"... "Today I say to Mr. Putin: We will not allow you to undermine American democracy or democracies around the world," Sanders said. "In fact, our goal is to not only strengthen American democracy, but to work in solidarity with supporters of democracy around the globe, including in Russia. In the struggle of democracy versus authoritarianism, we intend to win." ..."
"... And yet, Warren too seems in thrall to the idea that the world order is shaping up to be one in which the white hats (Western democracies) must face off against the black hats (Eurasian authoritarians). Warren says that the "combination of authoritarianism and corrupt capitalism" of Putin's Russia and Xi's China "is a fundamental threat to democracy, both here in the United States and around the world." ..."
"... The Cold War echoes here are as unmistakable as they are worrying. As Princeton and NYU professor emeritus Stephen F. Cohen has written, during the first Cold War, a "totalitarian school" of Soviet studies grew up around the idea "that a totalitarian 'quest for absolute power' at home always led to the 'dynamism' in Soviet behavior abroad was a fundamental axiom of cold-war Soviet studies and of American foreign policy." ..."
"... Cold warriors in both parties frequently mistook communism as a monolithic global movement. Neoprogressives are making this mistake today when they gloss over national context, history, and culture in favor of an all-encompassing theory that puts the "authoritarian" nature of the governments they are criticizing at the center of their diagnosis. ..."
"... By citing the threat to Western democracies posed by a global authoritarian axis, the neoprogressives are repeating the same mistake made by liberal interventionists and neoconservatives. They buy into the democratic peace theory, which holds without much evidence that a world order populated by democracies is likely to be a peaceful one because democracies allegedly don't fight wars against one another. ..."
"... George McGovern once observed that U.S. foreign policy "has been based on an obsession with an international Communist conspiracy that existed more in our minds than in reality." So too the current obsession with the global authoritarians. Communism wasn't a global monolith and neither is this. By portraying it as such, neoprogressives are midwifing bad policy. ..."
"... Some of these elected figures, like Trump and Farage, are symptoms of the failure of the neoliberal economic order. Others, like Orban and Kaczyński, are responses to anti-European Union sentiment and the migrant crises that resulted from the Western interventions in Libya and Syria. Many have more to do with conditions and histories specific to their own countries. Targeting them by painting them with the same broad brush is a mistake. ..."
"... "Of all the geopolitical transformations confronting the liberal democratic world these days," writes neoconservative-turned-Hillary Clinton surrogate Robert Kagan, "the one for which we are least prepared is the ideological and strategic resurgence of authoritarianism." Max Boot also finds cause for concern. Boot, a modern-day reincarnation (minus the pedigree and war record) of the hawkish Cold War-era columnist Joe Alsop, believes that "the rise of populist authoritarianism is perhaps the greatest threat we face as a world right now." ..."
You can hear echoes of progressive realism in the statements of leading progressive
lawmakers such as Senator Bernie Sanders and Congressman Ro Khanna. They have put ending
America's support for the Saudi war on Yemen near the top of the progressive foreign policy
agenda. On the stump, Sanders now singles out the military-industrial complex and the runaway
defense budget for criticism. He promises, among other things, that "we will not continue to
spend $700 billion a year on the military." These are welcome developments. Yet since November
of 2016, something else has emerged alongside the antiwar component of progressive foreign
policy that is not so welcome. Let's call it neoprogressive internationalism, or
neoprogressivism for short.
Trump's administration brought with it the Russia scandal. To attack the president and his
administration, critics revived Cold War attitudes. This is now part of the neoprogressive
foreign policy critique. It places an "authoritarian axis" at its center. Now countries ruled
by authoritarians, nationalists, and kleptocrats can and must be checked by an American-led
crusade to make the world safe for progressive values. The problem with this neoprogressive
narrative of a world divided between an authoritarian axis and the liberal West is what it will
lead to: ever spiraling defense budgets, more foreign adventures, more Cold Wars -- and hot
ones too.
Unfortunately, Senators Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have adopted elements of the
neoprogressive program. At a much remarked upon address at Westminster College in Fulton,
Missouri, the site of Churchill's 1946 address, Sanders put forth a vision of a Manichean
world. Instead of a world divided by the "Iron Curtain" of Soviet Communism, Sanders sees a
world divided between right-wing authoritarians and the forces of progress embodied by American
and Western European progressive values.
"Today I say to Mr. Putin: We will not allow you to undermine American democracy or
democracies around the world," Sanders said. "In fact, our goal is to not only strengthen
American democracy, but to work in solidarity with supporters of democracy around the globe,
including in Russia. In the struggle of democracy versus authoritarianism, we intend to
win."
A year later, Sanders warned that the battle between the West and an "authoritarian axis"
which is "committed to tearing down a post-Second World War global order that they see as
limiting their access to power and wealth." Sanders calls this "a global struggle of enormous
consequence. Nothing less than the future of the -- economically, socially and environmentally
-- is at stake."
Sanders's focus on this authoritarian axis is one that is shared with his intraparty rivals
at the Center for American Progress (a think-tank long funded by some of the least progressive
regimes on the planet), which he has pointedly criticized for smearing progressive Democrats
like himself. CAP issued a report last September about "the threat presented by opportunist
authoritarian regimes" which "urgently requires a rapid response."
The preoccupation with the authoritarian menace is one Sanders and CAP share with prominent
progressive activists who warn about the creeping influence of what some have cynically hyped
as an "authoritarian Internationale."
Cold War Calling
Senator Warren spelled out her foreign policy vision in a speech at American University in
November 2018. Admirably, she criticized Saudi Arabia's savage war on Yemen, the defense
industry, and neoliberal free trade agreements that have beggared the American working and
middle classes.
"Foreign policy," Warren has said, "should not be run exclusively by the Pentagon." In the
second round of the Democratic primary debates, Warren also called for a nuclear "no first use"
policy.
And yet, Warren too seems in thrall to the idea that the world order is shaping up to be
one in which the white hats (Western democracies) must face off against the black hats
(Eurasian authoritarians). Warren says that the "combination of authoritarianism and corrupt
capitalism" of Putin's Russia and Xi's China "is a fundamental threat to democracy, both here
in the United States and around the world."
Warren also sees a rising tide of corrupt authoritarians "from Hungary to Turkey, from the
Philippines to Brazil," where "wealthy elites work together to grow the state's power while the
state works to grow the wealth of those who remain loyal to the leader."
The concern with the emerging authoritarian tide has become a central concern of progressive
writers and thinkers. "Today, around the world," write progressive foreign policy activists
Kate Kinzer and Stephen Miles, "growing authoritarianism and hate are fueled by oligarchies
preying on economic, gender, and racial inequality."
Daniel Nexon, a progressive scholar of international relations, believes that "progressives
must recognize that we are in a moment of fundamental crisis, featuring coordination among
right-wing movements throughout the West and with the Russian government as a sponsor and
supporter."
Likewise, The Nation 's Jeet Heer lays the blame for the rise of global
authoritarianism at the feet of Vladimir Putin, who "seems to be pushing for an international
alt-right, an informal alliance of right-wing parties held together by a shared
xenophobia."
Blithely waving away concerns over sparking a new and more dangerous Cold War between the
world's two nuclear superpowers, Heer advises that "the dovish left shouldn't let Cold War
nightmares prevent them [from] speaking out about it." He concludes: "Leftists have to be ready
to battle [Putinism] in all its forms, at home and abroad."
The Cold War echoes here are as unmistakable as they are worrying. As Princeton and NYU
professor emeritus Stephen F. Cohen has written, during the first Cold War, a "totalitarian
school" of Soviet studies grew up around the idea "that a totalitarian 'quest for absolute
power' at home always led to the 'dynamism' in Soviet behavior abroad was a fundamental axiom
of cold-war Soviet studies and of American foreign policy."
Likewise, we are seeing the emergence of an "authoritarian school" which posits that the
internal political dynamics of regimes such as Putin's cause them, ineffably, to follow
revanchist, expansionist foreign policies.
Cold warriors in both parties frequently mistook communism as a monolithic global
movement. Neoprogressives are making this mistake today when they gloss over national context,
history, and culture in favor of an all-encompassing theory that puts the "authoritarian"
nature of the governments they are criticizing at the center of their diagnosis.
By citing the threat to Western democracies posed by a global authoritarian axis, the
neoprogressives are repeating the same mistake made by liberal interventionists and
neoconservatives. They buy into the democratic peace theory, which holds without much evidence
that a world order populated by democracies is likely to be a peaceful one because democracies
allegedly don't fight wars against one another.
Yet as Richard Sakwa, a British scholar of Russia and Eastern Europe, writes, "it is often
assumed that Russia is critical of the West because of its authoritarian character, but it
cannot be taken for granted that a change of regime would automatically make the country align
with the West."
George McGovern once observed that U.S. foreign policy "has been based on an obsession
with an international Communist conspiracy that existed more in our minds than in reality." So
too the current obsession with the global authoritarians. Communism wasn't a global monolith
and neither is this. By portraying it as such, neoprogressives are midwifing bad
policy.
True, some of the economic trends voters in Europe and South America are reacting to are
global, but a diagnosis that links together the rise of Putin and Xi, the elections of Trump in
the U.S., Bolsonaro in Brazil, Orban in Hungary, and Kaczyński in Poland with the
right-wing insurgency movements of the Le Pens in France and Farage in the UK makes little
sense.
Some of these elected figures, like Trump and Farage, are symptoms of the failure of the
neoliberal economic order. Others, like Orban and Kaczyński, are responses to
anti-European Union sentiment and the migrant crises that resulted from the Western
interventions in Libya and Syria. Many have more to do with conditions and histories specific
to their own countries. Targeting them by painting them with the same broad brush is a
mistake.
Echoes of Neoconservatism
The progressive foreign policy organization Win Without War includes among its 10 foreign
policy goals "ending economic, racial and gender inequality around the world." The U.S.,
according to WWW, "must safeguard universal human rights to dignity, equality, migration and
refuge."
Is it a noble sentiment? Sure. But it's every bit as unrealistic as the crusade envisioned
by George W. Bush in his second inaugural address, in which he declared, "The survival of
liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best
hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."
We know full well where appeals to "universal values" have taken us in the past. Such
appeals are not reliable guides for progressives if they seek to reverse the tide of unchecked
American intervention abroad. But maybe we should consider whether it's a policy of realism and
restraint that they actually seek. Some progressive thinkers are at least honest enough
to admit as much that it is not. Nexon admits that "abandoning the infrastructure of American
international influence because of its many minuses and abuses will hamstring progressives for
decades to come." In other words, America's hegemonic ambitions aren't in and of themselves
objectionable or self-defeating, as long as we achieve our kind of hegemony. Progressive
values crusades bear more than a passing resemblance to the neoconservative crusades to remake
the world in the American self-image.
"Of all the geopolitical transformations confronting the liberal democratic world these
days," writes neoconservative-turned-Hillary Clinton surrogate Robert Kagan, "the one for which
we are least prepared is the ideological and strategic resurgence of authoritarianism." Max
Boot also finds cause for concern. Boot, a modern-day reincarnation (minus the pedigree and war
record) of the hawkish Cold War-era columnist Joe Alsop, believes that "the rise of populist
authoritarianism is perhaps the greatest threat we face as a world right now."
Neoprogressivism, like neoconservatism, risks catering to the U.S. establishment's worst
impulses by playing on a belief in American exceptionalism to embark upon yet another global
crusade. This raises some questions, including whether a neoprogressive approach to the crises
in Ukraine, Syria, or Libya would be substantively different from the liberal interventionist
approach of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton. Does a neoprogressive foreign policy
organized around the concept of an "authoritarian axis" adequately address the concerns of
voters in the American heartland who disproportionately suffer from the consequences of our
wars and neoliberal economic policies? It was these voters, after all, who won the election for
Trump.
Donald Trump's failure to keep his campaign promise to bring the forever wars to a close
while fashioning a new foreign policy oriented around core U.S. national security interests
provides Democrats with an opportunity. By repeatedly intervening in Syria, keeping troops in
Afghanistan, kowtowing to the Israelis and Saudis, ratcheting up tensions with Venezuela, Iran,
Russia, and China, Trump has ceded the anti-interventionist ground he occupied when he ran for
office. He can no longer claim the mantle of restraint, a position that found support among
six-in-ten Americans in 2016.
Yet with the exception of Tulsi Gabbard, for the most part the Democratic field is offering
voters a foreign policy that amounts to "Trump minus belligerence." A truly progressive foreign
policy must put questions of war and peace front and center. Addressing America's post 9/11
failures, military overextension, grotesquely bloated defense budget, and the ingrained
militarism of our political-media establishment are the proper concerns of a progressive U.S.
foreign policy.
But it is one that would place the welfare of our own citizens above all. As such, what is
urgently required is the long-delayed realization of a peace dividend. The post-Cold War peace
dividend that was envisioned in the early 1990s never materialized. Clinton's secretary of
defense Les Aspin strangled the peace dividend in its crib by keeping the U.S. military on a
footing that would allow it to fight and win two regional wars simultaneously. Unipolar
fantasies of "full spectrum dominance" would come later in the decade.
One might have reasonably expected an effort by the Obama administration to realize a
post-bin Laden peace dividend, but the forever wars dragged on and on. In a New Yorker profile
from earlier this year, Sanders asked the right question: "Do we really need to spend more than
the next ten nations combined on the military, when our infrastructure is collapsing and kids
can't afford to go to college?"
The answer is obvious. And yet, how likely is it that progressives will be able realize
their vision of a more just, more equal American society if we have to mobilize to face a
global authoritarian axis led by Russia and China?
FDR's Good Neighbor Policy
The unipolar world of the first post-Cold War decade is well behind us now. As the world
becomes more and more multipolar, powers like China, Russia, Iran, India, and the U.S. will
find increasing occasion to clash. A peaceful multipolar world requires stability. And
stability requires balance.
In the absence of stability, none of the goods progressives see as desirable can take root.
This world order would put a premium on stability and security rather than any specific set of
values. An ethical, progressive foreign policy is one which understands that great powers have
security interests of their own. "Spheres of influence" are not 19th century anachronisms, but
essential to regional security: in Europe, the Western Hemisphere and elsewhere.
It is a policy that would reject crusades to spread American values the world over. "The
greatest thing America can do for the rest of the world," George Kennan once observed, "is to
make a success of what it is doing here on this continent and to bring itself to a point where
its own internal life is one of harmony, stability and self-assurance."
Progressive realism doesn't call for global crusades that seek to conquer the hearts and
minds of others. It is not bound up in the hoary self-mythology of American Exceptionalism. It
is boring. It puts a premium on the value of human life. It foreswears doing harm so that good
may come. It is not a clarion call in the manner of John F. Kennedy who pledged to "to pay any
price, bear any burden." It does not lend itself to the cheap moralizing of celebrity
presidential speechwriters. In ordinary language, a summation of such a policy would go
something like: "we will bear a reasonable price as long as identifiable U.S. security
interests are at stake."
A policy that seeks to wind down the global war on terror, slash the defense budget, and
shrink our global footprint won't inspire. It will, however, save lives. Such a policy has its
roots in Franklin Delano Roosevelt's first inaugural address. "In the field of World policy,"
said Roosevelt, "I would dedicate this nation to the policy of the good neighbor, the neighbor
who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others, the
neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a
World of neighbors."
What came to be known as the "Good Neighbor" policy was further explicated by FDR's
Secretary of State Cordell Hull at the Montevideo Conference in 1933, when he stated that "No
country has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another." Historian
David C. Hendrickson sees this as an example of FDR's principles of "liberal pluralism," which
included "respect for the integrity and importance of other states" and "non-intervention in
the domestic affairs of neighboring states."
These ought to serve as the foundations on which to build a truly progressive foreign
policy. They represent a return to the best traditions of the Democratic Party and would likely
resonate with those very same blocs of voters that made up the New Deal coalition that the
neoliberal iteration of the Democratic Party has largely shunned but will sorely need in order
to unseat Trump. And yet, proponents of a neoprogressive foreign policy seem intent on running
away from a popular policy of realism and restraint on which Trump has failed to deliver.
James W. Carden is contributing writer for foreign affairs at The Nation and a
member of the Board of the Simone Weil Center for Political Philosophy.
Alligator Ed
on Wed, 12/25/2019 - 11:02pm After bravely contesting a nomination she knows she cannot
win, Tulsi Gabbard has and continues to exhibit a tenacious adherence to achievement of
purpose. What is that purpose? I believe it is evident if you only let your eyes see and your
ears hear. Listen to what she says. Looks at what she does.
What this does is obvious. However, please forgive me if I proceed to explain the meaning.
People see what apparently is her home milieu. I've been to Filipino homes for dinner as many
of my nurse friends were Filipino. Tulsi is so human. Despite Hindu belief, she is respectful
to the presence and perhaps the essence of Jesus, and does not sound pandering or
hypocritical.
Getting to know Tulsi at the beginning of her hoped-for (by me) political ascendancy. Get in
on almost the ground floor of what will become an extremely powerful force in future American
life.
Why? What's the hurry?
The more support and the earlier Tulsi receives it propel the campaign. That's what momentum
means: a self-generating growing strength.
One doesn't have to be a Tulsi supporter to hopefully receive some ideas which may not have
occurred to you. This essay does not concern any specific Gabbard policy. What I write here is
what I perceive of her character and thus her selected path. Mind-reading, perhaps. Arm-chair
speculation, possibly.
Tulsi has completed phase 2A in her career. The little that I know of her early life,
especially politically (such as how she voted in HI state legislature) limits a deep
understanding which such knowledge would provide. As the tree is bent, etc.
Phase 1A: youth, formative years, military
Phase 1B: state legislature
Phase 1C: Congress
Phase 2B and possibly subsequent: interim between Congress and Presidential campaigning with
realistic chance of victory.
We are in Phase 2B. Tulsi, as I wrote in another essay, is letting the tainted shroud of
Democrat corruption fall off her shoulders without any effort of her own. The Democrat party is
eating itself alive. It is all things to all people at once. That is a philosophy incapable of
satisfaction.
Omni Democraticorundum in tres partes est (pardon the reference to the opening of Caesar's
Gallic Wars, with liberal substitution by me).
The Dems trifurcate and the division will be neither pleasant nor reconcilable. Tribalism
will be reborn after Trump crushes whomever in 2020.
Tribe one: urban/techno/überkinden.
Tribe two: leftward bound to a place where no politician has ever ventured. Not socialism.
Not Communism. We could call it Fantasy Land, although I fear Disney owns that name.
Tribe three: progressive realists. By using such positive wording, you will correctly
suspect my bias as to which Tribe I belong to.
Once again, policy will not be discussed. Only strategy and reality. Can't have good
strategy without a good grasp of reality. This is why Establidems are bereft of thematic
variability. For the past 3.3 years, they have been singing from a hymn book containing but one
song. You know the title. Orange Man Bad. Yeah, that's it. If they don't like that
title, we establidems have another song for ya. It's called Orange Man Bad. Like that
one, huh? Wazzat, ya didn't like the song the first time. Hey, we thought the song would grown
on you.
Them Dems, noses up, can't see the sidewalk. Oops. Stepped in something there, huh? Oh, yeah
like the Impeachment.
But I digress: The latter part of Phase 2B is not clear. Tulsi will continue to accept small
donor contributions, even after not obtaining the nomination next year. Public appearances will
be important but should be low key with little press attention. Press attention is something
however that won't be available when most desirable. What else Tulsi will do may be to form a
nucleus of like-minded activists, thinkers, and other supporters to promote an agenda for a
more liberal, tolerant society.
If Sanders' candidacy continues to be taken seriously, he will eventually be subjected to
the scrutiny that Warren and Biden have faced for prolonged stretches. That includes an
examination of his electability. "That conversation has never worked well for anyone,"
Pfeiffer said.
What a bunch of hypocritical horseshit. Bernie not getting scrutiny? In 2016, when not
being derided for this, that or the other, Bernie was always scrutinized. There are only two
things voters have learned since the DNC 2016 convention:
1. Bernie had a heart attack
2. Bernie supported H. Rodent Clinton in the general election.
. . . and to the much noted "Bernie blackout" up until now this time around.
It's gotten to the point given the polls and the first primary in being held in about a
month where TPTB in conjunction with the MSM can no longer afford to turn a blind eye towards
Bernie. It's gonna get really nasty.
The most recent tropes on the twitters, probably in response to Brock talking point memos,
have been pushing Bernie as an anti-Semite and him purportedly triggering rape survivors. Of
course it's horsehit but it's the propagandistic method of the Big Lie.
I'm genuinely curious. How will you react if Tulsi endorses the Dem nominee and it ain't
Bernie? Bernie's endorsement of she-who-shall-not-be-named in 2016 seems to have pretty much
completely soured him to you. Endorsing Biden better? Or at least acceptable? Not for me.
Bernie doing so in 2016 I could understand and forgive. But this is my last go round absent a
Bernie miracle.
If Sanders' candidacy continues to be taken seriously, he will eventually be
subjected to the scrutiny that Warren and Biden have faced for prolonged stretches.
That includes an examination of his electability. "That conversation has never worked
well for anyone," Pfeiffer said.
What a bunch of hypocritical horseshit. Bernie not getting scrutiny? In 2016, when not
being derided for this, that or the other, Bernie was always scrutinized. There are only
two things voters have learned since the DNC 2016 convention:
1. Bernie had a heart attack
2. Bernie supported H. Rodent Clinton in the general election.
@Wally
She might back Yang--who won't get nominated. But I hope she doesn't do anything more than a
neutral statement, somewhat to the effect that "We must defeat Donald Trump", then not
campaign otherwise.
. . . and to the much noted "Bernie blackout" up until now this time around.
It's gotten to the point given the polls and the first primary in being held in about
a month where TPTB in conjunction with the MSM can no longer afford to turn a blind eye
towards Bernie. It's gonna get really nasty.
The most recent tropes on the twitters, probably in response to Brock talking point
memos, have been pushing Bernie as an anti-Semite and him purportedly triggering rape
survivors. Of course it's horsehit but it's the propagandistic method of the Big Lie.
I'm genuinely curious. How will you react if Tulsi endorses the Dem nominee and it
ain't Bernie? Bernie's endorsement of she-who-shall-not-be-named in 2016 seems to have
pretty much completely soured him to you. Endorsing Biden better? Or at least acceptable?
Not for me. Bernie doing so in 2016 I could understand and forgive. But this is my last
go round absent a Bernie miracle.
. . . to campaign in support of their candidacies.
Maybe Biden will accept her support. I've still never been able to figure why she never
and probably still won't take any shots at his warmongering and otherwise cruddy record
regarding domestic affairs.
#2.1.1.1.1 She might
back Yang--who won't get nominated. But I hope she doesn't do anything more than a
neutral statement, somewhat to the effect that "We must defeat Donald Trump", then not
campaign otherwise.
. . . to campaign in support of their candidacies.
Maybe Biden will accept her support. I've still never been able to figure why she
never and probably still won't take any shots at his warmongering and otherwise cruddy
record regarding domestic affairs.
@Alligator
Ed@Alligator
Ed be unfamiliar with the neutral position. Though I wonder if she would feel
comfortable dipping into that well again given how much grief she got the last time.
Of course, if she again puts it in Neutral, and doesn't support the D nominee (anyone but
Bloomberg), she will be finished as a Dem pol. She might as well go off and start a Neutral
Party.
#2.1.1.1.1 She might
back Yang--who won't get nominated. But I hope she doesn't do anything more than a
neutral statement, somewhat to the effect that "We must defeat Donald Trump", then not
campaign otherwise.
@wokkamile
Her dismissal papers will be submitted to her after she is barred entry into the DNC
convention, regardless of how many delegates she may have won.
#2.1.1.1.1.1
#2.1.1.1.1.1 be unfamiliar with the neutral position. Though I wonder if she would
feel comfortable dipping into that well again given how much grief she got the last
time.
Of course, if she again puts it in Neutral, and doesn't support the D nominee (anyone
but Bloomberg), she will be finished as a Dem pol. She might as well go off and start a
Neutral Party.
Don't forget that 15% state threshold for eligibility to be awarded delegates.
#2.1.1.1.1.1.2 Her
dismissal papers will be submitted to her after she is barred entry into the DNC
convention, regardless of how many delegates she may have won.
I will be surprised if Tulsi gets so much as one delegate.
More than a few knowledgeable people think he has a very good shot of winning California.
I am less optimistic about NYS but I think he will do well enough to get a good number of
delegates especially if he does well in the earlier primaries (NYS comes April 28).
I don't feel solidly about making any kind of predictions at this point but given the
nature of the Democratic Party, I don't see it as falling into oblivion anytime soon or in
our lifetimes.
As far as Bernie goes, I am not optimistic but I still have some hope. I still fervantly
believe that his candidacy is the best chance we will have in our lifetimes of bringing about
any substantial change -- and if he and his critical mass of supporters can't pull it off
this time around, we're all phluckled big time, even alligators, in terms of combating
climate change and putting a kabosh on endless wars. I wish you good future luck with Tulsi
though. I just don't see it. But I've been wrong on more than one occasion in my life.
NEW POLL: @BernieSanders is uniting the Democratic Party -- he's not only gaining momentum
overall, the new Morning Consult post-debate poll shows that out of all the candidates, he is
the second choice of the largest percentage of BOTH Biden supporters AND Warren
supporters
"... My paranoid fear is that Pelosi or McConnell might try to time the proceedings so as to take Bernie and Warren off the campaign trail at a crucial moment, helping Biden. ..."
"... Amfortas the hippie , December 21, 2019 at 5:40 pm ..."
"... that, and sucking the air out of the room for the primaries. When's super tuesday, again? surely they can engineer it so that their "high drama" coincides. ..."
"... "let's talk about universal material benefits" " ok, Vlad trying to distract us from whats really important " ..."
"... Hepativore , December 21, 2019 at 6:49 pm ..."
"... Happy winter Solstice, everyone! ..."
"... Anyway, the funny thing is, that Biden himself has said that he only wants to be a one-term president. It makes me wonder if he knows that he has neither the energy or presence of mind to hold the office, and that he is merely doing so because of establishment pressure to stop Sanders at all costs. ..."
Please bone up on US procedure. It's not good to have you confuse readers.
The Senate can't do anything until the House passes a motion referring the impeachment to
the Senate. The House ALSO needs to designate managers as part of that process.
Michael
Tracey argued that it's only Senate rules that require that the House formally transmit
the impeachment verdict. The Constitution says that the Senate has to try an impeached
president, and the Constitution trumps the Senate's rules. Logically, then, the Senate could
just modify its rules to try the president.
But the whole delay is weird and impeachment has only been done twice before, so not a lot
of precedent.
My paranoid fear is that Pelosi or McConnell might try to time the proceedings so as
to take Bernie and Warren off the campaign trail at a crucial moment, helping Biden.
that, and sucking the air out of the room for the primaries. When's super tuesday,
again? surely they can engineer it so that their "high drama" coincides.
"let's talk about universal material benefits" " ok, Vlad trying to distract us from
whats really important "
Anyway, the funny thing is, that Biden himself has said that he only wants to be a
one-term president. It makes me wonder if he knows that he has neither the energy or presence
of mind to hold the office, and that he is merely doing so because of establishment pressure
to stop Sanders at all costs. Plus, if the Democrats get the brokered convention they
are after, he can bow out, satisfied that he helped the DNC protect the donor class from the
Sanders threat.
"... Disappointing to see him peddling that crap to progressives, and as Caitlin Johnstone writes, it's a big deal; pushing that narrative threatens our existence. ..."
Speaking of Bernie, he's gone full Maddow on Russia many times in the past. Disappointing to
see him peddling that crap to progressives, and as Caitlin Johnstone writes, it's a big deal;
pushing that narrative threatens our existence.
If it were him against Trump next fall maybe
I cast my vote for him, then leave the polling place feeling like I'd stepped in dog crap.
BULLSH!AT. U don't compromise with neocunts. Obama, 3 NEW WARS. TRUMP ZERO. U tell me who are the warmongers. BERNIE
VOTED FOR MULTIPLE HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTIONS UNDER HALF BLACK 44. Do you find the old man physically attractive? Why are you
so obsessed with a wannabe dictator?
Although Corbyn and Sanders are similar figures in many respects -- and have an avowed
affinity for each other's projects -- they are also very different politicians, both
ideologically and personally. Sanders's political vision is
less radical than Corbyn's, particularly on foreign policy. The Vermont senator is a
supporter of NATO and a liberal Zionist. Corbyn has called for the abolition of NATO, and
evinced more sympathy for anti-Zionism. Sanders supported America's bombing of Kosovo in 1999,
Corbyn opposed it. Meanwhile, at least until
recently , Corbyn's economic views were markedly more socialist than Sanders's.
But the most relevant distinctions are personal. Before becoming leader of the Labour Party,
Corbyn had represented a roughly 70,000-person district in London, which has voted for Labour
candidates in every election since 1937. Before his present campaign, meanwhile, Sanders had
not only won statewide elections in a largely rural constituency that voted for Ronald Reagan
twice, but outperformed the state's partisan lean while doing so. Which is to say, Sanders has
demonstrated a capacity to win votes outside of historically left-wing urban areas, while
Corbyn never did.
One fundamental challenge facing contemporary socialists (and social democrats) has been the
decline of class-based voting throughout much of the developed world. The American
Prospect 's Harold Meyerson offers this excellent summary of the predicament:
... ... ...
Underlying all three of these fragmentations is the de-linking of class interests: As
globalization and financialization (the latter particularly pronounced in the U.K. and U.S.)
have undermined the egalitarian achievements of the postwar era, parties of the center-left
have been stretched ideologically, often to the breaking point. The '90s saw Britain's New
Labour under Tony Blair, America's Democrats under Bill Clinton, and Germany's Social
Democrats under Gerhard Schröder all move to globalize and deregulate their economies,
to the benefit of those nations' banking and corporate sectors and the detriment of their
working-class voters. The collapse of 2008 and the hugely unequal recovery that followed has
led to battles between the center-left and a more militant left in virtually every
industrialized nation.
Socialists in the U.S. and U.K. contend that
realigning the bulk of white workers with the left is a precondition for arresting
neoliberal capitalism's descent into neo-feudalism (if not
eco-fascism ): Only a unified, militant working-class can muster the objective political
and economic strength necessary to bring our oligarchic overlords to heel.
When the Impeachment gets finally voted on in the Senate, what will Sanders do? He will do
best by being true to his own self, regardless of what votes he loses whichever way he
votes.
But I hope that being true to himself involves voting NOT to remove. Because depending on
how bitter the Democratic Convention is, a Nominee Sanders may get few or zero Clintonite
Democratic votes by definition, regardless of what he does. Whereas if he votes TO remove, he
will lose any votes, or even respectful hearing, that he might have had otherwise among the
deplorables.
