter? You can already give Hillary (or Bernie, if it comes to that) Delaware’s 3 electoral college votes. They’re in the bag. So these discussions aren’t going to affect a single thing in the real world. We’re not influencing each others’ votes, and it wouldn’t matter if we did.
That doesn’t make the discussions worthless. The election is important, and it does matter, which is why some people feel as you do, and others disagree. The discussion isn’t really about the election; it’s about the future of the Democratic Party and the progressive movement, which aren’t the same things.
For example, I value competence, intelligence and reason as well. I question toward what ends the second President Clinton will put those gifts.
Pandora, I really don’t want to write about the Presidential. Didn’t consider it my ‘beat’ on the blog, and still don’t. Others are capable of doing it better, IMHO. Only started commenting when I felt that we were going off the tracks with what I felt and feel was so biased that it didn’t reflect our mission as a blog.
Maybe I should, but there’s so much shady stuff coming down the pike with our local elections and with the General Assembly, which returns next week. Just in time for me to write about the latest attempt to kill a minimum wage increase, the attempt once again being facilitated by D lawmakers and Markell.
I dont think anyone should write a post titled “Hillary can go Fuck herself”. Leave that kind of stuff to the party-first supporters of the DNC.
El Som is right. There can be no “discussion” in a thread with a title like that. It’s asking for… no, STARTING a fight.
Isn’t Markell a Superdelegate for HRC? I thought she was taking credit for minimum wage increases. Why isn’t her campaign putting pressure on her supporters to get with the program?
Fair enough, El Som – and your coverage of local politics is amazing.
And I can relate to this comment: “Only started commenting when I felt that we were going off the tracks with what I felt and feel was so biased that it didn’t reflect our mission as a blog.” Hey! I felt the same way. Go back to before I jumped into this national discussion and read what was written on this blog about Hillary. It goes both ways depending on where you’re standing.
*As far as reflecting the “mission” of this blog… I’m not sure what that means.
Just meant that, since the word ‘liberal’ is in the name of the blog, that liberal and progressive ideas should not be dismissed. You’re probably right, though. It’d be an interesting exercise, if not fun, for us to try to come up with a specific mission statement.
I’m officially signing off the presidential stuff for now…
“I thought she was taking credit for minimum wage increases.”
Yeah, that’s not starting a fight. Do you guys even see what you’re doing? Both candidates are FOR raising the minimum wage. Bernie supports raising it to 15 an hour; Clinton supports raising it to 12 an hour. Both have the right to cheer when states raise it.
I see exactly what I’m doing. I’m not making any excuses or apologies for it. But I seem to remember a few (days, weeks) back that we agreed to take things in a more civil respectful tone. I would only disagree on the point that i’m starting anything… I’m continuing the tone that a fan of the front runner started. The title of this threat… and the other, more incendiary one… broke that agreement.
Pandora, surely you see the provocation in these thread’s titles.
Consider this…. had DD named his thread “Bernie Sanders needs to take back what he said” I promise I would have said “Damn right he does, that kind of thing is going to make it very hard for him to credibly endorse and support Hillary in a few months” … WHICH I STILL THINK…But no. He chose a different path. I wish he had the tone and respect that you so clearly do. Maybe you should be writing the posts on these topics.
In the real world does my vote matter? Mathematically no. But I also believe that small efforts can have a large impact (butterfly effect). Consequently, what I think, say and do does have an impact, from my children in California to other family in NY and other places.
That holds true for each of us. My thinking/philosophy continues to evolved. Some of evolution is because of thoughts and ideas presented here. Sometimes it’s lesson about how not act or the art of choosing one’s words carefully and thoughtfully. Each of us has the ability to influence others. Several times I’ve said “taxes are the price we pay for civilization.” It’s not the first time it’s been said, but the context which it was used was on a thread on DL. It made me think. It influenced me.
So yeah, my vote doesn’t literally count. But my opinion does. As does yours and others here. It counts in places as far away as California, where my children live and vote. So one vote, pretty meaningless in electoral politics, especially in Delaware. But one idea can be pretty influential across the nation.
My contribution? I hope it’s the idea that governing is not a matter of charisma, but of competence and the ability to get things done even if they are small things because small things lead to great changes.
So I look for a helmsman who can steer this ship of state understanding that large ships make very slow turns but also are difficult to stop once they get going.
@Dave: Fair enough, and well said. Just so you understand, I was speaking strictly in terms of mathematics. I don’t bring it up to belittle our opinions, but to try to provide some perspective. People get pretty worked up about this, as you’ve noticed. Sometimes it pays to remember the lesson of “Meatballs.”
Trust me, if all of us were raptured away tomorrow, these discussions would still go on at every other left-leaning blog. If you think this place has gotten uncomfortable, read the comments on Daily Kos.
Yeah Daily Kos is a trip. And yeah, I know you were focused on the mathematics.
I’m just leveraging my mathematically insignificant number by expanding my circle of influence when possible and of course voting early and often as possible!
