1.) I am at this point an outside observer since I don't vote anymore in US elections but it seems to me if those who classify themselves as "progressives" are looking for a presidential candidate to carry that mantle, not just on income inequality but on the whole range of issues that need to be addressed, Martin O'Malley would be a better choice than Bernie Sanders. For one, while O'Malley is not as passionate or flashy as Sanders, he speaks in a more logical, coherent, organized manner with more specifics and actual written policy proposals. Sanders talks a good game but O'Malley has accomplished a lot more. When he was governor of Maryland, he raised taxes on the wealthy while lowering the tax burden on the middle class and also those at the bottom, raised the minimum wage, implemented a number of gun control provisions, ended the death penalty, lessened the penalties for those caught with small amounts of marijuana, increased education spending by 37%, and secured marriage equality. He's not perfect - His tendency when Mayor of Baltimore to push the Broken Windows theory of policing which is a major cause of much of the police brutality and racial profiling we see today is a fair issue to bring up but Baltimore does have a much larger percentage of African American policemen on the beat compared to New York for example and his perceived weakness in a general election is also worth discussing (that may not matter the if the Republicans nominate Trump or a far rightist) but, of the candidates, currently in the race I think he would make the best foil to Clintonian neoliberalism. Nice to have a cerebral less visceral candidate - the Anti-Sanders maybe but definitely anti-Trump.
2.) More and more suspicious of Black Lives Matter. Not what they are protesting against. Police brutality that is racial in nature is a huge problem in the US as is overpolicing in general especially against those who live in poorer neighborhoods and the militarization of local police forces but BLM seems to have a hidden agenda. Whether it is disrupting Bernie Sanders rallies (the candidate with the best overall civil rights record) while not pushing Hillary Clinton even when she disrespects them to their face or engaging in pointless public feuds with Amnesty International and Anonymous two groups that were fighting police brutality long before BLM existed or remaining relatively quiet on two cities run by Democrats with horrible records regarding police violence against black people -Chicago and Los Angeles. The fact that George Soros has donated a lot of money to them through his Open Society Foundation is a bad sign. Soros is the Democrats version of the Koch Brothers ( although I do support his work on drug legalization and promoting the J Street group Palestine/Israel) and often tries to stir up trouble in countries that refuse to go along with his currency speculating bloodsucking ways (like the Ukraine for example). I've seen that firsthand in Malaysia where he has attempted to fund opposition parties, protests and generally cause trouble under the guise of "promoting democracy". And maybe more importantly, Soros has a long history of bankrolling and supporting the Clintons.
3.) A lot of articles on political websites the last week or so trying to predict how Donald Trump plays out. It's clear he is staying in the race and the assumption a lot of people had (including myself) that he would eventually say something so extreme that he would be forced to quit hasn't happened. His ridiculous statements don't seem to be hurting him with the primary voter - talk about teflon! But I am going to wait and see what happens once it is no longer him versus 16 other guys and instead him versus one or two others (Cruz is positioning himself very well at the moment for the later primaries and I still think Walker has a chance but not as much as I did before). At that point, I think he will no longer be the front runner. One on one will be a very different ballgame for Trump.
And also this is what I think of Ted Cruz....