Sanders (D)(1): "Don't Think Sanders Can Win? You Don't Understand His Campaign"
[Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, New York
Times ]. "Mr. Sanders has reached the typically invisible, downwardly mobile working class
with his language of "class warfare." He has tapped into the anger and bitterness coursing
through the lives of regular people who have found it increasingly impossible to make ends meet
in this grossly unequal society . Since Mr. Trump's election, "class," when it's discussed at
all, has been invoked for its hazy power to chart Mr. Trump's rise and potential fall. Recall
the endless analyses of poor and working-class white voters shortly after his election and the
few examinations of poor and working-class people of color. But the Sanders campaign has become
a powerful platform to amplify the experiences of this multiracial contingent. Under normal
circumstances, the multiracial working class is invisible .
This has meant its support for Mr. Sanders's candidacy has been hard to register in the
mainstream coverage of the Democratic race. But these voters are crucial to understanding the
resilience of the Sanders campaign, which has been fueled by small dollar donations from more
than one million people, a feat none of his opponents has matched. Remarkably, he also has at
least 130,000 recurring donors, some of whom make monthly contributions." • Unsurprising,
when you think about it. Of course the working class is multiracial. Far more so than
the Democrat based in the 10%.
Sanders (D)(2): "Defense Industry Gives More To Bernie Than Any 2020 Candidate" [
The American Conservative ]. "Despite his frequent votes against defense bills, Senator
Bernie Sanders has collected more presidential campaign contributions from defense industry
sources than any other candidate, including Donald Trump. That's according to data on 2020
funding at the OpenSecrets.org
website, which is sponsored by the Center for Responsive Politics . As of early December,
Sanders had out-collected Trump $172,803 to $148,218 in defense industry contributions, a
difference of 17 percent. And his margin had been growing in October and November . Sanders
also out-collected all of his Democratic rivals . The implications for the relationship of
defense industry contributors to Sanders and the others may, or may not, be everything you
might assume. Defense industry PACs, and the corrupting influence they have over compliant
politicians, are not the source of this money . Instead, it all comes from what the
OpenSecrets.org data show as "Individuals" From OpenSecrets.org, it appears that Sanders has
thousands of individual contributions from people who identified affiliations with Boeing and
Lockheed Martin, though no donations appear to amount to the legal maximum, and most seem to be
from engineers, technicians, and other non-management types." • Nevertheless, industry
influence is industry influence, and the writer brings up, as they ought, the basing of the
F-35 in Vermont.
Sanders (D)(3): "Bernie Sanders is breaking barriers with young Latinos. Now he just needs
them to vote" [
CNN ]. "Recent polling suggests that Sanders has a clear advantage with young Latino
voters, who could, with even a modest growth in turnout, fundamentally alter the composition --
racially and ideologically -- of the Democratic electorate." • This is so hilarious. For
years , liberal Democrats have waited for demographics to do their work for them. Now
Latinx voters have arrived -- and Sanders is hijacking them with a policy-based appeal. And he
doesn't need to carry hot sauce in his purse or call himself mi abuelo !
Sanders (D)(4): "Grandpa Slacks Are The New Dad Jeans" [
Elle ]. "When you think of style icons, Bernie Sanders is probably low on your list. I'm
not referencing campaign trail Bernie, with his
hypebeast parka and
sleek navy suit . I'm all about Bernie off-duty: the one who visits Ariana Grande concerts
or walks around in stained button downs. His style should be dissected with the same fervor we
approach female politicians. Feel the Bern, because at a second glance, his style is, looks at
notes, cool . Canceling student debt is nice and all, but let's praise his presidential
crusade for the next it-pant: grandpa slacks." • This here is what they call earned media.
Next week: Hair styles.
UPDATE Sanders (D)(5): "The Trailer: What Nevada could mean for Bernie Sanders" [
WaPo ]. On the Weigel flight jacket incident (
yesterday ): "It was a warm moment, it led local news, and it grew organically from the
Sanders strategy to win Nevada. The senator from Vermont has poured money into organizing, just
like in other early states, with the campaign planning to hire its 100th Nevada staffer by this
weekend. And just like in other early states, Sanders focuses his speeches on voters with
something to lose . more than Iowa or New Hampshire, it could prove whether the Sanders
strategy is working at scale, ready to be expanded into the next 47 states." • Nevada is
Harry Reid's patch, and Reid supports Warren. The Nevada press, aided by the local Democrat
establishment, faked the chair-throwing incident at the state Democrat convention. And the
Culinary Workers have concerns about #MedicareForAll vs. their union plans. So Nevada is no
cakewalk for Sanders, despite his strong Latinx support.
Warren (D)(1): "ELIZABETH WARREN" [ Indivisible ]. "Elizabeth Warren is the
top-scoring candidate on the scorecard because she's got both a bold progressive vision for our
country and the day-one democracy agenda we need to make that vision a reality. She also earns
the top score for building grassroots power." • Oh.
"... "I'm opposed to conditioning the aid, and I would fight it no matter what," Engel told Al-Monitor. "The Democratic Party has traditionally been a pro-Israel party, and I see no reason for that to change now. If there are people who are Democrats who don't feel that way, then I don't think they should be elected president of the United States." ..."
"... Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., is the most vocal proponent of conditioning Israeli military aid in the presidential race -- going even further left than J Street and all his primary opponents. At J Street's conference in October he said that some of the $3.8 billion in annual assistance "should go right now to humanitarian aid in Gaza." ..."
"... J Street has set any formal Israeli annexation of the West Bank as its red line for placing conditions on Israeli military aid. But it also supports the $38 billion memorandum of understanding. ..."
"... Shortly after the vote, Sanders campaign co-chair Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., as well as Reps. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., and Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., asked colleagues to sign a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asking him to clarify whether Israel has used US military equipment while demolishing Palestinian homes in the West Bank. ..."
"... The letter, seen by Al-Monitor, notes that the Arms Export Control Act "narrowly conditions the use of transferred US-origin defense articles" and requires the president to inform Congress if the equipment is used for unauthorized purposes ..."
The Jews try to run US policy ..but lately the Dem base (and part of the party) has become
more pro Palestine.
Democratic (Jewish) lawmakers reckon with 2020 rhetoric on Israel aid
December 6, 2019
Presidential candidates who want to place conditions on Israeli military aid have prompted
pro-Israel House Democrats to go on the offensive.
REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
It's becoming harder and harder for pro-Israel Democrats on
Capitol Hill to ignore the increasingly critical voices of the US ally within their party and
the presidential race.
House Democratic leaders -- who happen to be some of the staunchest Israel supporters on
Capitol Hill -- this week added language supportive of the annual $3.8 billion military aid
package to Israel to a symbolic resolution that endorses a two-state solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The stalled resolution passed 226-188, largely along party lines, today. But pro-Israel
Democrats only came on board after House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel,
D-N.Y., added their new language to the bill. The new provision is a response to the fact
that several presidential candidates have come out of the woodwork in recent months with
calls to place conditions on the largest recipient of US military aid.
"I'm opposed to conditioning the aid, and I would fight it no matter what," Engel
told Al-Monitor. "The Democratic Party has traditionally been a pro-Israel party, and I see
no reason for that to change now. If there are people who are Democrats who don't feel that
way, then I don't think they should be elected president of the United
States."
When Engel's committee first advanced the resolution in July, Democratic leaders opted not
to put it on the floor, even as they passed another nonbinding resolution condemning the
pro-Palestinian boycott, divestment and sanctions movement 398-17, which was backed by the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
That changed last month after the Trump administration repealed a decades-old legal
opinion maintaining that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international
law.
"There are those on the far-left side of the Democratic Party -- and some of the
presidential candidates -- who are pushing for new conditions on aid, especially in their
interactions with Gaza, which is run by Hamas -- a terrorist organization," Gottheimer told
Al-Monitor.
An October poll from the liberal Center for American Progress found that 56% of
American voters, including 71% of Democrats, oppose "unconditional financial and military
assistance to Israel if the Israeli government continues to violate American policy on
settlement expansion or West Bank annexation."
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., is the most vocal proponent of conditioning Israeli
military aid in the presidential race -- going even further left than J Street and
all his primary opponents. At J Street's conference in October he said that some of the $3.8
billion in annual assistance "should go right now to humanitarian aid in Gaza."
J Street has set any formal Israeli annexation of the West Bank as its red line for
placing conditions on Israeli military aid. But it also supports the $38 billion memorandum
of understanding.
Presidential hopefuls Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South
Bend, Indiana, have jumped on board with J Street's position. However, the current
front-runner, former Vice President Joe Biden, has flatly ruled out conditioning the aid.
Notably, J Street did not oppose the effort to amend the Lowenthal resolution with the
military aid language. That said, progressive Democrats do not necessarily view that
provision as incompatible with calls to attach strings to that assistance. Congressional
Progressive Caucus co-chair Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., called the Engel language
"meaningless."
"It's just restating what current practice or current law is," Pocan told Al-Monitor. "We
don't really see it as affecting the bill one way or the other. At any time if we feel like
we're better off putting conditions on money and holding back money, Congress could always do
that with any country through the normal process."
Shortly after the vote, Sanders campaign co-chair Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., as well as
Reps. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., and Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., asked colleagues to sign a letter to
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asking him to clarify whether Israel has used US military
equipment while demolishing Palestinian homes in the West Bank.
The letter, seen by Al-Monitor, notes that the Arms Export Control Act "narrowly
conditions the use of transferred US-origin defense articles" and requires the president to
inform Congress if the equipment is used for unauthorized purposes
"... "Bernie Sanders unveils plan to boost broadband access, break up internet and cable titans" [ CNBC ]. "[T]he Vermont senator and Democratic presidential candidate calls to treat internet like a public utility. His campaign argues that the internet should not be a "price gouging profit machine" for companies such as Comcast, AT&T and Verizon ..."
"... Several of Sanders' top Democratic competitors have called to pile more money into high-speed internet development. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg released plans to invest at least $80 billion into rural broadband, while former Vice President Joe Biden has proposed putting $20 billion into expanding rural internet access." ..."
"Bernie Sanders unveils plan to boost broadband access, break up internet and cable
titans" [
CNBC ]. "[T]he Vermont senator and Democratic presidential candidate calls to treat
internet like a public utility. His campaign argues that the internet should not be a "price
gouging profit machine" for companies such as Comcast, AT&T and Verizon
Several of Sanders' top Democratic competitors have called to pile more money into
high-speed internet development. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor
Pete Buttigieg released plans to invest at least $80 billion into rural broadband, while former
Vice President Joe Biden has proposed putting $20 billion into expanding rural internet
access." • Here is a map of broadband in
Iowa .
"Sarsour Saga Shows Sanders's Continued Struggles With Jewish Voters"
[ Forward
].
" the latest example of Sanders, the most successful Jewish presidential candidate in
American history, drawing anger from Jewish voters over what some see as his lack of concern
for their specific communal issues "
That is, Israel. More: "And Rabbi Jacob Herber of
Wisconsin tweeted Tuesday in response to Sarsour's remarks that despite the fact that he abhors
Trump, 'I'll be damned if I'm going to vote for Bernie Sanders.'"
The Democratic Party needs a nominee, but right now it has a train wreck instead. The
front-runner seems too old for the job and is poised to lose the first two primary season
contests. The woman who was supposed to become the front-runner on the basis of her policy
chops is sliding in the polls after thoroughly botching her health care strategy. The
candidate rising in her place is a 37-year-old mayor of a tiny, not-obviously-thriving
city.
Meanwhile several seemingly electable alternatives have failed to catch fire; the party
establishment is casting about for other options; and not one but two billionaires are
spending millions to try to buy delegates for a brokered convention which is a
not-entirely-unimaginable endgame for the party as it prepares to face down Donald Trump.
The state of the Democratic field reflects the weaknesses of the individual candidates,
but it also reflects the heterogenous nature of the Democratic coalition, whose electorate
has many more demographic divisions than the mostly white and middle-class and aging G.O.P.,
and therefore occasionally resembles the 19th-century Hapsburg empire in the challenge it
poses to aspiring leaders.
The theory of the Kamala Harris candidacy, whose nosedive was the subject of a withering
pre-mortem from three of my colleagues over Thanksgiving, was that she was well suited to
accomplish this unification through the elixir of her female/minority/professional class
identities -- that she would embody the party's diversity much as Barack Obama did before
her, and subsume the party's potential tensions under the benevolent stewardship of a
multicultural managerialism.
That isn't happening. But it's still reasonable for Democratic voters to look for someone
who can do a version of what Harris was supposed to do, and build a coalition across the
party's many axes of division.
And there's an interesting case that the candidate best positioned to do this -- the one
whose support is most diverse right now -- is the candidate whom Obama allegedly promised to
intervene against if his nomination seemed likely: the resilient Socialist from Vermont,
Bernie Sanders.
Like other candidates, Sanders's support has a demographic core: Just as Elizabeth Warren
depends on very liberal professionals and Joe Biden on older minorities and moderates, Bernie
depends intensely on the young. But his polling also shows an interesting
better-than-you-expect pattern, given stereotypes about his support. He does
better-than-you-expect with minorities despite having struggled with them in 2016, with
moderate voters and $100K-plus earners despite being famously left-wing, and with young women
despite all the BernieBro business.
This pattern explains why, in early-state polling, Sanders shows the most strength in very
different environments -- leading Warren everywhere in the latest FiveThirtyEight average,
beating Biden in Iowa and challenging him in more-diverse Nevada, matching Pete Buttigieg in
New Hampshire and leading him easily in South Carolina and California. ...
Hillary Clinton went on the Howard Stern show this week for a wide-ranging interview with
the popular radio host, specifically focusing on her loss to Trump and what 2020 looks like --
a race she's recently dropped hints she could be prepared to enter, however unlikely that might
be.
While the Wednesday interview was widely covered in the media, there's one segment largely
overlooked in the mainstream, but which is stunning nonetheless. We've grown used to her 'Trump
is a Russian asset' line in her typical blame game fashion anytime she makes a media
appearance; however, she did repeat the less common conspiracy that links rival Democrat Bernie
Sanders to the Kremlin .
She wasn't even asked, but briefly voluntarily inserted the reference while discussing the
Mueller investigation.
Speaking of the Russians, she claimed, "They were like - 'hey let's do everything we can
to elect Donald Trump'. Those are quotes... those are words [they used]... And they also said
Bernie Sanders ."
"But you know that's for another day..."
Stern runs with it: "Do we hate Bernie Sanders?"
"I don't hate anybody," but agrees with Stern's assessment that he took a while to endorse
her: "He could have. He hurt me, there's no doubt about it ."
Then she delivered the final punch at a moment Sanders
continues to gain in the polls , especially among young voters: "And I hope he doesn't do
it again to whoever gets the nomination. Once is enough."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT
MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
There it is: her disastrous 2016 loss continues to be the fault of everyone else, who are
apparently all somehow Russian puppets, even the Leftist Jewish Senator from Vermont (and let's
not forget the
Green Party's Jill Stein ).
* * *
If you can stomach watching it, she elsewhere describes in detail 'how she felt' being
present for Trump's inauguration ceremony. "Which was one of the hardest days of my life, to be
honest!"
This hag hijacked the Democrat party and transformed it into a cabal of criminal misfits,
pedofiles, liars, murderers and psychopaths. The DNC is a permanent reflection of her
treachery subscribing to everything unwholesome and wicked.
"We don't want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more 'Pied Piper'
candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party. Pied Piper
candidates include, but aren't limited to:
Ted Cruz
Donald Trump
Ben Carson
We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and
tell the press to them seriously."
Clinton was actively promoting the campaign of a Russian Asset.
"... However, Morris contends that Clinton believes that she has to "wait until Biden drops out because he's obviously next in line for it, and if he goes away, there's an opening for her." According to Morris' scenario, Clinton would become the moderate candidate opposed to the leading progressive, Elizabeth Warren. ..."
In November, Barack Obama, who had avoided commenting on the Democratic presidential
primary, came out forcefully in opposition to the extreme positions taken by some leading
progressive contenders, positions that could cause the Democrats to be beaten by Trump in the
2020 election. Obama was a very popular president among Democrats, and what he has to say
carries considerable weight with them. While this may not be his intent, Obama's position could
open the field for Hillary Clinton to enter the fray and quite possibly become the Democrats'
nominee, given the lackluster performance of leading "moderate" Joe Biden, whose weaknesses
have been brought out by the mainstream media, despite their animosity toward Trump.
Now many in the Democratic Party leadership, as well as wealthy Democratic donors, have been
concerned for some time about the radical nature of some of the economic policies advocated by
the leading progressive Democratic contenders. They fear that instead of the 2020 election
revolving around Trump with his low approval ratings, and very likely his impeachment, which
would seem to be a slam-dunk victory for Democrats, it would focus on those radical economic
proposals. Many voters are skeptical about how free college for all, free health care for all,
high-paying jobs in "green energy" -- after greatly reducing the use of fossil fuels, free
childcare for all, just to name some of the "free" things that have been promised, would really
work. Instead of raising taxes on the middle class, most of these free things would purportedly
be paid for by the super-wealthy, which would exclude mere millionaires such as Bernie Sanders
(estimated wealth $2 million) and Elizabeth Warren (estimated wealth $12 million) who are the
leading progressive contenders.
Obama began stressing his concern about the danger of radicalism in an October speech at the
Obama Foundation Summit in Chicago. And he did this not by dealing with presidential candidates
but with youth who think they can immediately change society. "This
idea of purity and you're never compromised, and you're always politically woke and all
that stuff, you should get over that quickly," Obama lectured. "The world is messy. There are
ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws."
It was at a gathering of Democratic donors in Washington, D.C., in November that Obama
cautioned Democratic candidates not to go too far to the left since that would antagonize many
voters who would otherwise support the Democratic candidate. "Even as we push the envelope and
we are bold in our vision we also have to be rooted in
reality ," Obama asserted. "The average American doesn't think we have to completely tear
down the system and remake it." Although Obama did not specify particular Democratic
candidates, his warning was widely interpreted as being directed at Elizabeth Warren and Bernie
Sanders.
Currently, the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination, according to national polls,
is Joe Biden, who is considered a moderate. But Biden has a number of problems. He continues to
make gaffes while speaking, and during his long career in the Senate took positions that are
antithetical to the Democratic Party of today. Moreover, he lacks the charisma to attract large
crowds to his events. Thus, it is questionable that he has the capability to attract large
numbers of Democratic voters to the polls in November 2020.
According to Politico Magazine , Obama was recently discussing election tactics with
an unnamed current candidate and "pointed out that during his own 2008 campaign, he had an
intimate bond with the electorate" and he is quoted as adding, "And you know who really
doesn't have it ? Joe Biden."
Biden's appeal already seems to be waning. For example, in November, a Marquette Law School
poll, which is considered the gold-standard survey in swing state Wisconsin, which the
Democrats need to win the 2020 election, shows
Trump leading Biden 47 percent to 44 percent. In October, Trump had trailed Biden by 6
points (44 percent to 50 percent), and in August, Trump trailed Biden by 9 points (42 percent
to 51 percent). In short, Biden is losing support. Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 by a slender
margin of 0.77 percent, with 47.22 percent of the total votes over the 46.45 percent for
Hillary Clinton.
Another problem Biden faces is the corrupt activities of his son Hunter and brother James,
who have taken advantage of their connection with him. The mainstream media has so far largely
kept this mostly under wraps, but this tactic won't be successful as the election approaches.
In fact, the progressive Democrats such as Bernie Sanders are likely to bring this up in a
desperate effort to be nominated. And already these issues are being mentioned by the
alternative media. For instance, there is an article in the non-partisan, anti-government
Intercept
titled, "Joe Biden's Family Has Been Cashing in on His Career for Decades. Democrats Need to
Acknowledge That," and comparable articles in the conservative Washington Examiner such
as, "Hunter Biden-linked company r
eceived $130M in special federal loans while Joe Biden was vice president," and "Hunter
Biden has
99 problems , and Burisma is only one."
David Axelrod, Democratic strategist and longtime aide to Barack Obama, said concerns about
Biden's electability clearly influenced multi-billionaire (estimated $53 billion) and
former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg's entrance into the contest for the Democratic
nominee for president. "There's no question that Bloomberg's calculus was that Biden was
occupying a space, and the fact that he's getting in is a clear indication that he's not
convinced Biden has the wherewithal to carry that torch," Axelrod said. "So yeah, I don't think
this is a positive development for Joe Biden."
Similarly, Democratic strategist Brad Bannon contended that "centrist Democrats and wealthy
donors have
lost confidence in Biden's ability to stop Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders from winning
the nomination." Bannon added that with Bloomberg entering the Democratic presidential race,
"Biden's fundraising will get even shakier than it already is. There's only room for one
moderate in this race and Bloomberg threatens Biden's status as the centrist
standard-bearer."
Bloomberg's "stop and frisk"
policy as mayor , which largely targeted blacks and Hispanics, should make it virtually
impossible that he could be the Democratic nominee, despite his recent apology. Unless he has
become senile in his late 70s, Bloomberg should well understand this since he did not make his
billions by being stupid. It could be that he intends to serve as a stalking horse to draw
Hillary Clinton into the contest by showing the weakness of Biden. Then like Superwoman,
Hillary can enter the fray, appearing not to act for her own sake but to save the country from
a likely second term for President Trump.
Similarly, Mark Penn, who was chief strategist for Clinton's unsuccessful 2008 presidential
campaign, said Bloomberg's entrance
could cause Clinton to consider to run and decide there's "still a political logic there for
her."
As Biden's support slips away, Clinton's should rise. Clinton has been recently promoting a
book she co-wrote with her daughter, Chelsea, in Britain. In an interview with BBC Radio 5
Live , Clinton said "many, many, many people" are
pressuring her to jump into the 2020 presidential race and that she thinks about this "all
the time." Clinton told the host that she is under "enormous pressure" but said it is not in
her plans, though she cryptically added that she would "never say never."
Dick Morris, who was once a close confidant of the Clintons during Bill Clinton's time as
Arkansas governor and U.S. president recently said in a radio interview that Hillary Clinton
likely wants to run for the presidency in 2020. "My feeling is that
she wants to ," Morris said. "She feels entitled to do it. She feels compelled to do it.
She feels that God put her on the Earth to do it. But she's hesitant because she realizes the
timing is bad."
However, Morris contends that Clinton believes that she has to "wait until Biden drops out
because he's obviously next in line for it, and if he goes away, there's an opening for her."
According to Morris' scenario, Clinton would become the moderate candidate opposed to the
leading progressive, Elizabeth Warren.
Morris has not been in touch with the Clintons for many years, and has become strongly
critical of them, so his claim might be questionable. Nonetheless, his portrayal of Hillary's
current thinking seems quite reasonable.
A Fox News poll included Clinton along with the active Democratic candidates in a
hypothetical election with Trump, and Hillary came out ahead of him by two percentage
points. While some actual candidates did somewhat better than Hillary, she did quite well for
someone who is not currently running for office.
Furthermore, a Harris Harvard poll in late October asked the question, "Suppose Hillary
Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, and John Kerry decides [sic] to enter the race, who would you
support as a candidate for President?" Joe Biden received the support of 19 percent of Democrat
respondents while Clinton was a
close second with 18 percent. Elizabeth Warren came in third at 13 percent, John Kerry was
at 8 percent, and Bloomberg was at 6. Again, Clinton does quite well for someone who is not
actually running for president.
One might think that if references to family members' corruption damaged Biden, then Clinton
would be subject to worse damage in that area, since she and her husband Bill were connected
with far more corrupt activities -- Whitewater, Travelgate, the Lewinsky affair, the Paula
Jones affair, t the death of Vince Foster, the Clinton Foundation, her private server, and so
on. But these issues are already known and are presumably already taken into account by the
voters, whereas the Biden family's corrupt activities are so far largely unknown.
It should be pointed out that Clinton has a number of positives as a presidential candidate.
Although losing in the Electoral College in 2016, Clinton had garnered 3 million more votes
more than Trump. The election was decided by a total of 80,000 votes in three states. It is
highly unlikely that such a fluke could be duplicated.
Clinton's staff had been overconfident assuming victory, which was based on their polling of
various states, and as a result began to focus on competing in states well beyond those Clinton
needed for victory.
Moreover, one key event outside the control of Clinton's staff was FBI Director James
Comey's investigation of Clinton's use of a personal email server during her tenure as
secretary of state. Most crucial were his July 2016 public statement terminating the
investigation, with a lengthy comment about what Clinton did wrong, and his October 28
reopening the inquiry into newly discovered emails and then closing it two days before the
election, stating that the emails had not provided any new information. The October 28 letter,
however, probably played a key role in the outcome of the election. As statistician Nate Silver
maintains: "Hillary Clinton would probably be president
if FBI Director James Comey had not sent a letter to Congress on Oct. 28. The letter, which
said the FBI had 'learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the
investigation into the private email server that Clinton used as secretary of state, upended
the news cycle and soon halved Clinton's lead in the polls, imperiling her position in the
Electoral College.'"
[Silver's organization FiveThirtyEight had projected a much higher chance (29
percent) of Donald Trump winning the presidency than most other pollsters]
Clinton has also helped to convince many Democrats and members of the mainstream media that
the 2016 election was stolen from her by Russian agents If this were really true – which
is very doubtful – then Hillary should be the Democrats' candidate for 2020 since Russian
intervention should not be as successful as it allegedly was in 2016.
In endorsing Hillary Clinton for president in 2016, Obama stated. "I don't think that
there's ever been someone
so qualified to hold this office." He has yet to make such an endorsement for Biden and
privately, as mentioned earlier, said he is a poor choice for a nominee. He might ultimately
endorse Biden, but he certainly would not renege on what he said four years ago about Clinton
if she became the Democrats' standard-bearer.
Should Clinton opt to run, she would have no trouble raising money since she set a record in
2016 of $1.4 billion
and wealthy donors want a moderate to be the Democratic nominee. It would seem likely that she
would enter the contest if Biden has serious trouble. She would miss some state primaries since
it would be too late to register in them but given the crowded field of candidates, there is a
likelihood that there will be a brokered convention, that is, the convention will go past the
first ballot. Since the superdelegates would be allowed to vote in all rounds after the first,
they could determine the winner, which would probably mean the selection of a candidate who
would be seen to have the greatest chance of winning, and that would likely be Hillary Clinton,
if she has entered the fray.
I discussed the merits of Pete Buttigieg in a previous article in
Unz Review, and what I write here might seem to conflict with that. However, while Buttigieg is
doing quite well
in the polls, he still does not get much support
from blacks and Latinos, which is essential to become the Democrats nominee for president.
Buttigieg could, however, be nominated for vice president or, more likely, given an important
cabinet position since the vice-presidential slot would probably be reserved for a black or
Latino if a white person were picked as the presidential nominee, which currently seems
likely.
But because of Buttigieg's relatively hardline foreign policy
, which largely meshes with that of Clinton's, and his wide knowledge and language ability,
Buttigieg would fit well in the all-important position of secretary of state in a Clinton
administration. Moreover, Buttigieg, whose tenure as mayor of South Bend, Indiana, will end in
January 2020, would almost certainly be willing to take such a position, which could serve as a
jumping-off point for the presidency in the future.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced that his campaign for president has received over four
million individual donations.
The news means Sanders is the fastest candidate in history to reach the mark, putting him
in a league of his own when it comes to donor contributions. While poll numbers can be a
strong indicator of a candidate's prospects, individual donations are often a sign of voter
enthusiasm.
"Working-class Americans across the country are chipping in $3, $18, $27, or whatever they
can to help elect Bernie Sanders because they know he is the only candidate who will fight
for them and take on corporate greed and corruption," campaign manager Faiz Shakir said in a
statement. "This is what momentum looks like."
There are many levers of political power, such as media power and infrastructure power.
Those are still firmly in the hands of the establishment.
But cracks are showing.
It's not like the Democratic Party is going to turn Left. And why should they? Democrats
are a huge, cohesive alliance of dedicated Members. They have some Liberal tolerance, but
they are most comfortable in an ambience of cosy conservative values. The last thing the
Democrats want to do is change anything. Changing things is too risky and upsetting. They are
the guardians of the status quo. The Democratic Party is where the Democrats belong.
The Left may have some mild influence in the Party, but the Party is not moving Left. It's
moving right, with stronger ties to the Neocons. They embrace the Empire and all that comes
with it. They renewed the Patriot Act two weeks ago and the Media Monopolies agreed not to
mention it. I read not a single Republican voted for the Bill. This demonstrates the ideology
of the Democrats.
The Left is oppressed by the Democratic Party whether they are inside the party, or
standing outside. When the Left finally manifests as a Party in the US, it will be via a
charismatic populist outsider. I think they can capture a majority of Americans at the
Presidential level. And that's maybe all you need for a decade or two. Executive power is
enough to get a foothold. Because building a new Party infrastructure within the Federal
election system is legally and logistically blocked by the Duopoly and the Billionaires, no
matter how many Americans are affiliated with it.
But, then, it's not like we have a functioning democracy in the first place. We're
Totalitarians who "show vote."
that power shift
in the wink of an eye
DNC will burn rubber
before going progressive
Sometimes things go the way they oughta. Unfortunately this will just encourage the DNC to
grovel to the 1%, and pander to the rest of us, all that much harder.
Bernie broke the mold in 2016 and the powers that be are trying their best to deny it ever
happened. They're even trying to give all the credit to Elizabeth Warren for President.
Those of us with long memories know that the Democratic Party has backed the conservative
candidate over the progressive time and again.
Carter wasn't the progressive. The progressive was Ted Kennedy.
Mondale wasn't the progressive. The progressive was Jesse Jackson.
Dukakis wasn't the progressive. The progressive was once again Jesse Jackson.
The Democratic Party backed Bill Clinton in 1992 over Thom Harkin.
2000 they backed Al Gore over Bill Bradley.
2004 they backed John Kerry over Howard Dean.
2008 they backed Barack Obama, but only after they made sure John Edwards was out of the
race.
2016 they torpedoed Bernie Sanders and we saw what that got us.
The Democratic Party establishment is afraid of the Left. They're afraid of us because
they know we're right. They know we vote. And now they know we can raise some money.
"... Sanders went on to argue that "pressure has got to be put on media" to cover policy issues like income inequality and poverty more heavily, instead of devoting attention to sensational campaign moments and the state of political horse races. ..."