Soda consumption, with just two per day, can cause dementia. Diet is far worse.
Hilary reportedly downs diet Dr Pepper, like the owns stock in the company.
Hence the support by and for Monsanto and ethanol?
Just saying
@stuart: A sugar tax would be logical for both health and economic reasons.
The original Adam Smith wrote: “Sugar, rum, and tobacco are commodities which are nowhere necessaries of life, which are become objects of almost universal consumption, and which are therefore extremely proper subjects of taxation.” Granted, it was a luxury at the time, comparable in cost to rum and tobacco. It’s much cheaper today — as rum and tobacco would be if not for the “sin taxes” on them.
We don’t think of sugar as a “sin,” nor should we (the first two aren’t, either), but it’s becoming clearer by the year that the prime cause of our costly dietary conditions is sugar. The tax would help offset that by helping defray the costs of government-subsidized health care.
Sorry for interrupting the entertainment with a policy idea.
Sugar Blues
The Philly soda tax will be interesting, because diet soda is not taxed. It is a steep tax. I’m betting people will pay it before they drink diet.
Also, how will that work at the self-serve soda fountain?
“That’s Diet Coke in your Big Gulp cup, right?
– Yes.
“Ok, no tax then.”
The finished product is not the right place to tax it. We tax alcohol at high-volume levels; sugar should be treated the same.
Artificial sweeteners aren’t that much better for you than white sugar. Higher taxes on sodas/HFCS juices/ and even highly processed snack food would go a long way. If we ever want single payer, we’re going to have to get used to subsidizing our own unhealthy habits when we do them, rather than later when they have made us sick.
Agreed on artificial sweeteners. If we’re going to tax soda, we should tax the sugar-free alternatives as well. But the studies that threw doubt on their safety were mostly funded by the sugar industry.
We should tax soda so its price is higher than bottled water. As it now stands, you can buy Coke or Pepsi for less than the bottled water those companies sell. Something wrong with that picture. Could it be that caffeine in cola is…habit-forming?
So .. Clinton’s press secretary says Sanders’ campaign needs to take a ‘time-out’??? .. What an authoritarian, belittling, paternalistic statement on behalf of the Clinton campaign.
Time-out is properly a parental tool for our kids when they are out-of-control, throwing a fit .. giving children time to calm down .. to learn that anger and temper tantrums are not how one get’s one way.
Calling for time-out has no place in a presidential campaign .. Politics is not a sporting event, either .. time-outs in sports are in their rule books .. not a team sport follower .. .. but football coaches call for time-out for their own side, not their opponent’s … to change losing strategy .. right?
I suggest that Clinton’s campaign manager call a time-out for their own team .. to re-think their strategy. 😉
“The finished product is not the right place to tax it. We tax alcohol at high-volume levels; sugar should be treated the same.”
How ’bout we start by ending sugar subsidies as a first step. Then let’s see what happens. Imagine we tax sugar/soda whatever and start consuming less. Less sugar means more price supports. We pay more, the sugar industry gets more. A little less corporatism and more consumerism in our policy making please.
There is no “sugar” in most sodas. Its high fructose corn syrup in the US, beet sugar in Europe but still cane sugar in the southern hemisphere (and Mexico).
Aquafina and Dasani are bottled and sold by Pepsi and Coke respectively. Deer Park, Poland Springs, and Zephrillis (or however you spell it) are bottled by Nestle, the largest food producer in the world.
@Dave: First, while your approach is the logical one, if we enact the tax first it wouldn’t be the first time government policies contradicted. I don’t mind either one as the first step.
The sugar subsidies are fundamentally a trade issue. Our protective tariff (take that, world trade!) adds 50 percent to US sugar prices, which is a factor in driving candy and sweet baked products manufacturers overseas (and it’s why your candy bar is shrinking and/or going up in price).
Consumers would never see the difference if that money, which now goes to the tiny group of sugar producers, went to the general fund instead. The difference amounts to about 8 or 9 cents a pound (it fluctuates because it’s a commodity market), but I rounded up to 10 cents to make this math easier.
At a consumption rate of 130 pounds of sugar/HFCS per American, such a tax would cost the average sugar consumer $13 a year. That generates roughly $4 billion annually — not a lot of money, especially considering the rates of other sin taxes, and just a fraction of what diabetes costs government health programs. As the health problems related to sugar become better-known, I would expect the “sinfulness” of the product will make it easier to tax it more heavily around the world.
Unfortunately, so far this is discussed only in terms of soda taxes, and even then only by localities. That’s just a recipe for developing a black market in soda.
The truth is that soft drinks are just one source of our “added sugar” binge in this country, and they shouldn’t be singled out for taxation. It’s a luxury item (nobody needs it to survive) that’s bad for your health, which impacts the cost of public health. That’s reason enough no matter how little revenue it raises.
@meatball: That’s a product of our corn price supports. For taxation purposes, sucrose and HFCS are treated equally.
From Bernie needing a time out to taxing sugar and high fructose corn syrup equally….
This is why Delaware is so special….