Good Morning Charles,
I agree that 'Bernie Sanders Is Not the Same as Donald Trump". I like Sanders, the person more than Trump but I won't be voting for the former. However, I disagree with you regarding what the Economist wrote. Indeed, none of the Presidential candidates are "loony", "from another planet" etc. They each know exactly what they are doing. They have the cash, the staff and evidently, the votes to run for President of the USA. I believe the Economist nailed it.

BTW, I viewed William Shakespeare's First Folio from 1623 on display at Seattle Public Library (DT) yesterday. Highly recommended.

Sanders is kind of nutty. I think that many of his supporters would agree with that - not necessarily anything wrong with being kind of nutty. Doesn't make him the same, or even in the same general category, as Donald Trump.

@2

A Bernie supporter of color driving an old 57 Chevy pickup would be remarked upon for where it came out of, which would be your posterior, via pulling.

I love reading the morning news when you have written it. Thank you.

@3 The only thing nutty about Sanders is that we now think his very mainstream vintage FDR-Democrat and Eisenhower Republican platform is somehow Socialism.

Sanders isn't the nutty one. We are, for falling for the Republicans' multi-decade subversive shift of the political center so far over to the right and still calling it center.

Hey, Sanders might not win the nomination, but voting for him is our best chance of tempering the rightward shift of our political dialog. Meanwhile, it matters not one whit whether he or Clinton head the Democratic ticket in one respect: You absofuckinglutely NEED to vote Dem in November to keep the fascist/pluto/theocratic Republicans out of the White House, because that would be a horror show.

@6, raindrop, the problem isn't the SUV-bashing, which should be indulged as often as possible. It's the idea you're right about: that liberals would give a pass to another liberal inflicting just as much damage to the environment as the SUV driver. Are you a crunchy hippie driving an ancient truck? That's cool, man, you're authentic and signifying your resistance to dominant culture. But those people should be shamed just as much as Suburban Mom in an SUV.

Wait, when I clicked on the Pro Gun editorial it linked me to Trump Is Bes Choice endorsement from The Stranger Election Control Board - WTH?

And @8 is wrong. An old van driven by an urbanite probably goes 20 miles in a week while crunchy granola yoga mom in the suburbs clocks 200 miles a week, and destroys 5x the environment. I didn't get straight A's in Environmental Science classes from SCC for nothing, you footprint deniers!

@9: Yes, yes we should. More shame to the giant SUVs, of course, compared to the tiny gas-sippers. But we are all destroying the planet.
@11: But then the urbanite takes the old van to the mountains to hike every weekend, destroying all the environmental advantages of being an urbanite.
Touche.

@7 No argument on your first point, that was a WTF for me too.

However, this whole "10 years later than originally promised to voters" crap is utter horseshit. The original Sound Move timeline was unrealistic, ST acknowledged that fact publicly, and went back to the voters with a revised, more realistic proposal. The "voters" had the chance to rectify the situation at the time with full knowledge of the revised plan; they chose to approve the revised timeline and funding. The 'promise to the voters' should be judged based on the revised project plan that the voters approved.

@11 - Oh how i do love to hear how you can generalize on how people act. In any case your claim about how much someone probably drives is probably a bunch of shit

Is there any doubt that "Voters’ anger over inequality is one explanation for the rise of ... Bernie Sanders"? And is there any doubt that "Voters’ anger over inequality is one explanation for the rise of ... Donald Trump"? I don't think so. Then the quote goes on to say that Bernie and Trump are not alike. That's what "varied" means.

If Cruz is crazy, he's crazy like a fox.

If Trump is crazy, how could ya tell? But his crazy talk sure brings out the crazy in the body politic.

Sanders isn't crazy ... but his talking points are just as crazy as Trump's and Cruz's.

Economic isolationism is crazy talk, whether (a la Trump) you talk about building a trade wall or talk about unilaterally dictating the terms of multilateral trade.

Focus on the size of banks is crazy talk. If size was a factor at all in the Great Recession, it was factored in the third decimal place. Smaller institutions could - and did - stampede into the same unsound and abusive practices. The economy IS rigged - but Sanders doesn't show much insight.

Sanders claiming that if he won, the banks would toe his line? That's just a crazy as Cruz claiming he would abolish the IRS.

Make them pay their fair share of taxes? That takes tons of "heavy lifting" -- long-term detailed prep work, after massive turnover in the House and Senate. Pretending otherwise is crazy talk.

And Hillary being bought by the banks for speaking fees? Crazy talk. Hundreds of organizations - for-profit and not-for-profit, foreign and domestic - pony up six figures to hear what either Clinton thinks. Why? They're significant players on the world stage, and big draws for big meetings. Bernie doesn't get those invites ... and no wonder.

Sanders hasn't spelled out his Theory of Change. (Eight years past the 2008 "Theory of Change Election", neither has Obama.) He had decades to build a movement in Vermont, or the House, or the Senate ... and there's no sign of it. Promising a revolution without a Theory of Change? That's crazy talk, isn't it?

CM provides. Thank you Charles!

A T.S. Eliot poem-snippet, no less. (And one that doesn't suck).

Charles should do the Morning News every morning!

Another straw man from Charles. In no way does the Economist call Sanders a nut or lump him in with Trump. It pointed out -- rightly -- that people from diverse points of view are angry about income inequality. That's all.

While I agree entirely that high ridership on the light rail is a fantastic thing and that it helps keep cars off the road, it's misleading to state that "50,000 people on the train exactly means 50,000 people not in cars."

My husband and I took the light rail from Capitol Hill to work yesterday, him to the University, and me to Westlake. In the past, I have walked and he has driven - so we were 2 riders who would not have taken a car otherwise. In addition to walkers and bus-riders who switch to light rail, some carpoolers may also switch, in which case 2-5 light rail riders are replacing one car.

While making it faster and easier to get from place to place and giving many car users a great alternative is major progress for Seattle, overstating your case by saying that every light rail rider is one car off the road makes this journalism less credible.