"... 'You know what, forget the political gossip. Politics is not a soap opera. Talk about the real damn issues facing this country.'" ..."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has not been shy about
his disdain for the mainstream media. But the
Democratic presidential hopeful
has rarely, if ever, articulated it as bluntly as he did in an interview that aired on
MSNBC 's "
The Rachel Maddow Show " on Friday night. Sanders
called out the network for its corporate character in a novel exchange with host
Rachel Maddow .
"The American people are sick and tired of establishment politics and economics, and by the way, a little bit tired of corporate
media as well," Sanders told Maddow in an interview taped in Burlington, Vermont.
Maddow pressed Sanders for specifics on how he would change the media if he were president. "What's the solution to corporate
media?" she asked.
"We have got to think of ways the Democratic party, for a start, starts funding the equivalent of Fox television," Sanders
answered. Of course, MSNBC is a corporate media outlet that is widely seen as a Democratic version of Fox News because of the perceived
sympathies of many of its political talk shows.
Sanders went on to argue that "pressure has got to be put on media" to cover policy issues like income inequality and poverty
more heavily, instead of devoting attention to sensational campaign moments and the state of political horse races.
He then claimed that bringing that pressure to bear would be difficult, since corporate ownership makes it harder for news outlets
to cover issues in a way that conflicts with the interests of top executives. "MSNBC is owned by who?" Sanders asked. "Comcast, our
overlords," Maddow responded with a chuckle.
"All right, Comcast is not one of the most popular corporations in America, right?" Sanders said. "And I think the American people
are going to have to say to NBC and ABC and CBS and CNN, 'You know what, forget the political gossip. Politics is not a soap
opera. Talk about the real damn issues facing this country.'"
The question is who will listed to Obama after his "change we can believe in" betrayal. Also
is not he a war criminal? Obama election was probably the most slick false flag operation even
conducted by intelligence agencies. Somebody created for him complexly fake but still plausible
legend.
That Obama desire to interfere in 2020 election also shows gain that that he a regular
completely corrupt Clinton neoliberal. The worst king of neoliberals, wolfs in sheep's
clothing.
And the fact that CIA democrats dominates the Democratic Party actually is another reason
from "Demexit" from the Democratic party of workers and lower middle class. The sad fact that the
USA Corporate Dems recently became the second pro-war militarist party, and learned to love
intelligence agencies; two things unimaginable in 60th and 70th.
As we noted earlier, a bombshell admission from Politico today exploring Obama's
substantial behind the scenes influence as Democratic kingmaker : included in the lengthy
profile on the day-to-day of the former president's personal office in the West End of
Washington D.C. and his meeting with the field of Democratic candidates, is
the following gem :
"Obama said privately that if Bernie were running away with the nomination, Obama would
speak up to stop him."
And crucially, when asked about that prior statement reported in Politico, an Obama
spokesperson did not deny that he said it.
The frank admission underscores what many independent analysts, not to
mention prior damning WikiLeaks DNC disclosures , have pointed out for years: that the
establishment controlling the Democratic party has continuously sought to rig the system
against Bernie.
"Since losing 2016, Dem elites have waged a prolonged effort to stop Bernie. Bernie is the
obvious answer to the neoliberal Clinton-Obama legacy voters rejected..." journalist Aaron
Maté observed of the
Politico quote.
Here's the stunning and deeply revealing section in full, which began by outlining Obama's
'advice-giving' throughout meetings with Democrat contenders including Joe Biden, Elizabeth
Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker,
and others :
Publicly, he has been clear that he won't intervene in the primary for or against a
candidate , unless he believed there was some egregious attack. "I can't even imagine with
this field how bad it would have to be for him to say something," said a close adviser.
Instead, he sees his role as providing guardrails to keep the process from getting too ugly
and to unite the party when the nominee is clear.
There is one potential exception: Back when Sanders seemed like more of a threat than he
does now, Obama said privately that if Bernie were running away with the nomination, Obama
would speak up to stop him. (Asked about that, a spokesperson for Obama pointed out that
Obama recently said he would support and campaign for whoever the Democratic nominee is.)
And a further deeply revealing but more laughable quote comes later as follows: "Obama
designed his post-presidency in 2016, at a time when he believed Hillary Clinton would win and
Biden would be out of politics." So the reality is... far from the idea that the Dem elites
would back the actual nominee the party puts forward, clearly the die has already been cast
against Bernie just
like the last time around against Hillary in 2016.
Politico author Ryan Lizza later in the story quotes a "close family friend," who described
that Obama's "politics are not strong left of center."
"I mean it's left, but he's nowhere near where some of the candidates are currently sitting,
at least when he got himself elected," the source claimed.
This means in the mind of Obama and other top party influencers and kingmakers, Bernie and
other popular outliers like Tulsi Gabbard have already long been sidelined. Tulsi, it should
also be noted, is one of the couple of candidates who did not bother to stop by Obama's D.C.
office for a 'blessing' and advice.
'thanks b.. looking at the theatre, it seems dems have backed themselves into a corner... meanwhile obama wants to ca-bosh
sanders... You know if Sanders had some character he would run as an independent with Tulsi.. but you all know that stands a snowball
chance in hell.. the problem with conformists, is they spend too much time conforming and that doesn't end up serving anyone..
and it is the reason trump got elected - he is not a conformist.. self centered narcissist, yes, but conformist - no.. too bad
about american leadership being persona non grata...
what i don't understand is why bernie doesn't run as an independent? if he is so great and would be great for the usa, why
can't he figure this basic picture out? this is why i give merit to jackrabbit sometimes - it is all political theatre and they
are all in it together raping the common people..
"The 7 big bets that will decide who wins the White House in 2020" [
Politico ].
"Sanders' big bet is that this movement has the capacity to grow and to appeal to voters who
have not previously participated in Democratic contests. If true, this could give him staying
power in the race even if he has yet to score big victories by spring. From early on, Sanders
has demonstrated strength with younger voters, with Hispanics and with working-class voters.
[Politico Repoter Holly] Otterbein notes the obvious risk: Lots of candidates historically have
pledged to expand the electorate and not many have been successful. 'On the other hand,' she
observes, 'there was evidence in 2018 that some of these groups actually did see a real big
boost in turnout.
Latinos -- their voter turnout increased more than any other ethnic group.
And the younger generations outvoted the boomers and older generations.'" • Both Latinos
and young voters going disproportionately for Sanders.
I think your views of American politics are often a bit "off". For instance, while it is not
uncommon for people on the far left to criticize Sanders for voting for imperialist foreign
policies, you are the only person I have ever seen use this as a defense of more mainstream
Democrats who are far more hawkish than he is.
So I jumped in to point out that Biden's sleaziness has been an often discussed topic going
back for decades. I could have mentioned the plagiarism of Kinnock's speech, but that was so
strange I don't know what to make of it.
Hidari, replace the word "fascism" with "neoliberalism" in that Orwell quote and you might be
onto something. You're always so close, but slightly off
Donald observes (about me):
it is not uncommon for people on the far left to criticize Sanders for voting for
imperialist foreign policies, you are the only person I have ever seen use this as a
defense of more mainstream Democrats who are far more hawkish than he is
So let me give you some reasons why this matters to me, not in any particular order.
1) Obama voted against the Iraq war but it doesn't stop him being derided as a warmonger.
Which leads to two obvious points: past voting is no indication of future performance, and
what is it about Sanders that separates him from Obama on this in the eyes of his
fanboys?
2) In the 2016 election we were constantly told by the US far "left" to ignore lesser-evil
voting (it's bad w were told) and to vote on ideological purity. But now the primary has
rolled around, Sanders is struggling against a known hawk, and we're suddenly told to ignore
his past imperialism, and vote for the lesser evil. Why should I do now what I was
constrained from doing in 2016? What is special about Sanders?
3) Most supporters of Sanders believe that a) the 1994 crime bill increased incarceration
rates and b) the Iraq sanctions killed 1/2 a million children. Sanders voted for both of
these. That makes him a monster to these people, but they claim he is the best person to
decarcerate America and end foreign interventions. What kind of left wing logic is this?
4) Sanders has not got any kind of critique of American imperialism, he just happened
to vote against the dumbest and most self-destructive of the recent adventures. He's an
imperialist through and through. If I have to pick between Imperialists, why should I choose
the incompetent one who's going to have a heart attack in the first year of the job?
On the previous thread, the danger of civil society's demise became a brief topic.
Sanders attempted to link the injustice system to the crisis within civil society, and IMO,
he was 100% correct in trying to do so. Believe me, you don't want to get caught up in its web.
But if you do, you'll soon learn just how despicable the system is and see how it links to the
epidemic of political corruption. The domestic social malaise within the Outlaw US Empire is
holistic in its nature, but Sanders is the only politico that's bringing that fact out into the
light-of-day.
"... Mr. Sanders's status as a presidential candidate may influence his care and possibly lead to his staying in the hospital a bit longer than usual for patients with his ailment. Although doctors say they care for V.I.P.s as they do any other patient, they may deviate from the norm out of caution or if complications occur. A danger in V.I.P. care is a tendency to do too little or too much for a patient. ... ..."
"... Sanders' campaign released a statement from the 78-year-old's Las Vegas doctors that said the senator was stable when he arrived Tuesday at Desert Springs Hospital Medical Center. ..."
"... A blocked artery can cause a heart attack, which just means that an area of the heart is suffering and in danger of damage because it's not getting enough blood or oxygen. An artery-opening procedure like the one Sanders had, and placing stents, which are tiny scaffolds to keep the artery open, restores blood flow and helps prevent future problems. ... ..."
What does Senator Bernie Sanders' hospitalization reveal about his health and his ability
to continue his presidential campaign?
His staff has provided scant details: Sanders experienced chest pains at a campaign event
Tuesday and went to a hospital. Doctors found blockage in an artery and inserted two tiny
metal tubes, called stents, to prop it open. The 78-year-old presidential candidate expects
to leave the hospital "before the end of the weekend," rest for a few days, and resume his
campaign in time to participate in the Oct. 15 debate.
The Sanders' campaign did not respond to the Globe's request for more information. So we
asked three local cardiologists, who are not privy to specifics about Sanders' condition, to
shed light on what the incident may portend based on their experience with other heart
patients. Here's what they said.
Did Sanders have a heart attack?
The campaign has not said whether or not he had a heart attack, which is a sudden blockage
of an artery that causes damage to the heart muscle.
Dr. Jeremy Samuel Faust, an emergency physician at Brigham and Women's Hospital, wrote in
a Slate article that Sanders most likely did suffer a heart attack, based on how quickly the
staff rushed him in for the procedure.
The cardiologists whom the Globe consulted were more circumspect, saying it's possible he
had a small heart attack, but they can't tell based on the information revealed so far.
"It sounds like he had some kind of acute coronary syndrome," in which blood flow to the
heart is blocked, said Dr. Malissa J. Wood, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital.
"The great thing is he noticed the symptoms and got help immediately, so they were able to
get that artery opened fast."
Dr. Jeffrey J. Popma, an interventional cardiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical
Center, did not see much significance in the team's decision to swiftly open the blockage.
"How quickly it was done doesn't really mean there was a more urgent or worsened prognosis,"
he said. ...
Bernie Sanders Had a Common Heart Procedure.
So Why the Mystery? https://nyti.ms/2Mbw5TC
NYT - Lawrence K. Altman, M.D. - October 4
WASHINGTON -- "None of us know when a medical emergency will affect us," Senator Bernie
Sanders wrote in a tweet from Desert Springs Hospital Medical Center on Wednesday, hours
after the 78-year-old Democratic candidate for president experienced one.
Mr. Sanders's emergency -- the sudden onset of chest pain known as angina -- is one that
thousands of other Americans experience each year. Mr. Sanders's discomfort occurred at a
campaign event on Tuesday night. Because it signaled acute heart trouble, the senator went to
the hospital where doctors implanted two stents in one of the coronary arteries that nourish
the heart.
Doctors often release patients who undergo such procedures in a day or two. Mr. Sanders
remains in the hospital, and his campaign has closely guarded pertinent details about his
heart condition and treatment, raising questions about the extent of his health issues.
Among other things, Mr. Sanders has not disclosed whether blood and electrocardiogram
tests showed he had a heart attack. The senator and his campaign have not allowed reporters
to interview his doctors, though advisers have said that Mr. Sanders would be able to appear
in the next Democratic debate on Oct. 15. ...
... The health questions hang over Mr. Sanders in part because he would become the nation's
oldest president by far if elected. Also, given that implanting two stents in one coronary
artery is a very common procedure in American hospitals, it is puzzling why he has not
released more details. Mr. Sanders is a private person, no doubt, but most modern-day
presidents and serious candidates for the presidency have put forward details to inform the
electorate after emergency health issues.
Normally, "recovery from stent placement is very quick," and patients usually go home a
day or two after the procedure, said Dr. Jonathan S. Reiner, a cardiologist at George
Washington University Hospital in Washington, D.C. who treated former Vice President Dick
Cheney for serious heart disease for many years before, during and after his two terms of
office. Dr. Reiner is not involved in Mr. Sanders's care.
Older patients and those who experience complications like heart rhythm abnormalities,
heart attacks or heart failure may remain in the hospital longer. A patient's condition
usually determines the length of stay.
In the 2016 presidential campaign, Mr. Sanders's doctor said that the senator was "in
overall very good health." His ailments included gout; a mild elevation of cholesterol; an
inflammation of out-pouches in the bowel known as diverticulitis; and hormone replacement
therapy for an underactive thyroid gland. He had no reported history of heart disease.
Tuesday's episode of angina appears to be his first such incident. Doctors often refer to
such heart issues as new onset, or unstable, angina and usually describe an event like Mr.
Sanders's as acute coronary syndrome.
Mr. Sanders's status as a presidential candidate may influence his care and possibly lead
to his staying in the hospital a bit longer than usual for patients with his ailment.
Although doctors say they care for V.I.P.s as they do any other patient, they may deviate
from the norm out of caution or if complications occur. A danger in V.I.P. care is a tendency
to do too little or too much for a patient. ...
WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders had a heart attack, his
campaign confirmed Friday as the Vermont senator was released from a Nevada hospital.
Sanders' campaign released a statement from the 78-year-old's Las Vegas doctors that said
the senator was stable when he arrived Tuesday at Desert Springs Hospital Medical Center.
The doctors, Arturo Marchand, Jr. and Arjun Gururaj, said Sanders quickly had two stents
placed in a blocked artery in his heart and the rest of his arteries were normal.
Sanders was hospitalized Tuesday after experiencing chest discomfort during a campaign
event.
A blocked artery can cause a heart attack, which just means that an area of the heart is
suffering and in danger of damage because it's not getting enough blood or oxygen. An
artery-opening procedure like the one Sanders had, and placing stents, which are tiny
scaffolds to keep the artery open, restores blood flow and helps prevent future problems.
...
Bernie Sanders' campaign said Wednesday that the Democratic presidential candidate had a
heart procedure for a blocked artery and was canceling events and appearances "until further
notice."
The 78-year-old Vermont senator experienced chest discomfort during a campaign event Tuesday
and sought medical evaluation. Two stents were "successfully inserted," and Sanders "is
conversing and in good spirits," according to the campaign. He's recovering at a Las Vegas
hospital.
The Democratic field's oldest candidate, Sanders sometimes jokingly refers to his age at
town halls and other events, especially when interacting with younger participants. He is one
of three candidates over age 70 in the Democratic primary, which has spurred debate over
whether the party should rally behind a new generation of political leaders. Sanders'
health issue is certain
to revive that discussion in the weeks before the next presidential debate this month.
Sanders' campaign wouldn't say whether the candidate had suffered a heart attack before the
blockage was opened. But a doctor not involved in the care said, if not, Sanders could expect
to be back to a normal busy schedule in about a week.
"This will give him more energy," said Dr. Ron Waksman, an interventional cardiologist at
MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute in Washington.
Sanders' hospitalization came on a day of celebration for his campaign, which had earlier
announced the Democratic field's strongest quarterly fundraising numbers so far. On a telephone
call with supporters, campaign manager Faiz Shakir said, "The state of our campaign, we feel,
is strong and getting stronger. We've got work to do because our path is the most ambitious
path of any candidate out there." He also touted the first television ad, which the campaign
was scheduled to launch in Iowa.
... ... ...
"Given his recent stalls in the polls, the timing is pretty bad here," Democratic strategist
Jim Manley said of Sanders' heart procedure.
... ... ...
Sanders is not the first candidate to face health issues in recent years while seeking the
presidency. Clinton had to take time off from campaigning in 2016 after being treated for
pneumonia.
In Sanders' case, when doctors insert a stent, they first thread a tiny balloon inside a
blocked artery to widen it. The stent is a small wire mesh tube that then is propped inside to
keep the artery open. The number of stents needed depends on the size of the clog.
The treatment can immediately improve symptoms such as chest pain or shortness of breath.
The stents are threaded into place through blood vessels in the groin or wrist, requiring only
a tiny incision. Most are coated with medication to prevent the targeted artery from reclosing.
That is still a risk, requiring monitoring, and patients also often are prescribed blood
thinners to prevent clots from forming in the stents.
A letter released by Sanders' physician in 2016 cited a history of mildly elevated
cholesterol but no heart disease.
Apparently Bernie Sanders, who is ill, will not be nominated to run for the presidency, but
what needs to be known and remembered is that this ia the first time in our history that
person who is Jewish has been a serious candidate as has been the case for 2 election cycles.
I find Sanders to have been an admirable candidate.
Nice he recovered, but you have to think this is the end of his campaign.
"Sen. Bernie Sanders had emergency procedure to fix a blocked artery after experiencing
chest pain Tuesday night, according to his campaign, and is recovering in Las Vegas, Nevada,
where he was on the presidential campaign trail.
"During a campaign event yesterday evening, Sen. Sanders experienced some chest
discomfort," Jeff Weaver, a senior adviser on the campaign, said in a statement. "Following
medical evaluation and testing he was found to have a blockage in one artery and two stents
were successfully inserted. Sen. Sanders is conversing and in good spirits."
Sanders is spend force in any case. His endorsement does not matter much. But for Warren this
is a blunder. Tulsi is the only one out of this troika who proved to be capable politician.
As I reported on the previous thread, Sanders endorsed the impeachment proceedings in a
tweet I linked to and cited. Gabbard is apparently the only D-Party candidate that said this
decision is a mistake.
This article about her stance is actually balanced. Citing her recent interview by
FOXNews :
"'I have been consistent in saying that I believe that impeachment in this juncture would
be terribly divisive for our country at a time when we are already extremely divided,'
Gabbard explained. 'Hyper-partisanship is one of the things that's driving our country
apart.'
"'I think it's important to defeat Donald Trump. That's why I'm running for president, but
I think it's the American people who need to make their voices heard, making that decision,'
she said.
"Regardless of how you feel about Gabbard, you have to give her credit on this front.
America is extremely divided today and politicians in Washington play into that. The
impeachment saga is a prime example of their role in this division ." [My Emphasis]
When one digs deeper into the forces Gabbard's attacking, she's the most patriotic one of
the entire bunch, including the Rs. I haven't looked at her election websites recently, but
from what I see of her campaign appearances, her and Sanders seem to be sharing each other's
policy proposals, although they both choose to place more emphasis on some than others. For
Gabbard, its the wonton waste and corruption of the Empire that keeps good things from being
done for all citizens at home, whereas Sanders basically inverts the two.
"... "with considerable forethought [TV capitalists] are attempting to create a nation of morons who will faithfully go out and buy this or that product, vote for this or that candidate and faithfully work for their employers for as low a wage as possible." He said TV was America's "drug." On another occasion, he took a 60 Minutes crew to the AP office in Burlington and, in a bit of turnabout, began interrogating their reporters. So perhaps the AP's announcement this week was a bit of long-simmering retribution. ..."
"... In his essential book, Out of Order -- still, 23 years after publication, the best analysis of election coverage -- Harvard political scientist Thomas Patterson said there are only four press narratives in an election campaign: "a candidate is leading, or trailing, or gaining ground or losing ground." And: "The press dumps on losers and those who are losing support, criticizes front-runners and praises those who catch fire -- at least as long as the bandwagon lasts." ..."
"... By placing bets on one candidate over another, the media virtually prevent that disfavored candidate from gaining ground. ..."
"... This may be the first time that social media compelled the MSM to change its narrative -- from losing candidate to gaining candidate, or what Patterson calls the "bandwagon effect." ..."
"... It is now a truism of election coverage that since the coverage often contorts itself to justify them, you follow the polls. Poll numbers are everything. ..."
Last week, even before Hillary Clinton's primary victory in California assured her the Democratic presidential nomination, the
Associated Press had already declared her the presumptive nominee.
Bernie Sanders and his supporters were sore , and they had a right to be.
Although
the AP defended its decision , saying that Clinton's crossing the delegate threshold was news and they had an obligation to report
it when they did (the day before the clinching primaries) the timing and the circumstances were suspicious. It appears that AP had
been hounding superdelegates to reveal their preferences, and blasting that headline just before those primaries threatened either
to depress Sanders' vote or Hillary's or both because the contest was now for all intents and purposes over.
Sanders has never been much of a media fan.
Last October,
Mother Jones reported that way back in 1979, he wrote in Vermont's Vanguard Press , an alternative newspaper, that
"with considerable forethought [TV capitalists] are attempting to create a nation of morons who will faithfully go out and buy
this or that product, vote for this or that candidate and faithfully work for their employers for as low a wage as possible." He
said TV was America's "drug." On another occasion, he took a 60 Minutes crew to the AP office in Burlington and, in a bit
of turnabout, began interrogating their reporters. So perhaps the AP's announcement this week was a bit of long-simmering retribution.
Payback or not, Sanders and his supporters are justified in saying the mainstream media have not been entirely fair to him. But
that isn't because Sanders was anti-establishment or because he has attacked the media's monopolistic practices or because he claimed
to be leading a revolution or even because he was impatient with reporters who asked idiotic questions -- though he had done all
of those things.
Sanders was the victim of something else: the script. The media have a script for elections, and in that script the presumed losers
are always marginalized and even dismissed. The script, then, dictated that Sanders wasn't going to get favorable coverage. Or, put
more starkly, the MSM pick the losers and then vindicate that judgment.
From the moment he announced his candidacy in April 2015, the media treated Sanders as if he were unlikely to win.
In The New
York Times , that announcement was printed on page A-21, calling him a "long shot" but saying that his candidacy could force
Hillary Clinton to address his issues "more deeply." The article ended with a quote from Sanders: "I think people should be a little
bit careful underestimating me," which is exactly what The Times seemed to be doing.
By contrast, Hillary Clinton's announcement two-and-a-half weeks earlier
got prime
real estate in The Times and the judgment that the "announcement effectively began what could be one of the least contested
races, without an incumbent, for the Democratic presidential nomination in recent history." So already the roles had been cast --
though, of course, the perception that Sanders wasn't likely to beat Clinton was all but a self-fulfilling prophecy.
In his essential book, Out of Order -- still, 23 years after publication, the best analysis of election coverage -- Harvard political scientist
Thomas Patterson said there are only four press narratives in an election campaign: "a candidate is leading, or trailing, or gaining
ground or losing ground." And: "The press dumps on losers and those who are losing support, criticizes front-runners and praises
those who catch fire -- at least as long as the bandwagon lasts."
As the presumed loser from the outset, Sanders didn't get negative coverage so much as he got negligible coverage.
An analysis by the TV News
Archive of cable television coverage since January 2015 provides graphs of Clinton's and Sanders' mentions that look alike, save
for one thing: Clinton was getting vastly more coverage than Sanders. How much more? On CNN, Clinton got more than 70,000 of the
Democratic-candidate mentions, while Sanders got just under 42,000. On MSNBC, Clinton got more than 93,000 mentions to Sanders' roughly
51,000. On Fox News, she got more than 71,000 mentions to his more than 28,000. The numbers are similar on the Lexis-Nexis database
of newspapers. In the past 30 days, Clinton received 2,591 mentions, Sanders only 922. By comparison, Trump got 5,568.
The numbers, of course, are constantly being updated. But the ratios remain more or less constant.
I suppose journalists would argue that time and space are inelastic; choices have to be made as to who receives coverage. If we
give it to Bernie Sanders, they might say, why not Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb or even Lincoln Chafee? Putting aside whether there
really is too little time (on cable where the same stories are repeated endlessly?), the decision over whom to cover and whom not
to cover is determinative. By placing bets on one candidate over another, the media virtually prevent that disfavored candidate
from gaining ground.
But in spite of the dearth of MSM coverage, Sanders did gain ground. That may have been due to his very active social media
presence, which assured that the Sanders name and message were being promulgated via the ether if not on the page or on the air.
Though Trump clearly mastered how to turn social media into MSM coverage by tweeting absurdities the press couldn't resist, Sanders
used social media to mobilize support, so that he was able to rustle up a crowd for a rally at a moment's notice, and a whole lot
of money.
This may be the first time that
social media compelled the
MSM to change its narrative -- from losing candidate to gaining candidate, or what Patterson calls the "bandwagon effect."
In turn, Sanders' crowds were huge. His fundraising was large and notable for the number of small donations. And most of all, his
poll numbers began rising.
It is now a truism of election coverage that since the coverage often contorts itself to justify them, you follow the polls.
Poll numbers are everything. As Sanders' numbers climbed, and especially after he trounced Clinton in New Hampshire, the story
was suddenly that
Sanders was leading a movement of young people dissatisfied with the old politics represented by Clinton, and angry with the
system.
Of course, even as the MSM called Sanders "aspirational" and "inspirational" and "idealistic" compared to Clinton, the praise
was then undercut when pundits compared him to another tribune of the disaffected, Donald Trump. "[Sanders] and Trump are peas in
a pod,"
wrote The Washington Post' s Dana Milbank , as late as last April.
None of this reluctant praise was because the press particularly liked Sanders. I think they still thought of themselves as realists
while Sanders was something of a political Don Quixote -- an old crank. But the media are in the drama business, and the story of
Sanders' energized youth army taking on Clinton's tired apparatchiks was a compelling one, and a whole lot better than Clinton marching
over Sanders like Sherman through Georgia. Indeed, nothing stirs the media like a good fight. The amount of Sanders' coverage appreciably
rose.
The problem was, to use the buzzword of this election, the math. No matter how much money Sanders raised, how many caucuses and
primaries he won or how much enthusiasm he stirred, he couldn't beat the delegate math -- which is to say, he was a loser. To the
media, his rise was a plot twist before the narrative wound its way to the inevitable conclusion. And, as Patterson wrote of the
media, "What is said of the candidate must fit the plot." Here the plot was that Sanders was not going to win because he was not
good enough to win.
Sanders' coverage in The New York Times is a case in point, and an important one because The Times drives so much
of the MSM's coverage. It is hardly a secret that The Times has had a jones for Hillary Clinton, but that doesn't excuse its
coverage of Sanders, which even included
an
article criticizing him for not doing more of the baby-kissing and hand-shaking that candidates usually do.
Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone wrote a scathing takedown of The Times' most egregious offense: a March article by
Jennifer Steinhauer on how Sanders functioned as a legislator. Headlined "Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative
Side Doors,"
as originally published , the article recounted how effective Sanders was at attaching amendments to pieces of legislation, both
Republican and Democratic, and forging coalitions to achieve his ends. The piece was bandwagon stuff.
But then something happened. The original article, already published, underwent a transformation in which Sanders suddenly wasn't
so effective a legislator. Even the
headline was changed to
"Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories." And this paragraph was added: "But in his presidential campaign
Mr. Sanders is trying to scale up those kinds of proposals as a national agenda, and there is little to draw from his small-ball
legislative approach to suggest that he could succeed."
Responding to angry Sanders supporters,
The Times' own public editor, Margaret Sullivan , asked why the changes were made and wrote, "Matt Purdy, a deputy executive
editor, said that when senior editors read the piece after it was published online, they thought it needed more perspective about
whether Mr. Sanders would be able to carry out his campaign agenda if he was elected president." Yeah, right.
You might note how short a step it is from losing to deserving to lose. The media always seem willing to take that step, not only
when it comes to Sanders but to any presumed loser. It may also explain why the media were so hard on Sanders' policies, ridiculing
them as pie-in-the-sky. On the other hand, Times columnist Paul Krugman, once a liberal hero, took a lot of flak from Sanders
supporters for criticizing several of the senator's proposals and favoring Clinton's. Sandernistas couldn't accept the possibility
that Krugman, whose liberal bona fides are pretty sound, was backing Clinton because he thought Sanders' proposals didn't
add up -- and not that he thought they didn't add up because he was backing Clinton. Even if Sanders was treated unfairly, he didn't
deserve to escape scrutiny just because he was a maverick.
By the same token, the press's presumption that Sanders was a loser wasn't wrong either. Sanders' claim that the system was somehow
rigged against him because of superdelegates proved not to be true. Sanders received far fewer votes than Clinton, 3.7 million less,
and he would have lost the nomination even if there had been no superdelegates, not to mention that he lost the basic Democratic
constituencies to her. What we will never know is if the race might have been different had the coverage been different -- that is,
if Sanders hadn't been
considered some outlier and preordained loser from the very beginning.
Another thing we will never know is how the coverage would have differed if it hadn't been so poll- or delegate-driven. Candidates
won't arrive at the finish line at the same time, but the media should at least let them begin at the starting line together. And
the voters should be the ones to winnow the field, not the press.
Now that Sanders has played his part juicing up the nominating drama, the media seem as eager to dispose of him as the Democratic
establishment does. They're ready to relegate him to his next role: confirmed sore loser.
A front-page story in Thursday's
edition of The New York Times griped , "Hillary Clinton Made History, but Bernie Sanders Stubbornly Ignored it," opening
with the line, "Revolutions rarely give way to gracious expressions of defeat."
No, they don't, and I don't think it is the business of the press to tell candidates when to or how to concede, much less complain
about it. The article went on to call Sanders' address after Tuesday night's primaries "a speech of striking stubbornness," as if
The Times and its barely pent-up exasperation with Sanders finally broke the dam.
But again, this isn't just what the MSM think of Bernie Sanders. It is what the media think of losers. They don't like them very
much, and they seem determined to make sure that you don't like them either -- unless they beat the press's own odds and become winners.
Neal Gabler is an author of five books
and the recipient of two LA Times Book Prizes, Time magazine's nonfiction book of the year, USA Today's biography of the year and
other awards. He is also a senior fellow at the Lear Center for the Study of Entertainment and Society and is currently writing a
biography of Sen. Edward Kennedy.
DNC is a criminal organization and the fact that Debbie Wasserman
Schultz escaped justice is deeply regreatable.
Notable quotes:
"... The problem facing the Democratic National Committee today remains the same as in 2016: How to block even a moderately left-wing social democrat by picking a candidate guaranteed to lose to Trump, so as to continue the policies that serve banks, the financial markets and military spending for Cold War 2.0. ..."
"... Trump meanwhile has done most everything the Democratic Donor Class wants: He has cut taxes on the wealthy, cut social spending for the population at large, backed Quantitative Easing to inflate the stock and bond markets, and pursued Cold War 2.0. Best of all, his abrasive style has enabled Democrats to blame the Republicans for the giveaway to the rich, as if they would have followed a different policy. ..."
"... The effect has been to make America into a one-party state. Republicans act as the most blatant lobbyists for the Donor Class. But people can vote for a representative of the One Percent and the military-industrial complex in either the Republican or Democratic column. That is why most Americans owe allegiance to no party. ..."
"... I'm just curious about how much longer this log-jam situation can persist before real political realignment takes place. Bernie Sander is ultimately a relic not a representative of new political vigor running through the party, like Trump he would be largely be on his own without much congressional support from his own party. ..."
"... As the 2016 election and Brexit have illuminated, globalisation is a religion for the upper middle classes. ..."
"... They just refuse to understand that political solidarity, key to any such policies is permanently damaged by immigration. ..."
"... If you make people chose between their ethnicity being displaced and class conflict, they'll pick the preservation of their ethnicity and it's territory every time. I ..."
"... My prediction: The elites in the US won't give way, people will simply become demoralised and the Trump/Sanders moment will pass with significant damage done to the legitimacy of American democracy and media but with progressives unable to deal with immigration (Much like the right can't deal with global warming) they will fail to get much done. The general population has become too atomised and detached, beaten-down bystanders to their own politics and society to mount a popular political movement. Immigrants, recent descendants of immigrants and the upper middle classes will continue to instinctually understand globalisation is how they loot America and will not vote for 'extreme' candidates that threaten this. The upper middle class will continue to dominate the overton window and use it to inject utter economic lies to the public. ..."
I hope that the candidate who is clearly the voters' choice, Bernie Sanders, may end up as the party's nominee. If he is, I'm
sure he'll beat Donald Trump handily, as he would have done four years ago. But I fear that the DNC's Donor Class will push Joe Biden,
Kamala Harris or even Pete Buttigieg down the throats of voters. Just as when they backed Hillary the last time around, they hope
that their anointed neoliberal will be viewed as the lesser evil for a program little different from that of the Republicans.
So Thursday's reality TV run-off is about "who's the least evil?" An honest reality show's questions would focus on "What are
you against ?" That would attract a real audience, because people are much clearer about what they're against: the vested
interests, Wall Street, the drug companies and other monopolies, the banks, landlords, corporate raiders and private-equity asset
strippers. But none of this is to be permitted on the magic island of authorized candidates (not including Tulsi Gabbard, who was
purged from further debates for having dared to mention the unmentionable).
Donald Trump as the DNC's nominee
The problem facing the Democratic National Committee today remains the same as in 2016: How to block even a moderately left-wing
social democrat by picking a candidate guaranteed to lose to Trump, so as to continue the policies that serve banks, the financial
markets and military spending for Cold War 2.0.
DNC donors favor Joe Biden, long-time senator from the credit-card and corporate-shell state of Delaware, and opportunistic California
prosecutor Kamala Harris, with a hopey-changey grab bag alternative in smooth-talking small-town Rorschach blot candidate Pete Buttigieg.
These easy victims are presented as "electable" in full knowledge that they will fail against Trump.
Trump meanwhile has done most everything the Democratic Donor Class wants: He has cut taxes on the wealthy, cut social spending
for the population at large, backed Quantitative Easing to inflate the stock and bond markets, and pursued Cold War 2.0. Best of
all, his abrasive style has enabled Democrats to blame the Republicans for the giveaway to the rich, as if they would have followed
a different policy.
The Democratic Party's role is to protect Republicans from attack from the left, steadily following the Republican march rightward.
Claiming that this is at least in the direction of being "centrist," the Democrats present themselves as the lesser evil (which is
still evil, of course), simply as pragmatic in not letting hopes for "the perfect" (meaning moderate social democracy) block the
spirit of compromise with what is attainable, "getting things done" by cooperating across the aisle and winning Republican support.
That is what Joe Biden promises.
The effect has been to make America into a one-party state. Republicans act as the most blatant lobbyists for the Donor Class.
But people can vote for a representative of the One Percent and the military-industrial complex in either the Republican or Democratic
column. That is why most Americans owe allegiance to no party.
The Democratic National Committee worries that voters may disturb this alliance by nominating a left-wing reform candidate. The
DNC easily solved this problem in 2016: When Bernie Sanders intruded into its space, it the threw the election. It scheduled the
party's early defining primaries in Republican states whose voters leaned right, and packed the nominating convention with Donor
Class super-delegates.
After the dust settled, having given many party members political asthma, the DNC pretended that it was all an unfortunate political
error. But of course it was not a mistake at all. The DNC preferred to lose with Hillary than win with Bernie, whom springtime polls
showed would be the easy winner over Trump. Potential voters who didn't buy into the program either stayed home or voted green.
No votes will be cast for months, so I don't know how Mr. Hudson can say that Sanders is "clearly the voters choice." He would
be 79 on election day, well above the age when most men die, which is something that voters should seriously consider. Whoever
his VP is will probably be president before the end of Old Bernie's first term, so I hope he chooses his VP wisely.
In any case I laugh at how the media always reports that Biden, who has obviously lost more than a few brain cells, has such
a commanding lead over this field of second-raters. The voters, having much better things to do, haven't even started to pay attention
yet.
And, how could anyone seriously believe in these polls anyway? Only older people have land lines today. If calling people is
the methodology pollsters are using, then the results would be heavily skewed towards former VP Biden, whose name everyone knows.
I lost all faith in polls when the media was saying, with certainty, that Hillary was a lock to win against the insurgent Trump.
Tulsi Gabbard is the only candidate beside Trump with charisma today. With her cool demeanor, she is certainly the least unlikeable.
She would be Trump's most formidable opponent. But the democrats, like their counterparts, are owned by Wall Street and the Military
Industrial Complex. Sadly, most democrats still believe that the party is working in their best interests, while the republicans
are the party of the rich.
If you watch the debates tonight, which I will not be, you will notice that Tulsi Gabbard won't be on stage. That is by design.
She is a leper. At least the republicans allowed Trump to be onstage in 2016, which makes them more democratic than the democrats.
Plus they didn't have Super Delegates to prevent Trump from achieving the nomination he had rightfully won. Something to think
about since the DNC, not the voters, annointed Hillary last time.
If the YouTube Oligarchs still allow it, I plan on watching the post-debate analysis with characters like Richard Spencer and
Eric Striker. Those guys are most entertaining, and have insights that are not permitted to be uttered in the controlled, mind-numbing
farce of the mainstream media.
Elizabeth Warren seems a more likely nominee than Sanders.
Elizabeth Warren is phony as phuck(PAP). Just like forked tongued Obama she's really just a tool for the neo-liberal establishment,
which does make her more likely.
Here is another question. Can the DNC or RNC really change institutionally fast enough?
I'm just curious about how much longer this log-jam situation can persist before real political realignment takes place.
Bernie Sander is ultimately a relic not a representative of new political vigor running through the party, like Trump he would
be largely be on his own without much congressional support from his own party.
As the 2016 election and Brexit have illuminated, globalisation is a religion for the upper middle classes. Many of
them may be progressives but they refuse to understand the very non-progressive consequences of mass immigration (Or, one should
say over-immigration) or globalisation more generally. The increasing defection of such individuals to the Liberal Democrats in
Britain is a fascinating example. They just refuse to understand that political solidarity, key to any such policies is permanently
damaged by immigration.
It is interesting to see the see-saw effect of UKip and now the Brexit party in the UK (Well, in England). With them first
drawing working class voters from Labour without increasing Conservative performance, bringing about a massive conservative majority
and now threatening to siphon voters from the Tories with the opposite effect.
But UKip and later the Brexit party almost exist through the indispensable leadership of Nigel Farage and a very specific motivating
goal of leaving the EU. I can't see a third party rising to put pressure on the mainstream parties.
If you make people chose between their ethnicity being displaced and class conflict, they'll pick the preservation of their
ethnicity and it's territory every time. I f the centre left refuses to understand this (Something that wouldn't have been
hard for them to understand when they still drew candidates from the working classes) they will continue their slide into oblivion
as they have done across the Western world. (Excluding 2 party systems and Denmark where they do understand this)
My prediction: The elites in the US won't give way, people will simply become demoralised and the Trump/Sanders moment
will pass with significant damage done to the legitimacy of American democracy and media but with progressives unable to deal
with immigration (Much like the right can't deal with global warming) they will fail to get much done. The general population
has become too atomised and detached, beaten-down bystanders to their own politics and society to mount a popular political movement.
Immigrants, recent descendants of immigrants and the upper middle classes will continue to instinctually understand globalisation
is how they loot America and will not vote for 'extreme' candidates that threaten this. The upper middle class will continue to
dominate the overton window and use it to inject utter economic lies to the public.
The novel internet mass media outlets that allowed such unpoliced political discussion to reach mass audiences will be pacified
by whatever means and America will slide into an Italian style trans-generational malaise at a national level for some time.
Here is another question. Can the DNC or RNC really change institutionally fast enough?
Trump is trying to change the RNC away from Globalist elites and towards Christian Populist beliefs and Main Street America.
I am some what hopeful, as the U.S. is not alone in this trajectory. There is a global tail wind that should help the GOP change
quickly enough.
The true test will be the 2024 GOP nomination. A bold choice will have to break through to keep the RNC from backsliding into
the clutches of Globalist failure.
I think Sanders could have beat Trump in 2016. This time around it is not that clear because so many of his supporters in 2016
feel burnt.
Badly burnt. Or Bernt. He threw his support for Hillary, even if it was tepid, and then got a bad case of Russiagateitis which
his base on the left really hated. His left base never bought Russiagate for a minute. We knew it was an internal leak, probably
by Seth Rich, who provided all the information to Assange. He still seems to be a strong Israel supporter even if has stood up
to Netanyahu.
And while it may seem odd, many of his base on the left have grown weary of the global climate change agenda.
He has not advocated nuclear power and there is a growing movement for that on the left, especially by those who think renewables
will not generate the power we need.
But since Sanders does seem to attract the rural and suburban vote more than any other Democrat, Sanders has a chance to chip
away at Trumps' base and win the Electoral College. Another horrible loss to rural and suburban America by the Democrats will
cost them the EC again by a substantial margin, even if they manage to pull off another popular vote win.
the republican party is as globalist as you can find,and I'm sure you will be the first one to inform us when the global
elite including those in America throw in the towel,
Some elite Globalist NeverTrumpers, such as George Will and Bill Kristol, have thrown in the towel on the GOP. This allows
their "neocon" followers to return to their roots in the war mongering Democrat Party. So it *IS* happening.
The real questions are:
-- Can it happen fast enough?
-- Can it be sustained after Donald Trump term limits out?
I'm not bold enough to say it is inevitable. All I will say is, "There are reasons to be at least mildly hopeful."
Has everyone forgot the last time the DNC openly cheated Sanders he said nothing publicly, but then endorsed Clinton? Sanders
knows he is not allowed to become president, his role to prevent the formation of a third party, and to keep the Green Party small.
Otherwise he would jump to the Green Party right now and may beat the DNC and Trump.
Sanders treats progressives like Charlie Brown. Once again, inviting them to run a kick the football, only to pull it away
and watch them fall. He recently backed off his opposition to the open borders crazies, rarely mentions cuts to military spending
to fund things, and has even joined the stupid fake russiagate bandwagon.
Note that he dismisses the third party idea as unworkable, when he already knows the DNC is unworkable. Why not give the Green
party a chance? Cause he don't want to win knowing he'd be killed or impeached for some reason.
@Carlton Meyer The
Stalinist DNC openly cheated Tulsi Gabbard when they left her off the debate stage last night. When asked about it on 'The View'
recently, Sanders said nothing in her defense, or that she deserved to be on the stage. Nice way to stab her in the back for leaving
her DNC position to support you last time, Bernie. Socialist Sanders wants to be president, yet is afraid of the DNC. Nice!
Those polls were rigged against Tulsi, and everyone who is paying attention knows it. But, far from hurting her candidacy by
not making the DNC's arbitrary cut, her exclusion may wind up helping her. Kim Iverson, Michael Tracey, and comedian Jimmy Dore,
anti-war progressive YouTubers with large, loyal followings, have lambasted the out-of touch DNC for its actions. Tucker Carlson
on the anti-war right has also done so.
One hopes that the DNC's stupidity in censoring her message may wind up being the best thing ever for Tulsi's insurgent candidacy.
We shall see. OTOH, who can trust the polls to tell us the truth of where her popularity stands.
@RadicalCenter Do you
forget about Trump's declaration that he wants the largest amount of immigration ever, as long as they come in legally? There
are no good guys in our two sclerotic monopoly parties when it comes to immigration. Since both are terrible on that topic, at
least Tulsi seems to have the anti-war principles that Trump does not.
1. Sanders votes for all the Military Expenditures (almost 50% of our National
budget).
2. Sanders voted for all the $100s of Billions giveaways to the worst -most racist –
most anti-Semitic, Apartheid, proto-Fascist Government on the planet. He is a Traitor. He
serves another Master, not America.
3. Sanders apparently, had no recorded means of employment for the first 40+ years of his
life.
4. How many times has Sanders been married? What is the significance of this?
5. Sanders said nothing: Who is the Zionist Military Hero General Woman who is blocked
from the debates by the UNDEMOCRATIC DEMOCRAP GANG??? Gabbard? I recall Hollywood (we must
pass the $Bailout) Obomber did not allow former President Carter to address his Democrap
Convention. Not very Democratic – are they?
Memories (I'm humming the lines as I vent).
Once it is understood that the United States is an Occupied Puppet Nation ,...
"... "However," he added, "we must learn the lessons of the past and not be in the business of regime change or supporting coups -- as we have in Chile, Guatemala, Brazil, and the Dominican Republic. The United States has a long history of inappropriately intervening in Latin American countries; we must not go down that road again."" ..."
"... Sanders has been very clear about no regime change in Venezuela. And he is right to call out Maduro. The election was fraudulent. After squeeking out a win in 2013, Maduro moved the elections up from late 2018 to April, and voter turnout was down from 80% to under 50%. This would be like Trump announcing just before Christmas, while the primaries are still in full swing, that the general election will be taking place in April and not November. ..."
For me, Bernie should have been in the loser column last night. His response on Venezuela was following the standard American
Empire line. What kind of socialist (or "democratic socialist") waxes enthusiastic over yet another U.S. regime change war? And
no mention of the people who have died because of the U.S. sanctions.
I have read his some of his proposals, and it makes no sense to me that he would act this way toward a different country. His
proposals and votes on domestic affairs, and his votes against the Pentagon budget, have usually shown a clear support of people
over the moneyed interests. Why can't he see that the neoliberal (/neoconservative) agenda is wreaking havoc not only in the U.S.,
but in other countries as well?
On another note, I am relieved to see that he's sticking to his guns on killing off private health insurance. I just wish it
were possible during a "debate" to explain to the public why it's so important to do that.
""The Maduro government in Venezuela has been waging a violent crackdown on Venezuelan civil society, violated the constitution
by dissolving the National Assembly and was re-elected last year in an election that many observers said was fraudulent," Sanders
said in a statement. "Further, the economy is a disaster and millions are migrating."
Sanders continued by saying the U.S. while "should support the rule of law, fair elections and self-determination for the Venezuelan
people," it must also "condemn the use of violence against unarmed protesters and the suppression of dissent" in the country.
"However," he added, "we must learn the lessons of the past and not be in the business of regime change or supporting coups
-- as we have in Chile, Guatemala, Brazil, and the Dominican Republic. The United States has a long history of inappropriately
intervening in Latin American countries; we must not go down that road again.""
Sanders has been very clear about no regime change in Venezuela. And he is right to call out Maduro. The election was fraudulent.
After squeeking out a win in 2013, Maduro moved the elections up from late 2018 to April, and voter turnout was down from 80%
to under 50%. This would be like Trump announcing just before Christmas, while the primaries are still in full swing, that the
general election will be taking place in April and not November.
I liked Bernie Sanders back when he was getting shafted by the Clinton juggernaut, but since
then a lot of information on his voting record has come to light – not that it was
ferreted out, it's all public information for anyone who chooses to look for it – and I
have become convinced he is just another lifelong political mouthpiece whose first concern
upon getting elected would be getting re-elected.
So I don't really care much for him now, and I think that if he were president, his
policies would differ little from those of Barack Obama, and he would support any war that
appeared to have enough public backing to get it off the ground. His main concern, obviously
– and it will be for anyone who is elected – is preserving US dominance of global
affairs, and trade relationships which gain the United States significant advantages.
Re-establishing a more cooperative relationship between the United States and its allies
and partners is not on anyone's radar. The USA has made its choice, and it likes the idea of
sitting on the throne and detailing off its minions to do busy stuff. Gabbard might have very
slightly different ideas about polishing America's global image so it is not viewed as quite
so much of a bossy prick and grabby selfish jerk, but if she were elected, America's
corporate elite would waste no time in making sure she understood any president who is not
going to be zealous in standing up for expansion of American business would be a one-termer
at best.
"... It also has Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, front-runners for the presidential nomination, who reject the neoliberal economic policies that the Democratic Party has been championing since the waning days of the Carter administration. ..."
"... In calling them front-runners, I haven't forgotten Joe Biden, still in the lead in most polls. It is just that I think that, after nearly three years of Trump, the candidacy of a doddering Clintonite doofus doesn't – and shouldn't -- merit serious consideration. I trust that this will become increasingly apparent even to the most dull-witted Democratic pundits, and of course to the vast majority of Democratic voters, as the election season unfolds. ..."
"... The better to defeat Trump and Trumpism next year, Sanders or Warren or whichever candidate finally gets the nod, along with the several rays of light in Congress – there are more of them than just the four that Trump would send back to "where they came from" -- will undoubtedly make common cause with corporate Democrats at a tactical level. ..."
With Trump acting out egregiously and mainstream Democrats in the House doing nothing more about it than talking up a storm, it
would be hard to imagine the public mood not shifting in ways that would force a turn for the better.
Thus, despite the best efforts of Democratic National Committee flacks at MSNBC, CNN, and, of course, The New York Times, The
Washington Post, and, worst of all, PBS and NPR, the Democratic Party now has a "squad" with which its Pelosiite-Hoyerite-Schumerian
leadership must contend.
It also has Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, front-runners for the presidential nomination, who reject the neoliberal
economic policies that the Democratic Party has been championing since the waning days of the Carter administration.
In calling them front-runners, I haven't forgotten Joe Biden, still in the lead in most polls. It is just that I think that,
after nearly three years of Trump, the candidacy of a doddering Clintonite doofus doesn't – and shouldn't -- merit serious consideration.
I trust that this will become increasingly apparent even to the most dull-witted Democratic pundits, and of course to the vast majority
of Democratic voters, as the election season unfolds.
The better to defeat Trump and Trumpism next year, Sanders or Warren or whichever candidate finally gets the nod, along with
the several rays of light in Congress – there are more of them than just the four that Trump would send back to "where they came
from" -- will undoubtedly make common cause with corporate Democrats at a tactical level.
This is all to the good. Nevertheless, the time to start working to assure that it goes no deeper than that is already upon
us.
When the dust clears, it will become evident that the squad-like new guys and the leading Democrats of the past are not on the
same path; that the former want to reconstruct the Democratic Party in ways that will make it authentically progressive, while the
latter, wittingly or not, want to restore and bolster the Party that made Trump and Trumpism possible and even inevitable.
... ... ...
Could the Israel lobby be next? As Israeli politics veers ever farther to the right, its lobby's stranglehold over the Democratic
Party, though far from shot, is in plain decline -- as increasingly many American Jews, especially but not only millennials, lose
interest in the ethnocratic settler state, or find themselves embarrassed by it.
... ... ...
ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and
POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell)
as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is
In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the
Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy)
at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to
Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics
of Illusion (AK Press).
Last election, Bernie lost me when he didn't stand up to the DNC for screwing him and his
supporters. Instead he accepted the WH visit with Obama, came out with the deed for a
beachfront mansion in his pocket and a smile on his face. He's no more honest or truthful
than the rest of the carpetbaggers in D.C.
I went with Trump and will vote for him again; MAGA 2020. He's the most solution-based
President we will likely ever have in our lifetimes. Just look at what he's accomplished thus
far despite fighting off a coup de 'tat by his own FBI/DOJ!
"... I just hope Bernie sees that Russiagate emerged partly as a neoliberal defense against his appeal. Clinton-Obama wing needed an excuse for its loss & a defense against rising progressives. That's why MSNBC et al have used it to taint Bernie's campaign. ..."
"... The ensuing thread accurately mirrors the discussion about Sanders here: Is he playing politics or is he really lame, etc. IMO, Sanders seems like an intelligent man with a good memory to match. He can grasp rather complex issues and boil them down to their essentials. But, for some reason he can't/won't do this with Russiagate. ..."
"... More on Sanders and Russiagate ..."
"... Then there's Sanders woeful stance on Imperial Policy. He reminds me of the song about the walking contradiction, although on the nuts & bolts of this issue as he's framed it, he's mostly correct. Perhaps if he were 100% honest and said: I'm going to put an end to the CIA's Project Mockingbird. ..."
"... One of the reasons why American politics has always been so corrupt is the refusal of honest people to get involved with the crooks. Sanders is a crook, in the sense that he can be deceitful-he backs the F35 for chrissake- but he is the only option in 2020. And the best option there has been since Henry Wallace. Oh, yes and he is politically, about 10,000 times better than either of the Kennedys. ..."
"... He entered the race to "raise issues", not to defeat Hillary, his "friend of 25 years". ..."
Aaron
Mate on Russiagate's continuance as an attack on Sanders and Sanders seeming
unwillingness to deal effectively with it due to his initial gullibility:
"I wish Bernie didn't peddle Russiagate, but he's in a different position than the
rest of us. If he didn't go along w/ it, the media & political class would make life
even more difficult for him than they already do. That's how cynical politics work."
" I just hope Bernie sees that Russiagate emerged partly as a neoliberal defense
against his appeal. Clinton-Obama wing needed an excuse for its loss & a defense
against rising progressives. That's why MSNBC et al have used it to taint Bernie's
campaign. "
The ensuing thread accurately mirrors the discussion about Sanders here: Is he
playing politics or is he really lame, etc. IMO, Sanders seems like an intelligent man with
a good memory to match. He can grasp rather complex issues and boil them down to their
essentials. But, for some reason he can't/won't do this with Russiagate.
Is he actually being honest and thus displaying a great deal of gullibility, or is he
being dishonest, actually understands what's happening, but refuses to speak out on the
issue; or is it some other formula? None of those are trust enhancing and are akin to the
description of Warren I noted above.
Sanders seems like an intelligent man with a good memory to match. He can grasp
rather complex issues and boil them down to their essentials. But, for some reason he
can't/won't do this with Russiagate. Is he actually being honest......
Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 26 2019 21:24 UTC
Well, d'oh!
Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People —
powerful people — listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one
unbreakable rule: They don’t criticize other insiders.
Sanders made a significant move in the poker game he is playing with Warren and the
oligarchy. He called for the nationalisation of the energy industry.
Among the points he made were :
1/"Reaching 100 percent renewable energy for electricity and transportation by no later than
2030, and complete decarbonization by 2050 at the latest. Key to this achievement will be
expanding the existing federal Power Marketing Administrations to build new solar, wind, and
geothermal energy sources..."
2/" Ending unemployment by creating 20 million good paying, union jobs in steel and auto
manufacturing, construction, energy efficiency retrofitting, coding and server farms, and
renewable power plants. The plan would also see the creation of millions of jobs in
sustainable agriculture, engineering, a reimagined and expanded Civilian Conservation Corp,
and preserving public lands.
3/"Direct public investment of $16.3 trillion toward these efforts, in line with the
mobilization of resources made during the New Deal and WWII, but with an explicit choice to
include black, indigenous and other minority communities who were systematically excluded in
the past.
4/"A just transition that prioritizes fossil fuel workers, guaranteeing five years at
current salary, housing assistance, job training, health care, pension support, and priority
job placement for any displaced worker, as well as early retirement support for those who
choose it or can no longer work."
In doing this he is defying the Establishment, from the Chambers of Commerce to the
Academy, and throwing the socialist gauntlet down. It remains to be seen whether the American
people will pick it up and change, perhaps save, the world. This is how political change
begins, with the publication of a programme of policies and an objective. Sanders is ensuring
that any "Green New Deal" will include ending unemployment and reversing the dismantling of
the Labour movement.
All he needs now is about a million volunteers to campaign for these things and to ensure
that, for the first time in many years, the electorate have a clear idea of what they are
voting for and what is within their grasp.
Of course he also needs about 400 candidates for the House of Representatives, thousands to
run in State races and a slate of Senators.
Mitch McConnell: You need to explain to the people of Kentucky why you believe that we
should do nothing to stop Russia from interfering with our elections. Stop obstructing
legislation to protect our democracy.
1:49 PM - 25 Aug 2019 from Washington, DC "
More on Sanders and Russiagate as he's certainly a hypocrite to say the
following without also slamming the gross propaganda narrative that's Russiagate :
"We cannot sit by and allow corporations, billionaires, and demagogues to destroy the
Fourth Estate, nor can we allow them to replace serious reporting with infotainment and
propaganda."
And where was this outburst in 2016? Yes, as bevin reports, I see he's made yet another
sensible proposal, but Trump's MAGA was hypothetically sensible too.
Then there's Sanders woeful stance on Imperial Policy. He reminds me of the song about
the walking contradiction, although on the nuts & bolts of this issue as he's framed it,
he's mostly correct. Perhaps if he were 100% honest and said: I'm going to put an end to the
CIA's Project Mockingbird.
Thanks for holding Bernie's feet to the fire, karlof1 - the electorate has to have learned
something from 2016 and all his excellent sounding programs don't make up for the fact that
he did not cast off from clearly dishonest electioneering by the party elites when it
counted. Had he done so I think that many would have gone to support him and things might be
very different today. My own pivot point happened when Jill Stein offered to have him join
her and he totally ignored her. It will take a lot for me to support him now, and some of
that has to include an honest appraisal of what happened in 2016.
"What good does it do us or Sanders for him to denounce BigLie Media while continuing to
give credence/credibility to the #1 BigLie its made continually over the past THREE
years?!"
karlofi @193
Here's an answer. The lie is dead now. It has lost its power to fascinate. It no longer
matters except as an example of the DNC's deceifulness/dishonesty.
But while it was still circulating Sanders had nothing to gain-and, I'm not being
complimentary, he is very shrewd politician, and realised that the DNC wanted him to say-what
every sane person in the world knew- that the charges against Putin and Trump were ludicrous.
And we know what happened to people who said that, don't we? They were drummed to the
margins, called Putinbots and Trump apologists etc. And not allowed to open their mouths
withoutr being accused of working for the Kremlin.
Sanders is clever enough to insist on fighting on his own terms, rather than those that
Podesta and the MSM decide upon.
And that is why, while we were all laughing at Russiagate, Sanders pretended to be taking
it seriously.
And is now fighting the campaign on his terms, as outlined above.
If you look back at William Jennings Bryan, for example, in 1896. Or FDR in 1932/36. You
will find that they were both incredibly compromised and, for the purist, impossible to back.
FDR's mentor in the Party, who organised much of his campaign and was part of the inner
circle, Josephus Daniels was responsible for the long delayed 'redemption' of North Carolina
and for the Wilmington race riots. FDR was backed by some of the least savoury Jim Crow
bosses, the Klan and criminal urban machines. But you had to back him. Just as you had to
back Bryan in 96.
One of the reasons why American politics has always been so corrupt is the refusal of
honest people to get involved with the crooks. Sanders is a crook, in the sense that he can
be deceitful-he backs the F35 for chrissake- but he is the only option in 2020. And the best
option there has been since Henry Wallace. Oh, yes and he is politically, about 10,000 times
better than either of the Kennedys.
Well, it is the polls, that is the data we are using to discuss this stuff and I have not
seen any poll where he is leading all those groups, especially the young. Last time I
checked, Bernie was leading with voters 55 and younger, younger women and there is great
variation among black voters in regards to age. And I have to say, those doing the polls have
not done anything to give me confidence in them. Not just the biases of many of those
conducting the polls, but who they poll. CNN on more than one occassion has cited polls that
essentially ignored voters younger than 50.
All of the pollsters ignore those who don't fit into their narrative.
Trump and Bernie are the only ones who can fill stadiums for their rallies.
Biden and the rest of the clown posse can't even fill a high school auditorium. Even the
sainted hills couldn't even fill an auditorium.
That's why they don't hold rallies, they have town halls in extremely small venues.
But if cnnmsndccbsfoxnbcpbsabc538 tell you every frickin day that sleepy joe is up 2-1 on
everybody, from the first day of his campaign no less, even tho bernie is leading in
individual donors by probably 3-1, it just becomes sort of inevitable that he is the one you
need to vote for. Especially because everyone wants to be on the winning team.
Just like last time it comes down to vote Bernie in June or get goofy don in November.
FTR, am not a berniebro but sweet jesus, I can read the tea leaves.
"Biden and the rest of the clown posse can't even fill a high school auditorium. Even the
sainted hills couldn't even fill an auditorium "
Seen the video of the shill in the gym chanting
"Hill-a-ry!" "Hill-a-ry!" She realizes no one is copying her. She claps and chants again.
Finally gives up when some guy laughs at her.
Sioux City population is 83,000. The Kamaleon was crowing about the fact that her speech
in a hall for 150 had 300 people? That's hardly an enthusiastic turnout for a presidential
candidate.
And all the candidates except Bernie do this: schedule speeches in preposterously small
facilities so that they can claim even a ridiculously low turnout is some sort of smashing
success, merely because it was bigger than the tiny hall they themselves scheduled.
"... The reason the ruler's have decreed 'anybody but Bernie' is that Sanders' (and to a lesser perceived degree, Warren's) campaign proposals challenge the austerity regime that has been relentlessly erected since the 1970s precisely to set American workers and the whole capitalist world on a Race to the Bottom, in which each year brings lower living standards and more insecurity to the population at large. ..."
"... The obscene increases in wealth inequality are the desired result and true essence of austerity. ..."
"... "the top one-tenth of one percent (.1%) of the population -- households making $2.757 million a year -- now number almost 200,000 families, a cohort big enough to create and inhabit a large and coherent social world of its own. ..."
Sanders (D)(1): "Why the Rich Want to Bury Bernie, the Not-Really-Socialist" [Glen Ford,
Black Agenda
Report (CI)]. Really excellent.
Here's "why":
"The reason the ruler's have decreed 'anybody
but Bernie' is that Sanders' (and to a lesser perceived degree, Warren's) campaign proposals
challenge the austerity regime that has been relentlessly erected since the 1970s precisely to
set American workers and the whole capitalist world on a Race to the Bottom, in which each year
brings lower living standards and more insecurity to the population at large.
The obscene
increases in wealth inequality are the desired result and true essence of austerity."
There's
much more, but this on local oligarchies is important: "the top one-tenth of one percent (.1%)
of the population -- households making $2.757 million a year -- now number almost 200,000
families, a cohort big enough to create and inhabit a large and coherent social world of its
own.
From their rich enclaves in every state of the country, this formidable "base" of truly
wealthy folks effectively dictate the politics of their regions for the benefit of themselves
and the oligarchs at the top of the pyramid. "
WOLFEBORO, N.H. -- While most Democratic presidential candidates are worried about how
they can build support, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders may face a different task: how to
retain as many supporters as he can from last time.
In 2016, Sanders easily won the New Hampshire primary, defeating the eventual nominee,
Hillary Clinton, with more than 60 percent of the vote. Given the current field of
candidates, the math is clear: If he can convince just half of those voters to stick with him
he could pull off another win.
This might be why attending a Sanders campaign event in 2019 in some ways mimics a Donald
Trump rally: lots of media-bashing, a reprisal of popular topics from his last campaign, and
a lot of preaching to the converted.
On Monday night, Sanders addressed a crowd of 350 here against a scenic backdrop of a
gazebo and Lake Winnipesaukee. Of two dozen attendees who were interviewed by the Globe,
almost all said they have decided to support Sanders in the New Hampshire primary in
February.
Among them were Kyra Dulmage, 33, a middle school teacher from Dover whose cat's name is
Bernie.
"Sanders is the real deal," she said. "He has been consistent in his ideas for decades. I
wanted to come and show support."
Caleb Seymour, a 23-year-old from Concord, said that coming to see Sanders was like seeing
his favorite band in a concert.
"I wanted to see the whole show and cheer him on," said Seymour, a recent college
graduate.
The same was true with Paul Hough, a 69-year-old antique store owner, and his 31-year-old
daughter, who both live in Meredith. They have been on the Sanders e-mail list since the last
campaign, which is how they heard about the event.
"I guess there isn't anything new that I really want to hear, but I want to hear him talk
about Medicare for All," Hough said.
Such longtime supporters, many sporting "Bernie 2016" campaign buttons, represent the
campaign's biggest strength.
A Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll released last week found Sanders in second place,
with 17 percent support, four points behind former vice president Joe Biden at 21
percent.
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts was close behind, with 14 percent.
Yet Sanders had the largest group of supporters -- 48 percent -- who said their mind is
already made up.
By contrast, two-thirds of those who said they are currently backing Warren said they were
still open to changing their minds.
On a conference call with reporters Monday morning, Sanders senior adviser Jeff Weaver
said that a retention-focused approach would miss voters who just moved to the state or those
who are newly eligible to vote.
"We are not organizing around a strategy of just trying to retain voters," he said. "We
are always looking to grow new voters."
There is evidence of their efforts. In the second fund-raising quarter, the Sanders
campaign said, it received contributions from more than a million people nationwide, 43
percent of whom had never given to Sanders before.
At the same time, the campaign acknowledges that its base of support is critical to
building a strong campaign.
For example, during his two-day swing through New Hampshire Monday and Tuesday, which
includes a pair of town hall meetings, a breakfast meet-and-greet, and an ice cream social,
the campaign is primarily reaching out to those who have been in contact with the campaign
via text or e-mail.
"Part of the thinking is obviously knowing who our people are and connecting with them
again when it comes to events like these," said Carli Stevenson, the campaign's deputy N.H.
director. "It helps to fire them up and maybe convince them to volunteer and with their help,
reach new people."
Word-of-mouth brought Beverly Davis, 70, a retired teacher from Wolfeboro, to hear
Sanders. She backed Clinton last time and is considering Sanders among a long list of other
candidates, including Warren, and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg.
"Like a lot of Democrats, I am interested in hearing what he has to say," Davis said. "We
don't all have our minds made up."
From backing free college to supporting Medicare for All, reparations, the Green New Deal,
and the decriminalization of illegal border crossings, the 2020 presidential field shows a
party that has moved decidedly to the left in recent years.
But if history is any guide, New Hampshire Democrats won't be interested. In the state's
past first-in-the-nation presidential primaries, their winners have almost always been the
more moderate candidates in the party: Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Paul Tsongas, Al Gore,
John Kerry, and, in 2008, Hillary Clinton.
The exception? Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist who defeated Clinton
by a wide margin in 2016. And as the Vermonter returns to the state Monday for a two-day
swing, one of his tasks will be to figure out how to once again defy history -- especially
with several other progressive candidates in the race.
The week ahead in New Hampshire will highlight the challenge in a dramatic way: Elizabeth
Warren, who slightly trails Sanders in Granite State polls as both battle to be the
progressive alternative to front-runner Joe Biden, will hold events in the northern part of
the state one day after Sanders.
"Sanders was able to be the exception to the rule in 2016 because of a unique set of
circumstances in which he could fuse the party's progressive wing with its anti-Clinton and
anti-establishment voters," said Judy Reardon, a longtime Democratic activist in New
Hampshire who backed Clinton in 2016 and has endorsed Kirsten Gillibrand in this primary.
"Obviously there are many more candidates who are competing for different wings of his
previous coalition," she said.
It's not just Warren. Several candidates have adopted planks of Sanders' platform, such as
his support for Medicare for All and increasing the minimum wage, as well as his opposition
to free trade agreements. One of Sanders' most high-profile endorsements of his 2016
campaign, Representative Tulsi Gabbard, is running herself.
Mark MacKenzie, former New Hampshire AFL-CIO head and Sanders campaign steering committee
member, said that while Warren and others have no doubt made the path to victory more
difficult, the candidate's 2016 win was no fluke.
"Bernie really woke up Democrats that what has normally been going on is not working for
them," MacKenzie said. "He has a group of people very committed to that idea, and while we
saw some people looking at other candidates, they are starting to come back." For example,
former state Senator Burt Cohen said last week he will endorse Sanders again after meeting
with other candidates, including hosting a Marianne Williamson house party last month.
A Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll released last week found that Sanders had the most
supporters who have their minds made up.
But the same poll found that, once again, a moderate establishment candidate was leading
in the state: Biden. The former vice president had 21%, and Sanders and Warren had 17% and
14%, respectively.
"What is keeping Biden in the lead is that no one is even competing with him among older
voters, union households, and moderates," said David Paleologos, the director of the Suffolk
poll. "Sanders really needs Warren out of the way and vice versa, but neither appear to be
going away."
The same survey found a split among likely Democratic primary voters in the state: 51%
call themselves moderate, conservative, or very conservative, compared to 45% who say they
are liberal or very liberal. (The poll of 500 likely Democratic primary voters was taken Aug.
1 to 4)
Beyond the presidential race, a moderate Democrat has won every statewide primary for
governor or US Senate in the last 15 years.
"There is no question that there is a moderate establishment running local Democratic
politics in this state that have made it very hard for more progressive candidates to get a
foothold," said Paul McEachern of Portsmouth, who lost the Democratic nomination for governor
to a more moderate candidate, John Lynch, in 2004. (McEachern supported Sanders in 2016, but
he is backing Warren in this race).
McEachern attributed much of this dynamic to his own former campaign manager, current US
Senator Jeanne Shaheen, the state's most senior elected Democrat. If Shaheen, a more moderate
Democrat, endorses a candidate or gives them her approval, the contender is in a much better
position to raise money or recruit talented staff in the state, he said.
As Shaheen and all of the Democratic establishment backed Clinton in 2016, they were
rebuked by Sanders supporters. Shaheen was even booed by Sanders supporters at a large state
party dinner named after her just days before the presidential primary.
By then, polls showed Sanders with an advantage. His victory became a blowout, as he
defeated Clinton by 22 percentage points, catapulting Sanders into a two-person showdown with
the former US secretary of state that lasted for months.
Last year in New Hampshire, the establishment struck back.
More moderate candidates who had the backing of Shaheen, US Senator Maggie Hassan, and
Representative Annie Kuster won both the Democratic nomination for governor and a key
congressional race: In the primary to succeed retiring Representative Carol Shea-Porter, one
of the party's most liberal members, moderate Chris Pappas defeated a number of challengers
who ran as Sanders supporters -- including Sanders' own son, Levi.
Shaheen has said she will not endorse anyone in the 2020 presidential primary, saying she
needs to focus on her own reelection.
And in 2020, according to Peter Burling, a former state senator and former Democratic
National Committeeman, internal party jousts will take a back seat to the greater mission:
New Hampshire Democrats are just looking for a winner.
"The common theme in New Hampshire Democratic politics in the last few decades has been
pragmatism," said Burling, a progressive who backed former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley
in 2016 and is uncommitted so far in this primary.
Burling said that when he talks to local Democrats at his house parties for presidential
candidates, they say defeating Trump remains the top priority.
And in New Hampshire, while voters size up their options, the stakes will be clear in
their backyard. Trump will hold a rally in Manchester on Thursday.
New Hampshire primary winners tend to be moderate,
except for Bernie Sanders.
[ A thoroughly revealing headline, because Senator Sanders is indeed thoroughly moderate.
That Sanders may have differences with a Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden in policy ideas is a
matter of degree. Donald Trump and advisers have radical policy ideas on healthcare or
climate or foreign policy.
To write news articles of Sanders as not being moderate is simply being slanted or
prejudiced. Sanders is a moderate as is Elizabeth Warren. ]
It depends on the spectrum that
voters use to assess his candidacy.
voters long accustomed to a political spectrum oriented around economic ideology might
agree that Sanders, who calls himself a "democratic socialist," is the left-most candidate in
the race.
There are, however, other possibilities. One could analyze U.S. politics in a way that
positions Sanders as a relative moderate. As Damon Linker put it:
'Sanders is that rarest of things in contemporary progressive politics: a candidate for
the presidency who doesn't think in terms of multicultural identity politics. Of course he
strongly supports civil rights for women, people of color, the LGBT community, and every
other group in the Democratic electoral coalition. But he aims for the left to be more than a
conglomeration of intersectional grievance groups clamoring for recognition.'
Roughly 54% of Democrats told Gallup that they want their party to be more moderate. How
many of them would prefer the more inclusive, universalist approach to culture-war issues
that Sanders tends to offer, even though he's further left on marginal tax rates and
government-run health care?
(Bernie has consistently been pro-gun;
perhaps that alone makes him a moderate.)
Overall, Bernie Sanders believes in a middle-ground solution in the national gun debate,
saying in a recent interview:
"Folks who do not like guns [are] fine. But we have millions of people who are gun owners
in this country -- 99.9 percent of those people obey the law. I want to see real, serious
debate and action on guns, but it is not going to take place if we simply have extreme
positions on both sides. I think I can bring us to the middle."
Gun Control: Gun control legislation should ultimately fall on individual states, with the
exception of a federal ban on assault weapons and instant background checks to prevent
firearms from finding their way into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.
Manufacturer Liability: Gun manufacturers should not be held liable for the misuse of
their products, just as any other industry isn't held accountable for how end-consumers use
their products.
Improve Mental Health: Gun control is not the only solution to curbing the epidemic of gun
violence. There must be other efforts to assist those with mental health issues in order to
prevent suicides by firearms or mass shootings at public places. ...
BTW, the Boston Globe, which favored HRC
last time around (as did yers truly) seems
pretty solidly behind Liz Warren, as a
favorite daughter so to speak. But when
push comes to shove, they will surely back
the Dem candidate, whoever it may be.
(As will I & the majority of
my fellow Bay Staters.)
"... Among the reasons why Biden, Sanders, and Warren will be difficult to topple from the top tier: a significant portion of their supporters say they have made up their minds about the race. ..."
"... This is especially the case with Sanders. Nearly half -- 48 percent -- of his supporters said they would definitely vote for him... ..."
A new poll out Tuesday on the New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary shows the
outcome is anyone's guess between former vice president Joe Biden, Senator Bernie Sanders of
Vermont, and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.
Beyond which candidate had what level of support in the first-in-the-nation presidential
primary -- scheduled for February 2020 -- a deeper dive into the Suffolk University/Boston
Globe poll provides a number of other big-picture takeaways.
The top tier is hard to crack
Biden, Sanders, and Warren are the only candidates with support in the double digits (21
percent, 17 percent, and 14 percent, respectively), and a closer read suggests that might not
change anytime soon. Much of this has to do with the fact that a significant portion of their
support is locked down. Nearly half of Sanders' and Biden's supporters in the poll say they
their mind is made up and they aren't looking at supporting anyone else in the field.
Something dramatic could occur, of course, but odds are that the status quo will remain for a
while.
Further, if there are big changes in the race, the poll found that Warren, not someone
else outside of the top three, is in the best position to benefit. Warren was the "second
choice" of 21 percent of respondents. No one else was even close to her in that category.
While Sanders has support locked down now, and Warren has the best potential to
grow , Biden, it appears, has his own lane of supporters that no other candidate is even
contesting. Biden's support is very strong among older voters, moderates, and union members.
For the most part, these voters aren't even looking at other options.
New Hampshire Democrats are moderate
For all the conversation about how far left the Democratic Party has moved in recent
years, the poll shows likely Democratic primary voters have not moved the same way. Yes, a
majority back the Green New Deal concept and Medicare for All, but more than 50 percent
describe themselves as either moderate, conservative, or very conservative. This is compared
with the 45 percent who say they are either liberal or very liberal. While this might seem
like a near tie, consider this survey polled likely Democratic voters -- the party's base --
which is the most liberal. ...
... In fourth place is Senator Kamala Harris of California at 8 percent, followed by South
Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 6 percent and Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii at 3
percent.
Among the reasons why Biden, Sanders, and Warren will be difficult to topple from the
top tier: a significant portion of their supporters say they have made up their minds about
the race.
This is especially the case with Sanders. Nearly half -- 48 percent -- of his
supporters said they would definitely vote for him...
2016 was widely recognized as the year of "populism," more adequately described as the year
of revolt against the political Establishment -- in both Parties. The Democratic Primary in
2016 was a battle of progressive forces against the Democratic Establishment, and the battle
lines were clearly drawn. Those lines remain much the same as we approach 2020.
On the Progressive or Populist side were those who opposed the endless wars in the Middle
East, and on the Establishment side those who supported those long and bloody wars. On the
Progressive Side were those who supported badly needed domestic reforms, most notably Medicare
for All, which after all is a reform of almost 20% of the entire economy and a reform that has
to do with life itself. In contrast on the Establishment side were those who supported
ObamaCare, a device for leaving our health care to the tender mercies of the Insurance
behemoths with its ever increasing premiums and ever decreasing coverage.
In 2016 the pundits gave progressives little chance of success. Hillary Clinton was a
shoo-in, we were all assured by a horde of "reliable sources." And given the control that the
Clintonites exercised over the Democratic Party apparatus, there was little prospect of a
successful rebellion and every chance of having one's career badly damaged by opposing Party
elite. Summer soldiers and duplicitous candidates were not interested in challenging the
Establishment.
In 2016 Bernie Sanders was the only politician who was willing to take on the Establishment.
Although not technically a Democrat, he caucused with them and worked with them. And he was a
lifelong, reliable and ardent advocate for Medicare for All and a consistent opponent of the
endless wars. For these things he was prepared to do battle against overwhelming odds on the
chance that he might prevail and because from his grass roots contacts he sensed that a
rebellion was brewing.
In 2016 only one among the current crop of candidates followed Bernie, supported him and
joined him on the campaign trail -- Tulsi Gabbard. At the time she was a two term Congresswoman
and Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), a career building position, from
which she would have to resign in order to support one of the candidates. Moreover, reports
said she bridled at the internal bias of the DNC in favor of Hillary. To express her
displeasure with the DNC and to support Bernie, she had to defy the Clinton Establishment,
which might even have terminated her political career. But she was a foe of the endless wars,
partly based on her own experience as a National Guard member who had been deployed to Iraq in
a medical unit and saw the ravages of war first hand. So she joined Bernie, introducing him at
many of his rallies and strengthening his antiwar message.
Bernie and Tulsi proved themselves in the defining battle of 2016. They let us know
unequivocally where they stand. And Bernie might well have won the nomination were he not
cheated out of it by the Establishment which continues to control the levers of power in the
Democratic Party to this day.
In 2016 these two stood in stark contrast to the other 2020 Democratic candidates. Let us
take one example of these others, Elizabeth Warren, a darling of the main stream media which
often refers to her as ideologically aligned to Bernie Sanders. Perhaps she is so aligned at
times -- at least in words; she is after all in favor of Medicare for All, although she hastens
to add that she is "open to other approaches." That qualifier is balm to the ears of the
Insurance behemoths. Translation: she has already surrendered before the battle has begun.
In 2016 a critical primary for Bernie was Masschusetts where Senator Warren wields
considerable influence. Clinton defeated Sanders there by a mere 1.5% whereas she had lost to
Obama there by 15% in 2008. Wikipedia has this to say of the
primary:
"Following the primary, Elizabeth Warren, the state's senior US senator, was widely
criticized by Sanders supporters online for her refusal to endorse him prior to the primary.
Supporters of Bernie Sanders have argued that an endorsement from Warren, whose political
positions were similar to that of Sanders's, and who was a frequent critic of Hillary Clinton
in the past, could have handed Massachusetts to him. "
One must conclude that either Warren does not genuinely share the views of Sanders or she is
loath to buck the Establishment and fight for those views. In either event she, and the others
who failed to back Bernie in 2016, are not made of the stuff that can win Medicare for All,
bring an end to the regime change wars and illegal sanctions of the last four or more
administrations, begin serious negotiations to end the existential nuclear peril, and address
the many other problems facing us and all of humanity.
“Bernie walked the walk”
When was that? The time he toured through Baltimore and called it a third world city while
assiduously not discussing how, why, and because of who it became so?
The way he openly sold out to Clinton and ducked into his new third manor house to avoid
being held to task for leaving his base out to dry the very moment they were ready to
seriously break ranks from the neolib political machine?
Is he walking the walk now as he tries to rationalize away his underpaying of his campaign
workers and cuts hours to minimize the costs of the 15 dollar floor price he demanded for
everyone other employer?
The man is a DNC stooge through and through.
And Tulsi being anti-war out of personal squeamishness doesn’t make up for the rest of
her painfully party-line-compliant platform, particularly when the Deep State has multiple
active avenues available to at the very least keep our military presence still existing
military presence trapped and held hostage. All the dove cooing in recorded world history
won’t hold up when, not if, Britain or France or whoever deliberately sinks another
navy vessel and drags her by the hair into another desert scrum.
@Tusk As with the 1960 Presidential Election, Hillary stole that election fair and
square. Had Sanders went full third party, it would’ve destroyed the Democrats
outright. Despite Clinton’s cheating, Bernie went ahead and bent the knee. Strangely
enough, Trump’s victory saved Sanders and his faction. Had Clinton won, she
would’ve purged the Sanders supporters relentlessly.
There is such a thing as a tactical retreat. Now he’s able to play again.
is that our “establishment elite” have failed the United States of
America.
How, you may ask ?
The answer is simple.
By defrauded us into multiple illegal wars of aggression they have bankrupted the entire
nation.
The iron fact is that because our “elites” lied us into illegal war we are now
22.5 trillion dollars in heinous debt.
Why is this okay ?
The answer is simple.
It is not okay, NOT AT ALL .
And it is not enough (anymore) to just demand we “end our wars”, Mr.
Walsh.
The cost in treasure has been too high and the burden on the US taxpayer too obscene.
Without demanding “accountability” from our elites, who lied us into this
catastrophe, our nation is most probably going under.
I say…. make them pay …”every penny”…. for the cost of
the wars they lied us into.
An initiative, like the “War fraud Accountability Act” (retroactive to 2002)
would do just that.
it would replenish the coffers of our nation with all the assets of the larcenous
profiteers who deceived us all….into heinous war debt.
As we witness the rise of China as the new global economic powerhouse, we can see first
hand how a nation can rise to immense wealth and global influence “precisely
because” it was never deceived by its “ruling class” into squandering all
its resources initiating and fighting endless criminal wars.
Just imagine where the USA would be today, had we chosen the same course.
Until Dems are willing to refuse to depend on Haim Saban’s “generous
donation” to the Dem candidate, none of their candidates will deserve to be the the
POTUS candidate. Ditto for the Republicans and their fetish with Shelly Adelson. Candidates
must kowtow to Israel or else there will be no dough for them and they might even be
challenged in their incumbencies next time around by ADL/AIPAC. Until we get rid of Israeli
money and political power, we are toast.
1)Both Sanders and Gabbard are onboard for going to war against Christian Russia over
Crimea..Sanders has gone so far as saying that a Military response against Russia is an
option if all else fails in getting Russia out of Crimea…
2)Both Sanders and Gabbard are waging a war of RACIAL EXTERMINATION against Working Class
Native Born White American Males….And that’s WHITE GENOCIDE!!!!
@Kronos Bernie “bent the knee” once and got to enjoy his lakeside home and
his wife protected from fraud prosecution after she stole money from People’s United
Bank for her college scam.
He is owned.
If Tulsi were a serious threat she would be neutralized one way or another.
“Progressives” are virtue signaling fools–the kleptocracy marches on and
laughs at them.
One has to wonder where Dems like Warren and their identity politics is taking the US.
Will everyone who even slightly disagrees with them be labeled a terrorist?
During the hot takes, Axelrod, of Sanders on #MedicareForAll. Basically, this is hard,
Obama wanted a public option and couldn't do it. Then:
He [Sanders] was there, he knows that what he's talking about won't happen any time
soon.
First, Obama was never serious about the public option (itself an unserious
bait-and-switch operation by liberals). He cut a deal with Big Pharma to drop it in exchange
for some now forgotten price breaks -- and kept it secret, so his deluded followers could
pretend it was still on the table.
Second, Sanders extracted several billion dollars for community health centers as his
price for supporting the bill. That was the benefit of Sanders being "there,"
unmentioned by Axelrod. He wasn't a passive observer, he improved the bill.
Third, Sanders does not know #MedicareForAll will "not happen anytime soon."
Axelrod cannot accept Sanders's theory of change, partly because it was destroy his personal
business model, partly because the professional base of the Democrats opposes expanding the
base to working class voters tooth and nail.
Fourth, Axelrod just outright said Sanders is a liar. Hopefully, the campaign calls him
out for that.
This is the David Yepsen School of Reporting. Yepsen was a DM Register political analyst
whose stock question formula was:
"[People whose names I won't mention] say [some horrible thing for which there is no proof
and so legitimate media has been ignoring it] and what is your response to that?"
Yepsen single-handedly laundered countless specious rightwing attacks on Democrats in Iowa
by inserting rumors into interviews and even debate questions, and when the candidates
responded, the rumors became legit "news" stories. He then became the Dean of Iowa Reporters
which meant that every four years, the national press corps kissed his ass for Iowa Caucus
stories.
From my Antipodean seat, I always thought that it a weakness on Bernie's part that he
never says that he stands for traditional American values. Stuff like being able to give your
opinion, the right to vote and have it counted, not to be harassed by a militarized police,
having an opportunity to get a decent paying job and be protected by a union, being able to
earn enough to have a home, to seek education without being subjected to a lifetime of debt
enslavement for your choice. Stuff like that.
Not so much a Norman Rockwell version of America but making America a land of opportunity for
all and not just a wealthy minority. That would grab a lot of people's attention. Maybe he
should come out and say; "Hey, wages in this country have not gone up in forty years. So just
where exactly did all those trillions of dollars go that should have gone into your pockets
over all those years?" Put his opposition on the spot trying to defend the indefensible.
But I wonder if the very important work of educating the public via a reframing of
fundamental concepts is the same work as getting elected and actually leading the country.
Bernie on occasion explains that what he means by socialism is close to FDR's vision, but
that's not how the vast majority of the electorate understands the term. It's unlikely that
there is enough time before the 2020 election to change the typical voter's default
definitions for that and related words.
Map/territory confusion is the root of idolatry. Getting stuck on the word comes off as
stubbornness, or worse. AOC, for example, is much looser when pressed with the typical
neoliberal talking points and quickly shifts to the underlying policies and values.
There are aspects to the M4A disagreements among the Democratic candidates that seem to
revolve around a similar confusion, that between the destination and the path.
... My idea of a "Unity Candidate" is that it will be Hillary again. Hillary channeling
Sisyphus; "Roll away the stone!"
Got another DCCC begging letter today. The title of it was "2019 Official Democratic Unity
Survey."
The fix is in already.
I place no value in this, no matter how well Bernie does. It is theater, and if Bernie
does well, he does well at theater. Maybe it matters, it shouldn't, but it is a horrible
forum to focus on policy and the fact that CNN can host this debate is infuriating. I would
love just one debate to be hosted by the DSA, or at least an actually leftist media outlet.
You know, pretending that the Democrats are on the left and could take questions from
leftists on policy. I know it would never happen, but imagine how the questions would be
framed if it was. Biden would be toast, as he would have no real defense of his horrific
record in office. As it is, some overpaid hack will ask questions framed in a misleading way
and will not give enough time to the candidate to flesh out an answer, especially if the
issue is complex. If the USSR had elections and one party member vs another could take power
if enough people voted in what was clearly a rigged process, would it be radically different
than this? They might have had Pravda moderating it, we have CNN. Is there a huge difference
there too?
You are completely correct. CNN wants to pit the Dems against each other and run the clock
out, drain as much substance possible from the arguments. Delaney and Frackenlooper (along w/
Klobuchar) also have a 100% corporate orientation. "Pravda" redux, you nailed it.
I think that's the story of the debate so far; centrists smacked down. Warren and Sanders
have both had the best lines (besides, I would urge, the best policy).
Adding, Warren, unlike Harris, did not betray Sanders on #MedicareForAll. That speaks well
of her.
"This stage perfectly captures the conflict in our politics today: Scions of wealth and
power teaming up to face down the few true progressives this nation has -- they are fighting
their hardest against progress, we need to hit back ten times harder."
The purpose of the "Clintonized" Democratic Party is to diffuse public dissent to neoliberal rule in an orderly fashion. The
militarization of US economy and society means that by joining the war coalition, the Democratic party doesn't have to win any presidential
elections to remain in power. Because military-industrial complex rules the country.
Yes Clinton neoliberals want to stay in control and derail Sanders, much like they did in 2016. Biden and Harris are Clinton faction
Trojan horses to accomplish that. But times changed and they might have to agree on Warren inread of Biden of Harris.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump fought the swamp, and the swamp won. Trump campaigned on ending our stupid pointless wars and spending that money on ourselves – and it looked at first like he might actually deliver (how RACIST of the man!) but not to worry, he is now surrounded by uber hawks and the defense industry dollars are continuing to flow. Which the Democrats are fine with. ..."
"... Trump campaigned on a populist platform, but once elected the only thing he really pushed for was a big juicy tax cut for himself and his billionaire buddies – which the Democrats are fine with (how come they can easily block attempts to stop the flow of cheap labor across the southern border, but not block massive giveaway tax cuts to the super rich? Because they have their priorities). ..."
"... So yeah, Trump is governing a lot like Hilary Clinton would have. ..."
"... I think it's much more likely that a Sanders victory would see the Clintonistas digging even further into the underbelly of the Democratic Party. There they would covertly and overtly sabotage Sanders, brief against him in the press and weaken, corrupt and hamstring any legislation that he proposes ..."
"... electing Sanders can not be the endgame, only the beginning. I think Nax is completely right that a Sanders win would bring on the full wrath of all its opponents. Then the real battle would begin. ..."
"... The notion that real change could happen in this country by winning an election or two is naive in the extreme. But that doesn't make it impossible. ..."
"... Lots of people hired by the Clintons, Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Cuomo, etc. will have to be defenestrated. Lose their public sector jobs, if not outright charged with crimes. No one must be left in a position to hurt you after the election. Anyone on the "other side" must lose all power or ability to damage you, except those too weak. These people can be turned and used by you; they can be kept in line with fear. But all the leaders must go. ..."
"... In order for Sanders to survive the onslaught that will surely come, he must have a jobs program ready to go on day one of his administration- and competent people committed to his cause ready to cary out the plan. ..."
"... Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways: ..."
"... i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power; ..."
"... (ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;" ..."
"... (iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders; ..."
"... iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its business party duopoly. ..."
"... It is not broken. It is fixed. Against us. ..."
"... Obama spent tens of trillions of dollars saving Wall Street – at the expense of Main Street – so that nothing got resolved about the problems that caused the crash in the first place. Trump's policies are doubling down on these problems so there is going to be a major disruption coming down the track. A major recession perhaps or maybe even worse. ..."
"... The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts. ..."
"... By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity" and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background. ..."
"... When this political theatre in the US finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard core imperialists who's time has reached its end. ..."
"... This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry ..."
"... By owning the means of production, the Oligarchs will be able to produce the machinery of oppression without the resort to 'money.' In revolutionary times, the most valuable commodity would be flying lead. ..."
"... Could that be why "our" three-letter agencies have been stocking up on that substance for awhile, now? ..."
"... " The purpose of the Democratic Party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion." ..."
"... Yes, this election is starting to remind me of 2004. High-up Dems, believing they're playing the long game, sacrifice the election to maintain standing with big biz donors. ..."
"... Sadly, when Sanders speaks of a "revolution", and when he is referred to as a revolutionary, while at the same time accepting that the Democratic Party is a Party of the top 10%, puts into context just how low the bar is for a political revolution in America. ..."
"... actual democracy is an impediment to those who wield power in today's America, and in that respect the class war continues to be waged, primarily through divisive social issues to divert our attention from the looting being done by and for the rich and the decline in opportunity and economic security for everyone else. ..."
"... the Democratic Party consultant class, I call them leeches, is fighting for its power at the expense of the party and the country. ..."
"... The DLC-type New Democrats (corporatists) have been working to destroy New Deal Democrats and policies as a force in the party. The New Deal Democrats brought in bank regulations, social security, medicare, the voting rights act, restraint on financial predation, and various economic protections for the little-guy and for Main Street businesses. ..."
"... The DLC Dems have brought deregulation of the banks and financial sector, an attempt to cut social security, expansion of prisons, tax cuts for corporations and the billionaires, the return of monopoly power, and the economic squeeze on Main Street businesses forced to compete with monopolies. ..."
That 2020 existential battle, of course, is always cast as between the Democrats and the Republicans.
But there's another existential battle going on, one that will occur before the main event -- the battle for control of the Democratic
Party. In the long run, that battle may turn out to be more important than the one that immediately follows it.
... ... ...
Before mainstream Democrats can begin the "existential battle" with the forces of Trump and Republicanism, they have to win the
existential battle against the force that wants to force change on their own party.
They're engaged in that battle today, and it seems almost all of the "liberal media," sensing the existential nature of the threat,
is helping them win it. Katie Halper, in a second perceptive piece on the media's obvious anti-Sanders bias, "
MSNBC's Anti-Sanders
Bias Is Getting Truly Ridiculous ," writes: "When MSNBC legal analyst Mimi Rocah (
7/21/19 ) said that Bernie Sanders 'made [her] skin crawl,'
though she 'can't even identify for you what exactly it is,' she was just expressing more overtly the
anti-Sanders bias that pervades the network."
... ... ...
MSNBC is clearly acting as a messaging arm of the Democratic Party mainstream in its battle with progressives in general and Sanders
in particular, and Zerlina Maxwell, who's been variously employed by that mainstream, from her work with Clinton to her work on MSNBC,
is an agent in that effort.
Let me repeat what Matt Taibbi wrote: " [Sanders'] election would mean a complete overhaul of the Democratic Party, forcing
everyone who ever worked for a Clinton to look toward the private sector. "
Agreed. Trump fought the swamp, and the swamp won. Trump campaigned on ending our stupid pointless wars and spending that
money on ourselves – and it looked at first like he might actually deliver (how RACIST of the man!) but not to worry, he is now
surrounded by uber hawks and the defense industry dollars are continuing to flow. Which the Democrats are fine with.
Trump campaigned on enforcing the laws against illegal immigration and limiting legal immigration, but he's now pretty much
given up, the southern border is open full "Camp of the Saints" style and he's pushing for more legal 'guest' workers to satisfy
the corporate demands for cheap labor – and the Democrats are for this (though Sanders started to object back in 2015 before he
was beaten down).
Trump campaigned on a populist platform, but once elected the only thing he really pushed for was a big juicy tax cut for
himself and his billionaire buddies – which the Democrats are fine with (how come they can easily block attempts to stop the flow
of cheap labor across the southern border, but not block massive giveaway tax cuts to the super rich? Because they have their
priorities).
Soon I expect that Trump will propose massive regressive tax increases on the working class – which of course the Democrats
will be fine with ('to save the planet').
So yeah, Trump is governing a lot like Hilary Clinton would have.
And elections are pretty much pointless. Even if Sanders does win, he'll get beaten down faster even than Trump was.
I think people have a hard time with real inflection points. Most of life uses more short-term linear decision making. But
at inflection points we have multiple possibilities that turn into rather surprising turns of events, such as Brexit and Trump.
We still have people saying in the UK – "but they wouldn't do that!" The hell "they" won't. Norms are thrown out of the window
and people start realising how wide the options are. This is not positive or negative. Just change or transformation.
That is my philosophical way of agreeing with you! It is easy to point at the hostility of the mainstream media and DNC as
there being no way for Sanders to win. After all in 2004, look what the media and DNC did to Howard Dean. But people weren't dying
then like they are now. The "Great Recession" wasn't on anyone's radar. People felt rich, like everything would be fine. We are
not in that situation – the facts on the ground are so wildly different that the DNC and mainstream media will find it hard to
stay in control.
I think it's much more likely that a Sanders victory would see the Clintonistas digging even further into the underbelly
of the Democratic Party. There they would covertly and overtly sabotage Sanders, brief against him in the press and weaken, corrupt
and hamstring any legislation that he proposes.
If Sanders should win against Trump expect the establishment to go into full revolt. Capital strike, mass layoffs, federal
reserve hiking interest rates to induce a recession, a rotating cast of Democrats siding with Republicans to block legislation,
press comparing him to worse than Carter before he even takes office and vilifying him all day every day.
I wouldn't be shocked to see Israel and the Saudis generate a crisis in, for example, Iran so Sanders either bends the knee
to the neocons or gets to be portrayed as a cowardly failure for abandoning our 'allies' for the rest of his term.
You've just convinced me that the American Experiment is doomed. No one else but Sanders can pull America out of its long slow
death spiral and your litany of the tactics of subversion of his presidency is persuasive that even in the event of his electoral
victory, there will be no changing of the national direction.
I'm reading a series of essays by Morris Berman in his book "Are We There Yet". A lot of critics complain that he is too much
the pessimist, but he presents some good arguments, dark though they may be, that the American Experiment was doomed from the
start due to the inherent flaw of Every Man For Himself and its "get mine and the hell with everybody else" attitude that has
been a part of the experiment from the beginning.
He is absolutely right about one thing, we are a country strongly based on hustling for money as much or more than anything
else, and both Trump and the Clintons are classic examples of this, and why the country often gets the leaders it deserves.
That's why I believe that we need people like Sanders and Gabbard in the Oval Office. It is also why I believe that should
either end up even getting close, Nax is correct. Those with power in this country will not accept the results and will do whatever
is necessary to subvert them, and the Voter will buy that subversion hook, line, and sinker.
No. The point is that electing Sanders can not be the endgame, only the beginning. I think Nax is completely right that
a Sanders win would bring on the full wrath of all its opponents. Then the real battle would begin.
The notion that real change could happen in this country by winning an election or two is naive in the extreme. But that
doesn't make it impossible.
Lots of people hired by the Clintons, Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Cuomo, etc. will have to be defenestrated. Lose their public
sector jobs, if not outright charged with crimes. No one must be left in a position to hurt you after the election. Anyone on
the "other side" must lose all power or ability to damage you, except those too weak. These people can be turned and used by you;
they can be kept in line with fear. But all the leaders must go.
In order for Sanders to survive the onslaught that will surely come, he must have a jobs program ready to go on day one
of his administration- and competent people committed to his cause ready to cary out the plan.
The high ground is being able to express a new vision for the common good, 24/7, and do something to bring it about. You win
even if you suffer losses.
Without that, life in the USA will become very disruptive to say the least.
Mainstream Dems are performing their role very well. Most likely I am preaching to the choir. But anyways, here is a review
of Lance Selfa's book "Democrats: a critical history" by Paul Street :
Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have
been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways:
i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United
for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to
betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power;
(ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;"
(iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders;
iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its
business party duopoly.
Pretty bad optics on MSNBC's part being unable to do simple numbers and I can fully believe that their motto starts with the
words "This is who we are". Jimmy Dore has put out a few videos on how bad MSNBC has been towards Bernie and Progressives lately
so it is becoming pretty blatant. Just spitballing a loose theory here but perhaps the Democrats have decided on a "poisoned chalice"
strategy and do want not to win in 2020.
After 2008 the whole economy should have had a major re-set but Obama spent tens of trillions of dollars saving Wall Street
– at the expense of Main Street – so that nothing got resolved about the problems that caused the crash in the first place. Trump's
policies are doubling down on these problems so there is going to be a major disruption coming down the track. A major recession
perhaps or maybe even worse.
Point is that perhaps the Democrats have calculated that it would be best for them to leave the Republicans in power to own
this crash which will help them long term. And this explains why most of those democrat candidates look like they have fallen
out of a clown car. The ones capable of going head to head with Trump are sidelined while their weakest candidates are pushed
forward – people like Biden and Harris. Just a theory mind.
The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic
party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public
dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts.
By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity"
and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction
of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing
the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background.
I have little faith in my fellow citizens as the majority are too brainwashed to see the danger of this political theatre.
Most ignore politics, while those that do show an interest exercise that effort mainly by supporting whatever faction they belong.
Larger issues and connections between current events remain a mystery to them as a result.
Military defeat seems the only means to break this cycle. Democrats, being the fake peaceniks that they are, will be more than
happy to defer to their more authoritarian Republican counterparts when dealing with issues concerning war and peace. Look no
further than Tulsi Gabbard's treatment in the party. The question is really should the country continue down this Imperialist
path.
In one sense, economic recession will be the least of our problems in the future. When this political theatre in the US
finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that
the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard
core imperialists who's time has reached its end.
This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry.
By owning the means of production, the Oligarchs will be able to produce the machinery of oppression without the resort
to 'money.'
In revolutionary times, the most valuable commodity would be flying lead.
If the nation wishes true deliverance, not just from Trump and Republicans, but from the painful state that got Trump elected
in the first place, it will first have to believe in a savior.
No, no, no, no, no. No oooshy religion, which is part of what got us into this mess. Cities on a hill. The Exceptional Nation(tm).
Obligatory burbling of Amazing Grace. Assumptions that everyone is a Methodist. And after Deliverance, the U S of A will be magically
re-virginated (for the umpteenth time), pure and worthy of Manifest Destiny once again.
If you want to be saved, stick to your own church. Stop dragging it into the public sphere. This absurd and sloppy religious
language is part of the problem. At the very least it is kitsch. At its worst it leads us to bomb Muslim nations and engage in
"Crusades."
Other than that, the article makes some important points. In a year or so, there will be a lot of comments here on whether
or not to vote for the pre-failed Democratic candidate, once the Party dumps Bernie Sanders. There is no requirement of voting
for the Democrats, unless you truly do believe that they will bring the Deliverance (and untarnish your tarnished virtue). Vote
your conscience. Not who Nate Silver indicates.
Yes, this election is starting to remind me of 2004. High-up Dems, believing they're playing the long game, sacrifice the
election to maintain standing with big biz donors. The leading issue of the day (Iraq/GWOT/Patriot Act) was erased from mainstream
US politics and has been since. Don't for a minute think they won't do a similar thing now. Big donors don't particularly fear
Trump, nor a 6-3 conservative supreme court, nor a Bolton state dept, nor a racist DHS/ICE – those are not money issues for them.
Sadly, when Sanders speaks of a "revolution", and when he is referred to as a revolutionary, while at the same time accepting
that the Democratic Party is a Party of the top 10%, puts into context just how low the bar is for a political revolution in America.
The candidate who would fight and would govern for the 90% of Americans is a revolutionary.
The fact that it can be said as a given that neither major Party is being run specifically to serve the vast majority of our
country is itself an admission for that the class war begun by Reagan has been won, in more of a silent coup, and the rich have
control of our nation.
Sadly, actual democracy is an impediment to those who wield power in today's America, and in that respect the class war
continues to be waged, primarily through divisive social issues to divert our attention from the looting being done by and for
the rich and the decline in opportunity and economic security for everyone else.
Sanders is considered a revolutionary merely for stating the obvious, stating the truth. That is what makes him dangerous to
those that run the Democratic Party, and more broadly those who run this nation.
Sanders would do better to cast himself not as a revolutionary, but as a person of the people, with the belief that good government
does not favor the wants of the richest over the needs of our country. That is what makes him a threat. To the rich unseen who
hold power, to the Republican Party, and to some Democrats.
I agree with the thesis here, and confess to being puzzled by comments on LGM (for example) politics threads of the ilk "I'm
with Warren but am good with Buttigieg too," or "I'm with Sanders but am good with Harris, too," etc.
I love reading Taibbi, but in
his article , that quote, " Sanders is the revolutionary. His election would mean a complete overhaul of the Democratic
Party, forcing everyone who ever worked for a Clinton to look toward the private sector ," should be the lede, and its buried
2/3 of the way down.
This primary season is about how the Democratic Party consultant class, I call them leeches, is fighting for its power
at the expense of the party and the country.
Yves writes: it is unfortunate that this struggle is being personified, as in too often treated by the media and political
operatives as being about Sanders.
I agree. Sanders represents the continuing New Deal-type policies. The DLC-type New Democrats (corporatists) have been
working to destroy New Deal Democrats and policies as a force in the party. The New Deal Democrats brought in bank regulations,
social security, medicare, the voting rights act, restraint on financial predation, and various economic protections for the little-guy
and for Main Street businesses.
The DLC Dems have brought deregulation of the banks and financial sector, an attempt to cut social security, expansion
of prisons, tax cuts for corporations and the billionaires, the return of monopoly power, and the economic squeeze on Main Street
businesses forced to compete with monopolies.
The MSM won't talk about any of the programmatic differences between the two sides. The MSM won't recognize the New Deal style
Democratic voters even exist; the New Deal wing voters are quickly labeled 'deplorable' instead voters with competing economic
policies to the current economic policies.
So, we're left with the MSM focusing on personalities to avoid talking about the real policy differences, imo.
When Bernie talks about a revolution, he explains how it must be from the grassroots, from the bottom up. If he manages to
get elected, his supporters have to make sure they get behind the politicians who also support him and, if they don't, get rid
of them.
Without continuing mass protests, nothing is going to happen. Other countries have figured this out but Americans remain clueless.
Money rule in the USA politics. And that was true for a very long time. Candidate who is
hates by big business has tremendous disadvantages even if he/she has all the popular support.
Party apparatus will try to sabotage every their move.
Notable quotes:
"... Nixon: "a radical socialist" or "an unrealistic leftist"! Wow. That says all that needs be said about the slide to the right in our politics and it happened in large part because of inertia and self-satisfaction among the Democrats; they were the majority party after all while the right beginning with Bill Buckley and the National Review and their think tanks and their economists and their money began and continued the counter-revolution against FDR and the New Deal. ..."
"... Take a hypothetical. Biden wins, the House stays Democratic narrowly, the Senate is evenly divided. What exactly is going to change other than the rhetoric. I would not expect Biden to continue the racist and xenophobic pronouncements of Trump, but the finance weenies would still be in charge domestically, the Israelis and the donors would be running foreign policy and any and all billionaires would continue to be treated as demigods. ..."
"... in 1972, the working class was solidly behind the status quo, now, almost fifty years later, the working class has seen the end of the road coming up and is starting to ask the pointed questions they were incapable of even contemplating then. ..."
"... In 1972, it seemed only derelicts died of drug overdoses, and hard-hats were throwing things at hippies, now those people who were so defensive about the American dream, are unemployed and increasingly questioning whether there's an alternative. ..."
"... I turned 21 in 1968. The violence in the streets was coming from the police not the protesters. The local sheriff department in my locale (Isla Vista; UCSB) was deemed "riotous" in its performance during anti-war protests by a subsequent grand jury investigation. ..."
"... "McGovern never had a lead in the polls over Nixon" ..."
"... The Establishment Dems hated McGovern for several reasons. While his anti-war stance enraged the Dem neocons like the Scooper, his commission's reforms that put the most women and minorities ever in the convention hall gave some serious heartburn to party bosses like Daley and labor bosses like Meany. ..."
As soon as McGovern was nominated, party leaders began systematically slurring and
belittling him, while the trade union chieftains refused to endorse him on the pretense
that this mild Mr. Pliant was a being wild and dangerous.
A congressional investigation of Watergate was put off for several months to deprive
McGovern's candidacy of its benefits. As an indiscreet Chicago ward heeler predicted in the
fall of 1972, McGovern is "gonna lose because we're gonna make sure he's gonna lose" So
deftly did party leaders "cut the top of the ticket" that while Richard Nixon won in a
"landslide," the Democrats gained two Senate seats.
Not comparable. McGovern never had a lead in the polls over Nixon, even before his party
undermined him.
Nixon emphasized the strong economy and his success in foreign affairs, while McGovern ran
on a platform calling for an immediate end to the Vietnam War, and the institution of a
guaranteed minimum income. Nixon maintained a large and consistent lead in polling.
Nixon: "a radical socialist" or "an unrealistic leftist"! Wow. That says all that needs
be said about the slide to the right in our politics and it happened in large part because of
inertia and self-satisfaction among the Democrats; they were the majority party after all while
the right beginning with Bill Buckley and the National Review and their think tanks and their
economists and their money began and continued the counter-revolution against FDR and the New
Deal.
This is not news to the politically aware. It could be a starting point for a rebirth of a
real democratic party as opposed to whatever shambles along in the tattered garments of the
old.
Take a hypothetical. Biden wins, the House stays Democratic narrowly, the Senate is
evenly divided. What exactly is going to change other than the rhetoric. I would not expect
Biden to continue the racist and xenophobic pronouncements of Trump, but the finance weenies
would still be in charge domestically, the Israelis and the donors would be running foreign
policy and any and all billionaires would continue to be treated as demigods.
The status quo is destroying the country. The corporoids, the professionals, the suave
sophisticated urbanites do not notice and would not care. The USA needs revolutionary change
just to discover that it really has a soul. Then the hard work of generations could begin.
And in 1972, the working class was solidly behind the status quo, now, almost fifty
years later, the working class has seen the end of the road coming up and is starting to ask
the pointed questions they were incapable of even contemplating then.
In 1972, it seemed only derelicts died of drug overdoses, and hard-hats were throwing
things at hippies, now those people who were so defensive about the American dream, are
unemployed and increasingly questioning whether there's an alternative.
Witness the peaceful 'confrontation' that met Trumps aborted campaign rally in Chicago in
2016, in 1972 there would have been riot police and blood in the streets.
In 2016 the anti-Trump protestors and Trump supporters stood on opposite sides of the street
with a scant force of cops, sans riot gear between them and there was virtually no
violence.
I turned 21 in 1968. The violence in the streets was coming from the police not the
protesters. The local sheriff department in my locale (Isla Vista; UCSB) was deemed "riotous"
in its performance during anti-war protests by a subsequent grand jury investigation.
I do agree that the current general population (working class) now sees itself as the
"protesters".
"McGovern never had a lead in the polls over Nixon"
Very true, but it's important to remember that up until Wallace was wounded by Bremer in
May, another three-way race with Wallace was anticipated. Polling in early May (and this is
from memory) had Nixon and McGovern within the margin of error in a three-way race. There was a
realistic possibility that things would have ended up in the House as they almost did in
'68.
The Establishment Dems hated McGovern for several reasons. While his anti-war stance
enraged the Dem neocons like the Scooper, his commission's reforms that put the most women and
minorities ever in the convention hall gave some serious heartburn to party bosses like Daley
and labor bosses like Meany.
Very shortly after the convention, I went before my border state's Dixiecrat-flavored Dem
county committee to plead for their support in the general. We got nowhere. McGovern's campaign
in my county consisted of some of us young folks and a few dissidents who opened some
storefronts and did some canvassing. The party regulars probably all voted for Nixon.
"... Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways: ..."
"... i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power; ..."
"... (ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;" ..."
"... (iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders; ..."
"... iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its business party duopoly. ..."
"... It is not broken. It is fixed. Against us. ..."
"... The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts. ..."
"... By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity" and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background. ..."
"... When this political theatre in the US finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard core imperialists who's time has reached its end. ..."
"... This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry ..."
Mainstream Dems are performing their role very well. Most likely I am preaching to the choir. But anyways, here is a review
of Lance Selfa's book "Democrats: a critical history" by Paul Street :
Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have
been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways:
i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United
for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to
betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power;
(ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;"
(iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders;
iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its
business party duopoly.
The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic
party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public
dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts.
By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity"
and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction
of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing
the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background.
I have little faith in my fellow citizens as the majority are too brainwashed to see the danger of this political theatre.
Most ignore politics, while those that do show an interest exercise that effort mainly by supporting whatever faction they belong.
Larger issues and connections between current events remain a mystery to them as a result.
Military defeat seems the only means to break this cycle. Democrats, being the fake peaceniks that they are, will be more than
happy to defer to their more authoritarian Republican counterparts when dealing with issues concerning war and peace. Look no
further than Tulsi Gabbard's treatment in the party. The question is really should the country continue down this Imperialist
path.
In one sense, economic recession will be the least of our problems in the future. When this political theatre in the US
finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that
the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard
core imperialists who's time has reached its end.
This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry.
On early June,
Politico
published an
article
which actually unfolded, in plain
sight, the plans of the corporate branch of the Democratic party to stop Bernie Sanders.
As we
wrote
back then:
This is an amazingly straight admission by the establishment apparatus, concerning a
certain strategy as part of the whole anti-Sanders operation. And it is also clear that
Elizabeth Warren is establishment's key player around this strategy.
Perhaps it's not accidental that this article was published right after Elizabeth Warren
signaled to the establishment that she will 'play by the rules' at least on some issues,
through her
neocon-style
statement
on Julian Assange.
Only a couple of weeks later,
Politico
revealed Warren's upgraded role in the
anti-Sanders operation. According to a new
article
, "
Centrists who once said the
senator would lead the party to ruin are coming around to her as an alternative to Bernie
Sanders.
" It seems almost certain that Elizabeth Warren 'passed the exams' and gave
her credentials to the establishment. Consequently, corporate democrats (or liberals,
neoliberals, centrists - call them whatever you like), decided that she is the most
suitable for this special mission.
The article actually identifies the completion of Warren's mutation towards the
establishment positions of the Democratic party, that is, status quo neoliberalism. But
also, her mission to grab votes from the progressive vote tank in order to split the
progressive vote, and therefore, to restrict the power of Bernie Sanders and minimize his
chances to win the Democratic nomination. For example:
"
It's a sign of how the ideological lanes of the 2020 primary have blurred and
overlapped and of the steady progress Warren is making as a candidate. But it's also a
statement on Bernie Sanders, Warren's top rival for progressive votes.
"
and
"
Establishment and moderate Democrats haven't necessarily been won over to Warren's
camp yet -- many still point to former Vice President Joe Biden as their preferred
candidate. But the tensions that once marked Warren's relationship with moderate Democrats
have begun to dissipate as she methodically lays out her agenda and shows a folksier, more
accessible side that wasn't always apparent in her role as a blue-state senator and
progressive icon.
"
The article contains some statements from establishment think tanks, full of typical
neoliberal euphemisms, showing that, indeed, Warren passed 'establishment's tests', and
therefore, the establishment apparatus can trust her.
But all these, weren't 'big news' for many progressives out there. They realized Warren's
role in the whole story quite early. Perhaps the biggest surprise was Bernie's response
(at last) through a tweet, who seems that he can't tolerate another round of sinister
strategies and dirty wars against him.
Bernie wrote:
The cat is out of the bag. The corporate wing of the Democratic Party is
publicly "anybody but Bernie." They know our progressive agenda of Medicare for All,
breaking up big banks, taking on drug companies and raising wages is the real threat to
the billionaire class.
This is the official declaration of war against corporate Democrats by the
progressives. The neoliberal centrists can't hide anymore and voters should realize that
they have nothing to offer. No matter what tricks they will try this time, no matter what
words they will use. Nothing will change if they manage to maintain power in the
Democratic party by beating Bernie again.
Now it's clear. The outcome of this civil war inside the party will determine whether it
will remain in the hands of corporations, or, return (through Bernie) to its traditional
'owners': the American working class.
It was about time. Perhaps Bernie should have done it earlier, but better late than never
...
"... "Each successor generation is less likely than the previous to prioritize maintaining superior military power worldwide as a goal of U.S. foreign policy, to see U.S. military superiority as a very effective way of achieving U.S. foreign policy goals, and to support expanding defense spending. At the same time, support for international cooperation and free trade remains high across the generations. In fact, younger Americans are more inclined to support cooperative approaches to U.S. foreign policy and more likely to feel favorably towards trade and globalization." ..."
"... Last year, for the first time since the height of the Iraq war 13 years ago, the Army fell thousands of troops short of its recruiting goals. That trend was emphasized in a 2017 Department of Defense poll that found only 14 percent of respondents ages 16 to 24 said it was likely they'd serve in the military in the coming years. This has the Army so worried that it has been refocusing its recruitment efforts on creating an entirely new strategy aimed specifically at Generation Z. ..."
"... These days, significant numbers of young veterans have been returning disillusioned and ready to lobby Congress against wars they once, however unknowingly, bought into. Look no further than a new left-right alliance between two influential veterans groups, VoteVets and Concerned Veterans for America, to stop those forever wars. Their campaign, aimed specifically at getting Congress to weigh in on issues of war and peace, is emblematic of what may be a diverse potential movement coming together to oppose America's conflicts. Another veterans group, Common Defense, is similarly asking politicians to sign a pledge to end those wars. In just a couple of months, they've gotten on board 10 congressional sponsors, including freshmen heavyweights in the House of Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar. ..."
"... In February 2018, Sanders also became the first senator to risk introducing a war powers resolution to end American support for the brutal Saudi-led war in Yemen. In April 2019, with the sponsorship of other senators added to his, the bill ultimately passed the House and the Senate in an extremely rare showing of bipartisanship, only to be vetoed by President Trump. That such a bill might pass the House, no less a still-Republican Senate, even if not by a veto-proof majority, would have been unthinkable in 2016. So much has changed since the last election that support for the Yemen resolution has now become what Tara Golshan at Vox termed "a litmus test of the Democratic Party's progressive shift on foreign policy." ..."
"... And for the first time ever, three veterans of America's post-9/11 wars -- Seth Moulton and Tulsi Gabbard of the House of Representatives, and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg -- are running for president, bringing their skepticism about American interventionism with them. The very inclusion of such viewpoints in the presidential race is bound to change the conversation, putting a spotlight on America's wars in the months to come. ..."
"... In May, for instance, Omar tweeted , "We have to recognize that foreign policy IS domestic policy. We can't invest in health care, climate resilience, or education if we continue to spend more than half of discretionary spending on endless wars and Pentagon contracts. When I say we need something equivalent to the Green New Deal for foreign policy, it's this." ..."
"... It is little recognized how hard American troops fought from 1965 to 1968. Our air mobile troops in particular made a great slaughter of NVA and VC while also taking heavy casualties. ..."
"... We were having such success that no one in the military thought the enemy could keep up the fight. Then, the Tet offensive with the beaten enemy attacking every city in the South. ..."
"... Perhaps there is no open anti-war movement because the Democratic party is now pro-war. ..."
"... President Obama, the Nobel peace prize winner, started a war with Libya, which had neither attacked nor threatened the US and which, by many accounts, was trying to improve relations with the US. GW Bush unnecessarily attacked Iraq and Clinton destroyed Haiti and bombed Yugoslavia, among other actions. ..."
Peace activism is rising, but that isn't translating into huge street demonstrations, writes Allegra Harpootlian.
W hen Donald Trump entered the Oval Office in January 2017, Americans took to the streets all across the country to protest their
instantly endangered rights. Conspicuously absent from the newfound civic engagement, despite more than a decade and a half of this
country's fruitless, destructive wars across the Greater Middle East and northern Africa, was antiwar sentiment, much less an actual
movement.
Those like me working against America's seemingly
endless
wars wondered why the subject merited so little discussion, attention, or protest. Was it because the still-spreading war on
terror remained shrouded in government secrecy? Was the lack of media coverage about what America was doing overseas to blame? Or
was it simply that most Americans didn't care about what was happening past the water's edge? If you had asked me two years ago,
I would have chosen "all of the above." Now, I'm not so sure.
After the enormous demonstrations
against the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the antiwar movement disappeared almost as suddenly as it began, with some even openly
declaring it dead. Critics
noted the long-term absence of significant protests against those wars, a lack of political will in Congress to deal with them,
and ultimately,
apathy on matters of war and peace when compared to issues like health care, gun control, or recently even
climate
change .
The pessimists have been right to point out that none of the plethora of marches on Washington since Donald Trump was elected
have had even a secondary focus on America's fruitless wars. They're certainly right to question why Congress, with the constitutional
duty to declare war, has until recently allowed both presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump to wage war as they wished without
even consulting them. They're right to feel nervous when a national
poll shows that more Americans think we're fighting a war in Iran (we're not) than a war in Somalia (
we are ).
But here's what I've been wondering recently: What if there's an antiwar movement growing right under our noses and we just haven't
noticed? What if we don't see it, in part, because it doesn't look like any antiwar movement we've even imagined?
If a movement is only a movement when people fill the streets, then maybe the critics are right. It might also be fair to say,
however, that protest marches do not always a movement make. Movements are
defined by their ability to challenge the status
quo and, right now, that's what might be beginning to happen when it comes to America's wars.
What if it's Parkland students
condemning American imperialism or groups fighting the
Muslim Ban that are
also fighting the war on terror? It's veterans not only trying to take on the wars they fought in, but putting themselves on
the front lines of the
gun control
,
climate change , and police brutality debates. It's
Congress
passing the first War Powers Resolution in almost 50 years. It's Democratic presidential candidates
signing a pledge to end America's endless wars.
For the last decade and a half, Americans -- and their elected representatives -- looked at our endless wars and essentially
shrugged. In 2019, however, an antiwar movement seems to be brewing. It just doesn't look like the ones that some remember from
the Vietnam era and others from the pre-invasion-of-Iraq moment. Instead, it's a movement that's being woven into just about every
other issue that Americans are fighting for right now -- which is exactly why it might actually work.
An estimated 100,000 people protested the war in Iraq in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 15, 2007 (Ragesoss, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia
Commons)
A Veteran's Antiwar Movement in the Making?
During the Vietnam War of the 1960s
and early 1970s, protests began with religious groups and peace organizations morally opposed to war. As that conflict intensified,
however, students began to join the movement, then civil rights leaders such as
Martin Luther King, Jr. got involved,
then war veterans who had witnessed the horror firsthand stepped in -- until, with a seemingly constant storm of protest in the
streets, Washington eventually withdrew from Indochina.
You might look at the lack of public outrage now, or perhaps the
exhaustion of having been outraged
and nothing changing, and think an antiwar movement doesn't exist. Certainly, there's nothing like the active one that fought against
America's involvement in Vietnam for so long and so persistently. Yet it's important to notice that, among some of the very same
groups (like veterans, students, and even politicians) that fought against that war, a healthy
skepticism about America's 21st century wars, the Pentagon, the military industrial complex, and even the very idea of American
exceptionalism is finally on the rise -- or so the
polls tell us.
"Arlington West of Santa Monica," a project of Veterans for Peace, puts reminders of the costs of war on the beach in Santa Monica,
California. (Lorie Shaull via Flickr)
Right after the midterms last year, an organization named Foundation for Liberty and American Greatness
reported mournfully that younger Americans were "turning on the country and forgetting its ideals," with nearly half believing
that this country isn't "great" and many eyeing the U.S. flag as "a sign of intolerance and hatred." With millennials and Generation
Z rapidly becoming the
largest voting bloc in America for the next 20 years, their priorities are taking center stage. When it comes to foreign policy
and war, as it happens, they're quite different from the generations that preceded them. According to the
Chicago Council of Global Affairs ,
"Each successor generation is less likely than the previous to prioritize maintaining superior military power worldwide as a
goal of U.S. foreign policy, to see U.S. military superiority as a very effective way of achieving U.S. foreign policy goals, and
to support expanding defense spending. At the same time, support for international cooperation and free trade remains high across
the generations. In fact, younger Americans are more inclined to support cooperative approaches to U.S. foreign policy and more
likely to feel favorably towards trade and globalization."
Although marches are the most public way to protest, another striking but understated way is simply not to engage with the systems
one doesn't agree with. For instance, the vast majority of today's teenagers aren't at all interested in joining the all-volunteer
military. Last year, for the first time since the height of the Iraq war 13 years ago, the Army
fell thousands of troops short
of its recruiting goals. That trend was emphasized in a 2017
Department of Defense poll that
found only 14 percent of respondents ages 16 to 24 said it was likely they'd serve in the military in the coming years. This has
the Army so worried that it has been refocusing its recruitment efforts on
creating an entirely new strategy aimed specifically at Generation Z.
In addition, we're finally seeing what happens when soldiers from America's post-9/11 wars come home infused with a sense of
hopelessness in relation to those conflicts. These days, significant numbers of young veterans have been returning
disillusioned and ready to lobby Congress
against wars they once, however unknowingly, bought into. Look no further than a new left-right
alliance between two
influential veterans groups, VoteVets and Concerned Veterans for America, to stop those forever wars. Their campaign, aimed specifically
at getting Congress to weigh in on issues of war and peace, is emblematic of what may be a diverse potential movement coming together
to oppose America's conflicts. Another veterans group, Common Defense, is similarly asking politicians to sign a
pledge to end those wars. In just a couple of months,
they've gotten on board 10 congressional sponsors, including freshmen heavyweights in the House of Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
and Ilhan Omar.
And this may just be the tip of a growing antiwar iceberg. A misconception about movement-building is that everyone is there
for the same reason, however broadly defined. That's often not the case and sometimes it's possible that you're in a movement and
don't even know it. If, for instance, I asked a room full of climate-change activists whether they also considered themselves part
of an antiwar movement, I can imagine the denials I'd get. And yet, whether they know it or not, sooner or later fighting climate
change will mean taking on the Pentagon's global footprint, too.
Think about it: not only is the U.S. military the world's
largest
institutional consumer of fossil fuels but, according to a
new report from Brown University's Costs of War Project, between 2001 and 2017, it released more than 1.2 billion metric tons
of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (400 million of which were related to the war on terror). That's equivalent to the emissions
of 257 million passenger cars, more than double the number currently on the road in the U.S.
A Growing Antiwar Movement in Congress
One way to sense the growth of antiwar sentiment in this country is to look not at the empty streets or even at veterans organizations
or recruitment polls, but at Congress. After all, one
indicator of a successful movement, however
incipient, is its power to influence and change those making the decisions in Washington. Since Donald Trump was elected, the most
visible evidence of growing antiwar sentiment is the way America's congressional policymakers have increasingly become engaged with
issues of war and peace. Politicians, after all, tend to follow the voters and, right now, growing numbers of them seem to be following
rising antiwar sentiment back home into an expanding set of debates about war and peace in the age of Trump.
In campaign season 2016, in an op-ed in The Washington Post , political scientist Elizabeth Saunders wondered whether foreign policy would play a significant role
in the presidential election. "Not likely," she concluded. "Voters do not pay much attention to foreign policy." And at the time,
she was on to something. For instance, Sen. Bernie Sanders, then competing for the Democratic presidential nomination against Hillary
Clinton, didn't
even prepare stock answers to basic national security questions, choosing instead, if asked at all, to quickly pivot back to
more familiar topics. In a debate with Clinton, for instance, he was asked whether he would keep troops in Afghanistan to deal with
the growing success of the Taliban. In his answer, he skipped Afghanistan entirely, while warning only vaguely against a "quagmire"
in Iraq and Syria.
Heading for 2020, Sanders is once again competing for the nomination, but instead of shying away from foreign policy, starting
in 2017, he became the face of what could be a
new American
way of thinking when it comes to how we see our role in the world.
In February 2018, Sanders also became the first senator to risk
introducing a war powers resolution to end American support for the
brutal Saudi-led war in Yemen. In April 2019, with the sponsorship of other senators added to his, the bill
ultimately passed
the House and the Senate in an extremely rare showing of bipartisanship, only to be
vetoed by President Trump. That
such a bill might pass the House, no less a still-Republican Senate, even if not by a veto-proof majority, would have been unthinkable
in 2016. So much has changed since the last election that support for the Yemen resolution has now become what Tara Golshan at
Vox termed "a litmus test of the Democratic Party's progressive shift on foreign policy."
Nor, strikingly enough, is Sanders the only Democratic presidential candidate now running on what is essentially an antiwar platform.
One of the main aspects of Elizabeth
Warren's foreign policy plan, for instance, is to "seriously review the country's military commitments overseas, and that includes
bringing U.S. troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq." Entrepreneur Andrew Yang and former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel have
joined Sanders and Warren in signing a pledge to end America's forever wars if elected.
Beto O'Rourke has called for the repeal
of Congress's 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force that presidents have cited ever since whenever they've sent American forces
into battle. Marianne Williamson , one of the
many (unlikely) Democratic candidates seeking the nomination, has even proposed a plan to transform America's "wartime economy into
a peace-time economy, repurposing the tremendous talents and infrastructure of [America's] military industrial complex to the work
of promoting life instead of death."
And for the first time ever, three veterans of America's post-9/11 wars -- Seth Moulton and Tulsi Gabbard of the House of Representatives,
and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg -- are running for president, bringing their
skepticism about American interventionism with them. The very inclusion of such viewpoints in the presidential race is bound
to change the conversation, putting a spotlight on America's wars in the months to come.
Get on Board or Get Out of the Way
When trying to create a movement, there are three likely
outcomes : you will
be accepted by the establishment, or rejected for your efforts, or the establishment will be replaced, in part or in whole, by those
who agree with you. That last point is exactly what we've been seeing, at least among Democrats, in the Trump years. While 2020
Democratic candidates for president, some of whom have been in the political arena for decades, are gradually hopping on the end-the-endless-wars
bandwagon, the real antiwar momentum in Washington has begun to come from new members of Congress like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
(AOC) and Ilhan Omar who are unwilling to accept business as usual when it comes to either the Pentagon or the country's forever
wars. In doing so, moreover, they are responding to what their constituents actually want.
As far back as 2014, when a
University of Texas-Austin Energy Poll asked people where the U.S. government should spend their tax dollars, only 7 percent
of respondents under 35 said it should go toward military and defense spending. Instead, in a "pretty significant political shift"
at the time, they overwhelmingly opted for their tax dollars to go toward job creation and education. Such a trend has only become
more apparent as those
calling
for free public college, Medicare-for-all, or a Green New Deal have come to
realize that they could pay for such ideas if America would stop pouring
trillions of dollars into wars that never should have been launched.
The new members of the House of Representatives, in particular, part of the youngest, most diverse crew
to date , have begun to replace the old guard and are increasingly signalling their readiness to throw out policies that don't
work for the American people, especially those reinforcing the American war machine. They understand that by ending the wars and
beginning to scale back the military-industrial complex, this country could once again have the resources it needs to fix so many
other problems.
In May, for instance, Omar tweeted , "We
have to recognize that foreign policy IS domestic policy. We can't invest in health care, climate resilience, or education if we
continue to spend more than half of discretionary spending on endless wars and Pentagon contracts. When I say we need something
equivalent to the Green New Deal for foreign policy, it's this."
A few days before that, at a House Committee on Oversight and Reform hearing, Ocasio-Cortez
confronted executives from military contractor TransDigm about the way they were price-gouging the American taxpayer by selling
a $32 "non-vehicular clutch disc" to the Department of Defense for $1,443 per disc. "A pair of jeans can cost $32; imagine paying
over $1,000 for that," she said. "Are you aware of how many doses of insulin we could get for that margin? I could've gotten over
1,500 people insulin for the cost of the margin of your price gouging for these vehicular discs alone."
And while such ridiculous waste
isn't news to those of us who follow Pentagon spending closely, this was undoubtedly something many of her millions of supporters
hadn't thought about before. After the hearing,
Teen Vogue
created a list of the "5 most ridiculous things the United States military has spent money on," comedian
Sarah Silverman tweeted out the AOC
hearing clip to her 12.6 million followers, Will and Grace actress
Debra Messing publicly expressed her gratitude
to AOC, and according to Crowdtangle, a social media analytics tool, the
NowThis clip of her in that congressional
hearing garnered more than 20 million impressions.
Ocasio-Cortez calling out costs charged by military contractor TransDigm. (YouTube)
Not only are members of Congress beginning to call attention to such undercovered issues, but perhaps they're even starting to
accomplish something. Just two weeks after that contentious hearing, TransDigm
agreed to return $16.1 million
in excess profits to the Department of Defense. "We saved more money today for the American people than our committee's entire budget
for the year," said House Oversight Committee Chair Elijah Cummings.
Of course, antiwar demonstrators have yet to pour into the streets, even though the wars we're already involved in continue to
drag on and a possible new one with Iran looms on the horizon. Still, there seems to be a notable trend in antiwar opinion and activism.
Somewhere just under the surface of American life lurks a genuine, diverse antiwar movement that appears to be coalescing around
a common goal: getting Washington politicians to believe that antiwar policies are supportable, even potentially popular. Call me
an eternal optimist, but someday I can imagine such a movement helping end those disastrous wars.
Allegra Harpootlian is a media associate at
ReThink Media , where she works with leading experts
and organizations at the intersection of national security, politics, and the media. She principally focuses on U.S. drone policies
and related use-of-force issues. She is also a political partner with the
Truman National Security Project . Find her on Twitter
@ally_harp .
"How Obama demobilized the antiwar movement"
By Brad Plumer
August 29, 2013
Washington Post
"Reihan Salam points to a 2011 paper by sociologists Michael T. Heaney and Fabio Rojas, who find that antiwar protests shrunk
very quickly after Obama took office in 2008 -- mainly because Democrats were less likely to show up:
Drawing upon 5,398 surveys of demonstrators at antiwar protests, interviews with movement leaders, and ethnographic observation,
this article argues that the antiwar movement demobilized as Democrats, who had been motivated to participate by anti-Republican
sentiments, withdrew from antiwar protests when the Democratic Party achieved electoral success, if not policy success in ending
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Heaney and Rojas begin by puzzling over a paradox. Obama ran as an antiwar candidate, but his first few years in office were
rather different: "As president, Obama maintained the occupation of Iraq and escalated the war in Afghanistan. The antiwar movement
should have been furious at Obama's 'betrayal' and reinvigorated its protest activity. Instead, attendance at antiwar rallies
declined precipitously and financial resources available to the movement dissipated.""
Rob , July 4, 2019 at 14:20
The author may be too young to realize that the overwhelming driving force in the anti-Vietnam War movement was hundreds
of thousands of young men who were at risk of being drafted and sent to fight, die and kill in that godforsaken war. As the
movement grew, it gathered in millions of others as well. Absent the military draft today, most of America's youth don't seem
to give half a damn about the current crimes of the U.S. military. As the saying goes: They have no skin in the game.
bardamu , July 3, 2019 at 20:21
There has again been some shift in Sanders' public positions, while Tulsi Gabbard occupies a position that was not represented
in '16, and HR Clinton was more openly bent on war than anyone currently at the table, though perhaps because that much of her
position had become so difficult to deny over the years.
That said, Clinton lost to Obama in '08 because she could not as effectively deny her militarism. There was at the time within
the Democratic Party more and clearer movement against the wars than there is now. One might remember the run for candidacy
of Dennis Kucinich, for example. The 8 years of the Obama regime were a consistent frustration and disappointment to any antiwar
or anticorporate voice within the Democratic Party, but complaints were muted because many would not speak against a Blue or
a Black president. More than at any prior time, corporate media spokespersons could endorse radically pro-corporate positions
and imply or accuse their opposition of racism.
That leaves it unclear, however, what any antiwar voices have to do with the Democratic Party itself, particularly if we
take "the party" to mean the political organization itself as opposed to the people whom it claims to represent. The Party and
the DNC were major engines in the rigging of the 2016 Democratic nomination–and also, lest we forget, contributors to the Donald
Trump nomination campaign.
It should not escape us, as we search for souls and soulfulness among these remnants of Democratic Parties Past, that any
turn of the party against war is surely due to Hillary Clinton's loss to presumed patsy candidate Donald Trump in 2016–the least
and second-least popular major presidential contenders in history, clearly, in whichever order one wishes to put them.
There is some value in realism, then. So as much as one hates to criticize a Bernie Sanders in anything like the present
field that he runs in, his is not a consistently antiwar position: he has gone back and forth. Tulsi Gabbard is the closest
thing to an antiwar candidate within the Party. And under even under the most favorable circumstances, 2020 is at best not her
year.
Most big money says war. scorched earth, steep hierarchy, and small constitution. Any who don't like it had best speak up
and act up.
I am for Tulsi, a Senator from Hawaii not a rep as this article says. Folk Music was in when the peace movement was strong
and building, the same for Folk Rock who songs also had words you could get without Google.
So my way of "hoping" for an Anti-War/Peace Movement is to have a Folk Revival in my mind.
Nathan Mulcahy , July 3, 2019 at 14:11
The answer to the question why anti war movement is dead is so simple and obvious but apparently invisible to most Dems/libs/progressives
(excuse my inability to discern the distinctions between labels). The answer points to our onetime "peace" president Obama.
As far as foreign interventions go (and domestic spying, among other things) Obama had continued Baby Bush's policy. Even worse,
Obama had given a bipartisan seal of approval (and legality) to most of Baby Bush's crimes. In other words, for 8 years, meaning
during the "peace" president's reign, the loyal "lefty" sheeple have held their mouth when it came to war and peace.
Obama and the Dems have very effectively killed the ant war movement
The establishment will always be pro-war because there's so much money in it. Street demonstrations will never change that,
as we recently learned with Iraq. The only strategy that has a chance of working is anti-enlistment. If they don't have the
troops they can't invade anywhere, and recruitment is already a problem. It needs to be a bigger problem.
Anonymot , July 3, 2019 at 11:51
Sorry, ALL of these Democrat wannabes save one is ignorant of foreign affairs, foreign policy and its destruction of what
they blather on about – domestic vote-getting sky pies. Oh yes, free everything: schools, health care, social justices and services.
It's as though the MIC has not stolen the money from the public's pockets to get rich by sending cheap fodder out there to get
killed and wounded, amputated physically and mentally.
Hillary signed the papers and talked the brainless idiocy that set the entire Middle East on fire, because she couldn't stand
the sight of a man with no shirt on and sitting on the Russian equivalent of a Harley. She hates men, because she drew a bad
one. Huma was better company. Since she didn't know anything beyond the superficial, she did whatever the "experts" whispered
in her ears: War! Obama was in the same boat. The target, via gaining total control of oil from Libya to Syria and Iran was
her Putin hate. So her experts set up the Ukraine. The "experts" are the MIC/CIA and our fearless, brainless, corrupt military.
They have whispered the same psychotic message since the Gulf of Tonkin. We've lost to everyone with whom we've crossed swords
and left them devastated and America diminished save for the few.
So I was a Sanders supporter until he backed the warrior woman and I, like millions of others backed off of her party. It's
still her party. Everyone just loves every victim of every kind. They all spout minor variations on the same themes while Trump
and his neocons quietly install their right wing empire. Except for one who I spotted when she had the independence to go look
for herself in Syria.
Tulsi Gabbard is the only candidate to be the candidate who has a balance of well thought through, realistic foreign policy
as well as the domestic non-extremist one. She has the hurdle of being a too-pretty woman, of being from the remotest state,
and not being a screamer. Even this article, written about peace by a woman fails to talk about her.
Tulsi has the registered voter count and a respectable budget, but the New York Times which is policy-controlled by a few
of Hillary's billionaire friends has consistently shut her out, because Tulsi left the corrupt Hillary-owned DNC to back Sanders
and Hillary never forgave her.
If you want to know who is against Trump and war, take 5 minutes and listen to what she really said during the 1st debate
where the CBS folks gave her little room to talk. It will change your outlook on what really is possible.
Hi Anonymot; I also exited my Sanders support after over 100 cash donations and over a years painful effort. I will never
call him Bernie again; now it is Sanders, since Bernie makes him sound cute and cute was not the word that came into my mind
as Mr. Sanders missed his world moment at the democratic election and backed Hillary Clinton (I can not vote for EVIL). Sanders
then proceeded to give part of my money to the DNC & to EVIL Hillary Clinton.
So then what now? Easy as Pie; NO MORE DEMOCRATS EVER. The DNC & DCCC used Election Fraud & Election Crimes blatantly to
beat Bernie Sanders. Right out in the open. The DNC & DCCC are War Mongering more then the Republicans which is saying allot.
The mass media and major Internet Plateforms like Goggle & Facebook are all owned by Evil Oligarchs that profit from WAR and
blatantly are today suppressing all dissenting opinions (anti Free Speech).
I stopped making cash donation to Tulsi Gabbard upon the realization that the Democrats were not at all a force for Life
or Good and instead were a criminal organization. The voting for the lessor of two EVILs is 100% STUPID.
I told Tim Canova I could not support any Democrat ever again as I told Tulsi Gabbard. Tulsi is still running as a criminal
democrat. If she would run independent of the DNC then I would start to donate cash to her again. End of my story about Tulsi.
I do like her antiwar dialog, but there is no; so called changing, the DNC from the inside. The Oligarchs own the DNC and are
not supportive of "We The People" or the Constitution, or the American Republic.
The end of Tim Canova's effort was he was overtly CHEATED AGAIN by the DNC's Election Fraud & Election Crimes in his 2018
run for congress against Hillary Clinton's 100% corrupt campaign manager; who congress seated even over Tim's asking them not
to seat her until his law suites on her election crimes against him were assessed. Election crimes and rigged voting machines
in Florida are a way of life now and have been for decades and decades.
All elections must be publicly funded. All votes must be on paper ballots and accessible for recounts and that is just the
very minimums needed to start changing the 100% corrupted election system we Americans have been railroaded into.
The supreme Court has recently ruled that gerrymandering is OK. The supreme court has proven to be a political organization
with their Bush Gore decision and now are just political hacks and as such need to be ELECTED not appointed. Their rulings that
Money is Free Speech & that Corporations are People has disenfranchised "We the People". That makes the Supreme Court a tool
to be used by the world money elite to overturn the constitution of the United States of America.
No More War. No More War. No More War.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 16:40
Absolutely spot-on, superb comment, P .Brooks.
DW
Nathan Mulcahy , July 3, 2019 at 18:08
I saw the light (with what the Dems are really about) after Kucinich's candidacy. That made me one of the very few lefties
in my circle not to have voted for Obama even the first time around. I hear a lot of talk about trying to reform the party from
inside. Utter bu** sh**. "You cannot reform Mafia".
Ever since Kucinich, I have been voting Green. No, this is not a waste of my vote. Besides, I cannot be complicit to war
crimes – that's what it makes anyone who votes for either of the two parties.
Steven , July 3, 2019 at 13:56
Wow you said a mouthful. It's worse than that its a cottage industry that includes gun running, drug running and human trafficking
netting Trillions to the MIC, CIA and other alphabet agencies you can't fight the mark of the beast.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:01
I fully back/endorse Gabbard, but
The battering of Bernie is not fair. He is NOT a Democrat, therefore him being able to get "inside" that party to run AS
a Dem put him in a tenuous situation. He really had no option other than to support HRC lest his movement, everyone's movement,
would get extra hammering by the neocons and status quo powers. He wouldn't be running, again, had he not done this. Yeah, it's
a bad taste, I get it, but had he disavowed HRC would the outcome -Trump- been any different? The BLAME goes fully on the DNC
and the Clintons. Full stop.
I do not see AOC as a full progressive. She is only doing enough to make it appear so. The Green New Deal is stolen from
the Green Party and is watered down. Think of this as "Obama Care" for the planet. As you should know, Gabbard's Off Fossil
Fuels Act (OFF) actually has real teeth in it: and is closer to the Green Party's positions.
I support movements and positions. PRIMARY is peace. Gabbard, though not a pacifist, has the right path on all of this: I've
been around long enough to understand exactly how she's approaching all of this. She is, however, taking on EVERYONE. As powerful
a person as she is (she has more fortitude than the entire lot of combined POTUS candidates put together) going to require MASSIVE
support; sadly, -to this point- this article doesn't help by implying that people aren't interested in foreign policy (it perpetuates
the blockout of it- people have to be reeducated on its importance- not something that the MIC wants), people aren't yet able
to see the connections. The education will occur will it happen in a timely way such that people would elect Gabbard? (things
can turn on a dime, history has shown this; she has the makeup that suggests that she's going to have a big role in making history).
I did not support Bernie (and so far have not- he's got ample support; if it comes down to it he WILL get my vote- and I've
held off voting for many years because there's been no real "peace" candidate on the plate). Gabbard, however, has my support
now, and likely till the day I die: I've been around long enough to know what constitutes a great leader, and not since the
late 60s have we had anyone like her. If Bernie gets the nomination it is my prediction that he will have Gabbard high on his
staff, if not as VP: a sure fire way to win is to have Gabbard as VP.
I'm going to leave this for folks to contemplate as to whether Gabbard is real or not:
In a context in which Rio de Janeiro's evangelical churches have been accused of laundering money for the drug trafficking
gangs, all elements of Afro-Brazilian culture including caipoeira, Jango drumming, and participation in Carnaval parades, have
been banned by the traffickers in many favelas.
[end excerpt]
"caipoeria," is something that Gabbard has practiced:
"I trained in different martial arts since I was a kid including Capoeira -- an amazing art created by slaves in Brazil who
were training to fight and resist against their slave masters, disguising their training with music, acrobatics, and dance.
Yesterday I joined my friends Mestre Kinha and others at Capoeira Besouro Hawai'i for their batizado ceremony and some fun!
" – Tulsi Gabbard December 9, 2018
The GOAL is to get her into the upper halls of governing power. If the people cannot see fit to it then I'll support Sanders
(in the end) so that he can do it.
Harpootlian claims to see what's going on, but, unfortunately, she's not able to look close enough.
Anonymot, thank you for leading out here with Gabbard and her message.
michael , July 4, 2019 at 08:10
If Gabbard had the MSM coverage Buttigieg has received she probably be leading in the polls. It is surprising(?) that this
supposedly anti-war author mentions corporatist Mayor Pete but not Gabbard.
David , July 4, 2019 at 19:55
She DOES (briefly)mention Gabbard, but she missed the fact that Gabbard is the most strongly anti-war candidate. She gets
it entirely wrong about Buttigieg, who is strikingly pro-war, and supports getting in to a war with Iran.
And sadly, Ms. Gabbard is mired at the 1% mark in the polls, even after having performed so well in the debate.
This seems to me an indication of the public's lack of caring about our foreign wars.
antonio Costa , July 3, 2019 at 19:06
The reason she's "mired" is because a number of polls don't include her!! However they include, Marianne Williamson.
How's that for inverse totalitarianism par excellence .
Skip Scott , July 4, 2019 at 07:05
I did see one poll that had her at 2%. And given the reputation of many polling outfits, I take any professed results with
a grain of salt. Tulsi's press coverage (what little she gets) has been mostly defamatory to the point of being libelous. If
her strong performance continues in the primary debates despite all efforts to sabotage her, I think she could make a strong
showing. That said, at some point she will have to renounce the DNC controlled democratic party and run as an Independent if
she wants to make the General Election debates for 2020.
"Hillary signed the papers and talked the brainless idiocy that set the entire Middle East on fire, because she couldn't
stand the sight of a man with no shirt on and sitting on the Russian equivalent of a Harley. She hates men "
If I were to psychologize, I would conjecture more un-gendered stereotype, namely that of a good student. He/she diligently
learns in all classes from the prescribed textbooks and reading materials, and, alas, American education on foreign affairs
is dominated by retirees from CIA and other armchair warriors. Of course, nothing wrong about good students in general, but
I mean the type that is obedient, devoid of originality and independent thinking. When admonished, he/she remembers the pain
for life and strives hard not to repeat it. E.g. as First Lady, Hillary kissed Arafat's wife to emulate Middle East custom,
and NY tabloids had a feast for months.
Concerning Tulsi, no Hillary-related conspiracy is needed to explain the behavior of the mass media. Tulsi is a heretic to
the establishment, and their idea is to be arbiters of what and who belongs to the "mainstream", and what is radical, marginal
etc. Tulsi richly deserves her treatment. Confronted with taunts like "so you would prefer X to stay in power" (Assad, Maduro
etc.) she replies that it should not be up to USA to decide who stays in power, especially if no better scenario is in sight.
The gall, the cheek!
Strangely enough, Tulsi gets this treatment in places like The Nation and Counterpunch. As the hitherto "radical left" got
a whiff of being admitted to the hallowed mainstream from time to time, they try to be "responsible".
Mary Jones-Giampalo , July 4, 2019 at 00:39
Yes! Thank You I was gritting my teeth reading this article #Tulsi2020
Eddie , July 3, 2019 at 11:42
The end of the anti-war movement expired when the snake-oil pitchman with the toothy smile and dark skin brought his chains
we could beleive in to the White House. The so-called progressives simply went to sleep while they never criticized Barack Obama
for escalating W. Bush's wars and tax cuts for the rich.
The fake left wing in the US remained silent when Obama dumped trillions of dollars into the vaults of his bankster pals
as he stole the very homes from the people who voted him into office. Then along came the next hope and change miracle worker
Bernie Sanders. Only instead of working miracles for the working class, Sanders showed his true colors when he fcuked his constituents
to support the hated Hillary Clinton.
Let's start facing reality. The two-party dictatorship does not care about you unless you can pony up the big bucks like
their masters in the oligarchy and the soulless corporations do. Unless and until workers end to the criminal stranglehold that
the big-business parties and the money class have on the government, things will continue to slide into the abyss.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 11:33
An informed awareness of imperialism must also include an analysis of how "technology" is used and abused, from the use of
"superior" weaponry against people who do not have such weapons, from blunderbuss and sailing ships, to B-52s and napalm, up
to and including technology that may be "weaponized" against civilian populations WiTHIN a society, be it 24/7 surveillance
or robotics and AI that could permit elites to dispense with any "need", on the part of the elites, to tolerate the very existence
of a laborung class, or ANY who earn their wealth through actual work, from maids to surgeons, from machine operators to professors.
Any assumption, that any who "work", even lawyers or military officers, can consider their occupation or profession as "safe",
is to assume that the scapegoating will stop with those the highly paid regard as "losers", such comfortable assumption may
very well prove as illusory and ephemeral as an early morning mist before the hot and merciless Sun rises.
The very notions of unfettered greed and limitless power, resulting in total control, must be recognized as the prime drivers
of endless war and shock-doctrine capitalism which, combined, ARE imperialism, unhinged and insane.
michael , July 3, 2019 at 11:06
This article is weak. Anyone who could equate Mayor Pete or the eleven Democrat "ex"-military and CIA analysts who gained
seats in Congress in 2018 as anti-war is clueless. Tulsi Gabbard is anti-regime change war, but is in favor of fighting "terrorists"
(created mostly by our CIA and Israel with Saudi funding). Mike Gravel is the only true totally anti-war 'candidate' and he
supports Gabbard as the only anti-War of the Democrats.
In WWI, 90% of Americans who served were drafted, in WWII over 60% of Americans who served were drafted. The Vietnam War "peace
demonstrations" were more about the Draft, and skin-in-the-game, than about War. Nixon and Kissinger abolished the Draft (which
stopped most anti-war protests), but continued carpet bombing Vietnam and neighboring countries (Operations Menu, Freedom Deal,
Patio, etc), and Vietnamized the War which was already lost, although the killing continued through 1973. The abolition of the
Draft largely gutted the anti-war movement. Sporadic protests against Bush/ Cheney over Afghanistan and Iraq essentially disappeared
under Obama/ Hillary in Afghanistan and Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan. Since their National Emergency proclamations
no longer ever end, we are in a position to attack Venezuela (Obama), Ukraine (Obama), South Sudan (Obama), Iran (Carter, Clinton),
Libya (Obama), Somalia (Obama), Yemen (Obama), Nicaragua (Trump) and even Burundi (Obama) and the Central African Republic (Obama).
The continuing support of death squads in Honduras and other Latin American countries ("stability is more important than democracy")
has contributed to the immigration crises over the last five years.
As Pelosi noted about Democratic progressives "there are like five of them". Obama not only failed to reverse any of the police
state and warmongering of Bush/Cheney, he expanded both police state (arresting and prosecuting Chelsea Manning for exposing
war crimes, as well as more whistleblowers than anyone in history), and wars in seven Arab Muslim countries. Black Americans,
who had always been an anti-War bloc prior to Obama, converted to the new America. The Congressional Democrats joined with Republicans
to give more to the military budget than requested by Trump. (Clinton squandered the Peace Dividend when the Soviet Union fell,
and Lee Camp has exposed the $21 TRILLION "lost" by the Pentagon.)
The young author see anti-war improvements that are not there. The US is more pro-war in its foreign policies than at any time
in its history. When there was a Draft, the public would not tolerate decades of war (lest their young men died). Sanctions
are now the first attack (usually by National Emergencies!); the 500,000 Iraqi children killed by Clinton's sanctions (Madeline
Albright: "we think it was worth it!") is just sadism and psychopathy at the top, which is necessary for War.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 11:38
Superb comment, michael, very much agreed with and appreciated.
DW
Anonymot , July 3, 2019 at 12:06
You are absolutely right. Obama and Hillary were the brilliant ideas of the MIC/CIA when they realized that NO ONE the Republicans
put up after Bush baby's 2nd round. They chose 2 "victims" black & woman) who would do what they were told to do in order to
promote their causes (blacks & get-filthy rich.) The first loser would get the next round. And that's exactly what happened
until Hillary proved to be so unacceptable that she was rejected. We traded no new war for an administration leading us into
a neo-nazi dictatorship.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:04
Thank you for this comment!
Mickey , July 3, 2019 at 10:47
Tulsi Gabbard is the only peace candidate in the Democratic Party
Many current crises have the potential to escalate into a major confrontation between the nuclear powers, similar to the
Cuban missile crisis, though there is no comparable sense of alarm. Then, tensions were at boiling point, when a small military
exchange could have led to nuclear annihilation. Today there are many more such flashpoint – Syria, the South China Sea, Iran,
Ukraine to name a few. Since the end of the Cold War there has been a gradual movement towards third world war. Condemnation
of an attack on Iran must include, foremost, the warning that it could lead the US into a confrontation with a Sino-Russian
alliance. The warning from history is states go to war over interests, but ultimately – and blindly – end up getting the very
war they need to avoid: even nuclear war, where the current trend is going. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 10:36
Many truly superb, well-informed, and very enlightening comments on this thread.
My very great appreciation to this site, to its authors, and to its exceptionally thoughtful and articulate commenters.
DW
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 10:20
I appreciate this author's perspective, research, and optimism.
Clearly, the young ARE far more open to embracing a future less warlike and hegemonic, while far too many of my generation
are wedded to childish myth and fantasy around U$ driven mayhem.
However, I would suggest that vision be broadened beyond opposition to war, which opposition, while important, must be expanded
to opposition to the larger issue of imperialism, itself.
Imperialism is not merely war, it includes economic warfare, both sanctions, internationally, and predatory debt loads, domestically,
in very many nations of the world, as well as privatization of the commons (which must be understood to include all resources
necessary to human existence).
Perpetual war, which profits only the few, is driven by precisely the same aims as pitting workers against each other, worldwide,
in a "game" of "race to the bottom", creating "credit" rather than raising wages, thus creating life-long indebtedness of the
many, which only benefits monopolized corporate interests, as does corporate ownership of such necessities as water, food production,
and most channels of communication, which permits corporations to easily shape public perception toward whatever ends suit corporate
purposes while also ensuring that deeper awareness of what is actually occurring is effectively stifled, deplatformed, or smeared
as dangerous foreign fake news or as hidden, or even as blatant, racial or religious hatred.
Above all, it is critically important that all these interrelated aspects of deliberate domination, control, and diminishment,
ARE talked about, openly, that we all may have better grasp of who really aligns with creating serious systemic change, especially
as traditionally assumed "tendencies" are shifting, quickly and even profoundly.
For example, as many here point out, the Democrats are now as much a war party as the Republicans, "traditionally" have been,
even as there is clear evidence that the Republican "base" is becoming less willing to go to war than are the Democratic "base",
as CNN and MSNBC media outlets strive to incite a new Cold War and champion and applaud aggression in Syria, Iran, and North
Korea.
It is the elite Democratic "leadership" and most Democratic Presidential hopefuls who now preach or excuse war and aggression,
with few actual exceptions, and none of them, including Tulsi Gabbard, have come anywhere near openly discussing or embracing,
the end of U$ imperialism.
Both neoliberal and neocon philosophies are absolutely dedicated to imperialism in all its destructive, even terminal, manifestations.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:16
Exactly!
Gabbard has spoken out against sanctions. She understands that they're just another form of war.
The younger generations won't be able to financially support imperialist activities. And, they won't be, as the statements
to their enlistment numbers suggest, able to "man the guns." I'm thinking that TPTB are aware of this (which is why a lot of
drone and other automation of war machinery has been stepped up).
The recent alliance of Soros and Charles Koch, the Quincy Institute, is, I believe, a KEY turning point. Pretty much everything
Gabbard is saying/calling for is this institute's mission statement: and people ought to note that Gabbard has been in Charles
Koch's circle- might very well be that Gabbard has already influenced things in a positive way.
I also believe that all the great independent journalists, publishers (Assange taking the title here) and whistleblowers
(Manning taking the title here) have made a HUGE impact. Bless them all.
The US government consistently uses psychological operations on its own citizens to manufacture consent to kill anyone and
everyone. Meaningless propaganda phrases such as "Support Our Troops" and "National Security" and "War on Terror" are thrown
around to justify genocides and sieges and distract us from murder. There is no left wing or in American politics and there
has not been one since the inauguration of Ronald Reagan. All we have is neoconservatives and neoliberals representing the business
party for four decades. Killing is our business and business is good. Men are as monkeys with guns when it comes to politics
and religion.
One might be hard-pressed to find more outright perversions of reality in a mere two pages of text. Congratulations Congress,
you have indeed surpassed yourself.
So it's those dastardly Russians and Iranians who are responsible for the destabilization of the Middle East, "complicating
Israel's ability to defend itself from hostile action emanating from Syria." And apparently, it's the "ungoverned space" in
Syria that has "allowed" for the rise of terrorist factions in Syria, that (we must be reminded) are ever poised to attack "Western
targets, our allies and partners, and the U.S. homeland."
Good grief.
Bob Van Noy , July 3, 2019 at 08:29
Thank you Joe Lauria and Consortiumnews.
There is much wisdom and a good deal of personal experience being expressed on these pages. I especially want to thank IvyMike
and Dao Gen. Ivy Mike you're so right about our troops in Vietnam from 1965 to 1968, draftees and volunteers, they fought what
was clearly an internal civil war fought valiantly, beyond that point, Vietnam was a political mess for all involved. And Dao
Gen all of your points are accurate.
As for our legislators, please read the linked Foreign Affairs press release signed by over 400 leglislators On May 20th.,
2019 that address "threats to Syria" including the Russia threat. Clearly it will take action by the People and Peace candidates
to end this travesty of a foreign policy.
Vietnam a war triggered by the prevention of a mandated election by the USA which Ho Chi Minh was likely to win, who had
already recently been Premier of a unified Vietnam.
Sorry, being courageous in a vicious cause is not honorable.
Speaking a true history and responsibility is honorable.
Bob Van Noy , July 3, 2019 at 11:07
No need to be sorry James Clooney. I did not mention honor in my comment, I mentioned valiant (courage and determination).
American troupes ultimately fight honorably for each other not necessarily for country. This was the message and evaluation
of Captain Hal Moore To General Westmorland And Robert McNamera after the initial engagement of US troops and NVA and can be
viewed as a special feature of the largely inaccurate DVD "We Were Soldiers And Young).
The veterans group About Face is doing remarkable work against the imperial militarization that threatens to consume our
country and possibly the world. This threat includes militarization of US police, a growing nuclear arms race, and so-called
humanitarian wars. About Face is also working to train ordinary people as medics to take these skills into their communities
whose members are on the front lines of police brutality.
Tulsi Gabbard is the only candidate with a strong, enlightened understanding of the costs of our many imperial wars Costs to
ourselves in the US and costs to the people we invade in order to "save" them. I voted for McGovern in 1972. I would vote for
Tuldi's Gabbard in 2020 if given the chance.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:35
Vote for her now by supporting her*! One cannot wait until the DNC (or other party) picks the candidate FOR us. Anyone serious
about peace ought to support her, and do it now and far into the future. I have always supported candidates who are champions
for peace, no matter their "party" or whatever: I did not, though I wish that I had, support Walter Jones -of Freedom Fries
fame- after he did a 180 (Gabbard knew Jones, and respected him); it took a lot of guts for him to do this, but his honest (like
Ron Paul proved) was proven and his voters accepted him (and likely shifted their views along with him).
* Yeah, one has to register giving money, but for a lousy $1 She has yet to qualify for the third debate (need 130k unique
donations): and yet Yang has! (nothing against him, but come on, he is not "Commander in Chief" material [and at this time it
is, as Gabbard repeats, the single most important part of being president]).
Mary Jones-Giampalo , July 4, 2019 at 00:43
Strongly agree Only Tulsi
triekc , July 3, 2019 at 07:14
Not surprising there was little or no antiwar sentiment in the newfound civic engagement after Trump's election, since the
majority of those participating were supporters of the war criminals Obama, Clinton, and their corporate, war mongering DEM
party. Those same people today, support Obama-chaperone Biden, or one of the other vetted corporate DEMs, including socialist-in-name-only
Sanders, who signed the DEM loyalty oath promising to continue austerity for the poor, socialism for rich, deregulation, militarism,
and global war hegemony. The only party with an antiwar blank was the Green Party, which captured >2% of the ~130 million votes
in the rigged election- even though Stein is as competent as Clinton, certainly more competent than Trump, and the Green platform,
unlike Sanders', explained how to pay for social and environmental programs by ending illegal wars in at least 7 countries,
closing 1000 military command posts located all over earth, removing air craft carrier task forces from every ocean, cutting
defense spending.
I believe the CIA operation "CARWASH" was under Obama, which gave us Ultra fascism in one of the largest economies in the
world, Brazil.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 12:02
Superb comment, trieke, and I especially appreciate your mention of Jill Stein and the Green Party.
It is unfortunate that the the Green New Deal, championed by AOC is such a pale and intentionally pusillanimous copy of the
Green New Deal articulated by Stein, which pointedly made clear that blind and blythe economic expansion must cease, that realistic
natural constraints and carrying capacity be accepted and profligate energy squandering come to an end.
That a sane, humane, and sustainable economic system, wholly compatible with ecological responsibility can provide neaningful
endeavor, justly compensated, for all, as was coherently addressed and explained to any who cared to examine the substance of
that, actual, and realistic, original, GND.
Such a vision must be part of successfully challenging, and ending, U$ imperialism.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:53
And Trump likely signed a GOP pledge. It's all superficial crap, nothing that is really written in stone.
I LOVE Stein. But for the sake of the planet we have little time to wait on getting the Green Party up to speed (to the clasp
the levers of power). Unless Gabbard comes out on top (well, the ultimate, and my favorite, long-shot would be Gravel, but reality
is something that I have to accept) it can only really be Sanders. I see a Sanders nomination as being the next best thing (and,
really, the last hope as it all falls WAY off the cliff after that). He would most certainly have Gabbard along (if not as VP,
which is the best strategy for winning, then as some other high-ranking, and meaningful cabinet member). Also, there are a lot
of folks that would be coming in on his coattails. It is THESE people that will make the most difference: although he's got
his flaws, Ro Kana would be a good top official. And, there are all the supporters who would help push. Sanders is WAY better
than HRC (Obama and, of course, Trump). He isn't my favorite, but he has enough lean in him to allow others to help him push
the door open: I'll accept him if that's what it take to get Gabbard into all of this.
Sometimes you DO have to infiltrate. Sanders is an infiltrator (not a Dem), though he treads lightly. Gabbard has already
proven her intentions: directly confronted the DNC and the HRC machine (and her direct attack on the MIC is made very clear);
and, she is indirectly endorsed by some of the best people out there who have run for POTUS: Jill Stein; Ron Paul; Mike Gravel.
We cannot wait for the Dems (and the MIC) to disarm. We need to get inside "the building" and disarm. IF Sanders or Gabbard
(and no Gravel) don't get the nomination THEN it is time to open up direct "warfare" and attack from the "outside" (at this
time there should be enough big defectors to start swinging the tide).
Eddie S , July 3, 2019 at 23:34
Yes trieke, I voted for Stein in 2016, and I plan on voting Green Party again in 2020. I see too many fellow progressives/liberals/leftists
(whatever the hell we want to call ourselves) agonizing about which compromised Democrat to vote-for, trying to weigh their
different liabilities, etc. I've come to believe that my duty as a voter is to vote for the POTUS candidate/party whose stances/platform
are closest to my views, and that's unequivocally the Green Party. My duty as a voter does NOT entail 'voting for a winner',
that's just part of the two-party-con that the Dems & Reps run.
jmg , July 3, 2019 at 07:06
The big difference is that, during the Vietnam years, people could *see* the war. People talked a lot about "photographs
that ended the Vietnam war", such as the napalm girl, etc.
The government noticed this. There were enormous pressures on the press, even a ban on returning coffin photos. Now, since
the two Iraq wars, people *don't see* the reality of war. The TV and press don't show Afghanistan, don't show Yemen, didn't
show the real Iraq excepting for Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange, who are in prison because of this.
And the wars go on:
"The US government and military are preventing the public from seeing photographs that depict the true horror of the Iraq
war."
For example, we all know that mainstream media is war propaganda now, itself at war on truth and, apart from some convenient
false flags to justify attacks, they very rarely let the very people suffering wars be heard to wake viewers up, and don't often
even show this uncensored reality of war anymore, not like the true images of this old, powerful video:
Happy Xmas (War Is Over! If You Want It)
So this is Xmas
And what have you done
-- John Lennon
mbob -- thank you -- has already put this very well, but it is above all the Dems, especially Obama and the Clintons, who
killed the antiwar movement. Obama was a fake, and his foreign policy became even more hawkish after Hillary resigned as SoS.
His reduction of Libya, the richest state in Africa, to a feudal chaotic zone in which slavery is once more prominent and his
attempt to demonize Syria, which has more semi-democracy and women's rights than any of the Islamic kingdoms the US supports
as its allies, and turn Syria into a jihadi terrorist hell, as well as Obama's bombing of other nations and his sanctions on
still other nations such as Venezuela, injured and killed at least as many people as did GW Bush's invasion of Iraq. Yet where
was the antiwar movement? In the 21st century the US antiwar movement has gained most of its strength from anti-Repub hatred.
The current uptick of antiwar feeling is probably due mostly to hatred of Trump. Yet Trump is the first president since Carter
not to invade or make a major attack on a foreign country. As a businessman, his policy is to use economic warfare instead of
military warfare.
I am not a Trump supporter, and strong sanctions are a war crime, and Trump is also slow to reduce some of Obama's overseas
bombing and other campaigns, yet ironically he is surely closer to being a "peace president" than Obama. Moreover, a major reason
Trump won in 2016 was that Hillary was regarded as the war and foreign intervention candidate, and in fact if Hillary had won,
she probably would have invaded Syria to set up her infamous "no-fly zone" there, and she might have bombed Iran by now. We
might even be in a war with Russia now. At the same time, under Trump the Dem leadership and the Dem-leaning MSM have pursued
an unabashedly neocon policy of attacking from the right Trumps attempts at detente with Russia and scorning his attempts to
negotiate a treaty with N Korea and to withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan. The main reason why Trump chose dangerous neocons
like Bolton and Pompeo as advisors was probably to shield himself a little from the incessant and sometimes xenophobic attacks
from the Dem leadership and the MSM. The Dem leadership seems motivated not only by hatred of Trump but also, and probably more
importantly, by a desire to get donations from the military-industrial complex and a desire to ingratiate itself with the Intel
Community and the surveillance state in order to get various favors. Look, for example, at Adam Schiff, cheerleader-in-chief
for the IC. The system of massive collusion between the Dem party elite and the US deep state was not as advanced during the
Vietnam War era as it is now. 2003 changed a lot of things.
The only Dem presidential candidates who are philosophically and securely antiwar are Gabbard and Gravel. Even Bernie (and
even more so, Warren) can't be trusted to stand up to the deep state if elected, and anyway, Bernie's support for the Russiagate
hoax by itself disqualifies him as an antiwar politician, while the Yemen bill he sponsored had a fatal loophole in it, as Bernie
well knew. I love Bernie, but he is neither antiwar nor anti-empire. As for Seth Moulton, mentioned in the article, he is my
Rep, and he makes some mild criticisms of the military, but he is a rabid hawk on Syria and Iran, and he recently voted for
a Repub amendment that would have punished Americans who donate to BDS organizations. And as for the younger generation of Dems,
they are not as antiwar as the article suggests. For every AOC among the newly elected Dems in 2018, there were almost two new
Dems who are military vets or who formerly worked for intel agencies. This does not bode well. As long at the deep state, the
Dem elite, and the MSM are tightly intertwined, there will be no major peace movement in the near future, even if a Dem becomes
president. In fact, a Dem president might hinder the formation of a true antiwar movement. Perhaps when China becomes more powerful
in ten or twenty years, the unipolar US empire and permanent war state will no longer look like a very good idea to a large
number of Americans, and the idea of a peace movement will once again become realistic. The media have a major role to play
in spreading truthful news about how the current US empire is hurting domestic living standards. Rather than hopey-hope wish
lists, no-holds-barred reporting will surely play a big role.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 12:05
Absolutely superb comment, Dao Gen.
DW
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 15:07
Another fine example of why I think there is hope! (some very sharp commentators!)
A strong leader can make all the difference. The example gets set from the top: not that this is my preference, just that
it's the reality we have today. MLK Jr. was such a leader, though it was MANY great people that were in his movement/orbit that
were the primary architects. I suppose you could say it's a "rally around the flag" kind of deal. Just as Trump stunned the
System, I believe that it can be stunned from the "left" (the ultimate stunning would be from a Gravel win, but I'm thinking
that Gabbard would be the one that has what it takes to slip past).
I really wish that people would start asking candidates who they think have been good cabinet members for various positions.
This could help give an idea of the most important facet of an administration: who the POTUS selects as key cabinet members
tells pretty much everything you need to know. Sadly, Trump had a shot at selecting Gabbard and passed on her: as much as I
detest Trump, I gave him room in which to work away from the noecon/neolib death squads (to his credit he's mostly just stalemated
them- for a rookie politician you could say that this has been an impressive feat; he's tried to instigate new wars but has,
so far, "failed" [by design?]).
geeyp , July 3, 2019 at 01:19
"We saved more money today for the American people ." – Elijah Cummings. Yea? Well then, give it to us!! You owe us a return
of our money that you have wasted for years.
mark , July 3, 2019 at 00:17
Same old, same old, same old, same old.
Prospective candidates spewing out the same tired old hot air about how, this time, it really, really, really, really will be
different.
There won't be any more crazy multitrillion wars for Israel.
Honest.
Just like Dubya.
Just like Obomber.
Just like the Orange Baboon.
Whilst simultaneously begging for shekels from Adelson, Saban, Singer, Marcus.
And this is the "new anti war movement."
Yeah.
Tom Kath , July 3, 2019 at 00:04
Every extreme elicits an extreme response. Our current western pacifist obsession is no exception. By prohibiting argument,
disagreement, verbal conflict, and the occasional playground "dust up" on a personal level, you seem to make the seemingly less
personal war inevitable.
Life on earth is simply not possible without "a bit of biff".
An aware person may not react extremely to a extreme. USA slaughtered 5 to 10 million Vietnamese for no apparent reason other
than projection of power yet the Vietnamese trade with the USA today.
Who prohibits argument? Certainly not those with little power; it's the militarily and politically powerful that crush dissent,
(Tinamen Square , Occupy Wall Street). How much dissent does the military allow? Why is Assange being persecuted?
I believe even the most militant pacifist would welcome a lively debate on murder, death and genocide, as a channel for education
and edification.
Antonio Costa , July 2, 2019 at 20:53
Weak essay. AOC hops from cause to cause. She rarely/ever says anything about US regime change wars, and the bombing of children.
She's demonstrated no anti-war bona fides.
Only Tulsi Gabbard has forthright called for an end to regime change wars, the warmongers and reduction in our military.
The power is with the powerful. We'll not see an end to war, nor Medicare for All or much of anything regarding student debt.
These are deep systemic problems calling for systemic solutions beginning with how we live on the planet(GND is a red herring),
the GDP must become null and void if we are to behave as if plundering the planet is part of "progress". It needs to be replaced
to some that focuses on quality of life as the key to prosperity. The geopolitics of the world have to simply STOP IT. It's
not about coalitions between Russia and China and India to off-set the US imperialists. That's an old game for an empty planet.
The planet is full and exceeding it capacity and is on fire. Our geopolitics must end!
Not one of these candidates come close to focusing on the systemic problem(s) except Gabbard's focus on war because it attacks
the heart of the American Imperial Empire.
Maxime , July 3, 2019 at 09:24
I agree with you that you americans will probably not see the end of your system and the end of your problems any time soon.
BUT I disagree on that you seems to think it's inevitable. I'm not american, I'm french, and reading you saying you think
medicare for all, no student debt and end to endless wars are systemic problems linked to GDP and the current economic system
is well, amusing. We have medicare for all, in fact even better than your medicare, we have no student cost for our educating
system, and still in both cases often better results than yours, even if we are behind some of our northern neighbors, but they
don't pay for these either. And we don't wage endless wars, even if we have ourselves our own big war problems, after all we
were in Lybia, we are in Syria, we are in Mali and other parts of Africa.
We also have a big militaro-industrial complex, in fact very alike the american one. But we made clear since much longer
than we would not accept as much wars, in part because the lesson we got from WW2 and Cold War was to learn to live together
with our hated neighbor. You know, the one the other side of the Rhine. Today France is a diplomatic superpower, often the head
of the european spear onthe subject, we got feared elite military, and we are proud of that, but we would not even accept more
money (in proportion) given to our military complex.
And you know the best news (for the americans)? we have an history of warmongering going back millenias. We learn to love
Caesar and the "Guerre des Gaules", his invasion of Gauls. We learn how Franks invaded their neighbors and built the first post-roman
Empire. We learn how crusaders were called Franks, how we built our nation and his pride on ashes of european continental english
hopes and german holy empire aspirations. We learn how Napolean nearly achieved to built a new continental Empire, how we never
let them passed at Verdun, and how we rose in the face of a tyran in 1944.
All of this is still in our history books, and we're still proud of it. But today, if most of us were to be asked what we
were proud about recent wars France got into, it would be how our president vetoed USA when they tried to got UN into Irak and
forced them to invade illegally, and without us.
I think my country's revelation was Algeria's independance war. One bloody and largely filled with war crimes and crimes against
humanity. We're ashamed of it, and I think we, as a nation, learned from it that stopping wars on our soil wasn't enough. I
still don't understand how americans can still wage wars after Vietnam, but I am not american. Still, even the most warmongering
nation can learn. Let's hope you will be quicker than us, because we got millennias of bloody history before even the birth
of USA.
Eddie S , July 3, 2019 at 23:15
Thanks Maxime for a foreign perspective! I'm often curious what people in foreign countries think of our current politics
in the US,especially when I read analysis/commentaries by US writers (even ones I respect) who say "Oh most of our allies think
this or that" -- - maybe they're right or maybe they're wrong or somewhere in-between, but it's interesting getting a DIRECT
opinion from a fellow left-of-center citizen from a foreign state.
I agree with your points that European countries like France almost all have their own bloody history including an imperial
period, but the two big World Wars that killed SO many people and destroyed so many cities in Europe were so tragic and wasteful
that I suspect they DO continue to act as a significant deterrent to the saber-rattling that the US war mongers are able to
engage-in. For too many US citizens 'war' is just something that's mentioned & sometimes displayed on a screen, just like a
movie/TV program/video-game, and there's a non-reality to it because it's so far away and seldom directly affects them. Geography
has famously isolated us from the major death & destruction of war and enables too many armchair warriors to talk boldly and
vote for politicians who pander to those conceits. In a not-so-subtle way, the US IS the younger offspring of Europe, where
Europe has grown-up due to some hard lessons, while the US is going through its own destructive stage of 'lesson-learning'.
Hopefully this learning stage will be over soon and won't involve a world war.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 12:48
Tulsi Gabbard is, indeed,pointing at part of a major organ of imperialism, Antonio Costa, yet habeas corpus, having the whole
body of imperialism produced is necessary for the considered judgement of a people long terrorized by fictitious "monsters"
and "demons", if they are to understand that shooting warfate is but one part of the heart, while the other is economic warfare.
Both brutally destructive, even if the second is hidden from public awareness or dismissed as "a price worth paying". Imperialism
pays no price (except "blow-back", which is merely "religious extremism" as explained by a fully complicit MSM).
And the "brain" behind it all?
That is corporate/military/political/deep state/media greed – and their desperate need/ambition for total, and absolute,
control.
Only seeing the whole body may reveal the true size of the threat and the vicious nature of the real danger.
Some may argue that it is "too soon", "too early", or "too costly", politically, for Gabbard, even if she, herself, might
see imperialism as the real monster and demon, to dare describe the whole beast.
Frankly, this time, Tulsi's candidacy, her "run" for President, is not likely to see her become the Dem nominee, most likely
that will be Kamala Harris (who will happily do the bidding of brute power), rather, it is to lay the firm and solid foundation
of actual difference, of rational perspective, and thoughtful, diplomatic international behavior.
To expose the whole, especially the role of the MSM, in furthering all the rest of the lumbering body of Zombie imperialism,
would be far more effective in creating an substantial "opening" for alternative possibilities, even a new political party,
next time.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 15:31
I'm figuring that Warren and Harris will take one another out. Climbing to the top requires this. But, Gabbard doesn't stop
fighting, and if there's a fighter out there it is her: mentally and physically she is the total package.
Sanders' 2016 campaign was ignored, he wasn't supposed to go anywhere, but if not for the DNC's meddling he would be POTUS
right now (I have zero doubt over that). So too was Obama's climb from nowhere: of course, Obama was pushed up by the System,
the System that is NOT behind Gabbard. And then there's the clown at the helm (Trump). I refuse to ignore this history.
Gababard is by no means out. Let's not speak of such things, especially when her campaign, and message, is just starting
to burst out: the MSM is the last to admit the state of things unfavorable to the wealthy, but out on the Internet Gabbard is
very much alive. She is the best candidate (with the best platform of visibility) for peace. She has all the pieces. One comment
I read out on the internet (someone, I believe, not in the US) was that Gabbard was a gift to the Americans. Yes, I believe
this to be the case: if you really look closely you'll see exactly how this is correct. I believe that we cannot afford to treat
this gift with other than the utmost appreciation. Her sincerity when she says that she was/is willing to die for her fellow
soldiers (in reference to LBGT folks, though ALL apply) is total. She is totally committed to this battle: as a warrior in politics
she's proven herself with her support, the loyalty, for Sanders (at risk to her political career- and now look, she's running
for POTUS, she continues to come out on top!).
IvyMike , July 2, 2019 at 20:14
I burned my draft card, grew my hair out, and smoked pot and was anti war as heck. But the peace demonstrations (and riots)
in the 60's and 70's did not have much effect on how the U.S. Government prosecuted the Vietnam War. It is little recognized
how hard American troops fought from 1965 to 1968. Our air mobile troops in particular made a great slaughter of NVA and VC
while also taking heavy casualties.
We were having such success that no one in the military thought the enemy could keep up the fight. Then, the Tet offensive
with the beaten enemy attacking every city in the South.
Then the politicians and Generals knew, given the super power politics surrounding the war, that we had lost. We had failed
to recognize that we had not intervened in a Civil War, in truth Vietnam as a whole was fighting for freedom from Imperialism
and we had no friends in the South, just a corrupt puppet government. Instead of getting out, Nixon made the unforgivable choice
to slowly wind the war down until he could get out without losing, Peace With Honor the ultimate triumph of ego over humanity.
Americans had a chance to choose a peace candidate in 1972, instead Nixon won with a big majority.
The military has never been able to admit they were defeated on the battlefield by North Vietnam, blaming it instead on the
Liberal Media and the Anti War movement. Believing that lie they continue to fight unwinnable wars in which we have no national
interest at stake. The media and the people no longer fight against war, but it never really made a difference when we did.
Realist , July 3, 2019 at 05:17
I too hoped for a miracle and voted for George. But then I always voted for the loser in whatever state I happened to be
living in at the particular time. I think Carter was a rare winning pick by me but only once. I got disgusted with voting and
sat out the Clinton campaigns, only returning to vote against the Bush juggernaut. In retrospect, Perot should have won to make
a real difference. I sided with the winner in Obama, but the loser turned out to be America getting saddled with that two-faced
hypocrite. Nobel Peace Prize winner indeed! (What did he spend the money on?) When you listen to their campaign promises be
aware they are telegraphing how they plan to betray you.
triekc , July 3, 2019 at 07:45
American people in mass need to hit reset button. A yellow vest-like movement made up of tens of millions of woke people,
who understand the democrats and republicans are the left and right wing of the oligarch party,
US elections have been and continue to be rigged, and the US constitution was written to protect the property (such
as slaves) of oligarchs from the people, the founding oligarchs feared real democracy, evident by all the safeguards they built
into our government to protect against it, that remain in tact today.
We need a new 21st century constitution. Global capitalism needs to be greatly curtailed, or ended out right, replaced by
ecosocialism, conservation, restoration of earth focussed society
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 15:38
And just think that back then there was also Mike Gravel. The CIA did their work in the 60s to kill the anti-war movement:
killing all the great social leaders.
Why wars are "lost" is because hardly is there a time when there's an actual "mission statement" on what the end of a given
war will look like. Tulsi Gabbard has made it clear that she would NOT engage in any wars unless there was a clear objective,
a clear outcome lined out, and, of course, it was authorized by THE PEOPLE (Congress).
All wars are about resources. We cannot, however, admit this: the ruling capitalists won't allow that to be known/understood
lest they lose their power.
Realist , July 3, 2019 at 04:59
Ya got all that right, especially the part about the analysts essentially declaring the war lost after Tet. I remember that
offered a lot of hope on the campuses that the war would soon end (even though we lost), especially to those of us near graduation
and facing loss of that precious 2S deferment. Yet the big fool marched on, getting my generation needlessly slaughtered for
four or five more years.
And, yes, the 2 or 3 million dead Vietnamese did matter, to those with a conscience. Such a price to keep Vietnam out of
Russia's and China's orbit. Meanwhile they set an independent course after kicking us out of their land and even fought a war
with China. We should still be paying reparations for the levels of death and destruction we brought to a country half a world
away with absolutely no means or desire to threaten the United States. All our wars of choice, starting with Korea, have been
similar crimes against humanity. Turkey shoots against third world societies with no way to do us any harm. But every one of
them fought ferociously to the death to defend their land and their people. Inevitably, every occupier is sent packing as their
empire crumbles. Obviously, Americans have been too thick to learn this from mere history books. We will only learn from our
tragic mistakes. I see a lot of lessons on the upcoming schedule.
USA did not "intervene" in a civil war. USA paid France to continue it's imperial war and then took over when France fled
defeated. USA prevented a mandated election Ho Chi Minh would win and then continued western imperial warfare against the Vietnamese
( even though Vietnamese was/is bulwark against China's territorial expansion).
mauisurfer , July 2, 2019 at 20:12
The Watson study says: "Indeed, the DOD is the world's largest institutional user of petroleum and correspondingly,
the single largest producer of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the world.4"
This is a gross UNDERcount of emissions. It includes ONLY petroleum burned.
It does NOT count explosions from bombs, missiles, rockets, rifles, etc.
Perhaps someone could provide an estimate of this contribution to greenhouse gases???
Don't worry, Elizabeth Warren has a plan to operate the military on renewables! (she can continue to make sure her constituency,
which is Raytheon, is well served)
Raytheon, one of the biggest employers in Warren's state, where it's headquartered, "has a positive relationship with Sen.
Warren, and we interact with her and her staff regularly," Michael Doble, a spokesman for the company, said.
jo6pac , July 2, 2019 at 20:12
This awful news for the merchants of death and I'm sure they're working overtime to stop silliness;-). I do hope this isn't
killed by those that love the endless wars.
Thanks AH
mbob , July 2, 2019 at 20:10
Perhaps there is no open anti-war movement because the Democratic party is now pro-war. Rather than support President
Trump's efforts to end the Korean War, to reduce our involvement in the Middle East and to pursue a more peaceful path with
Russia, the Democratic party (with very, very few exceptions) is opposed to all these things.
The Democratic party places its hatred for Trump above its professed love of peace.
President Obama, the Nobel peace prize winner, started a war with Libya, which had neither attacked nor threatened the
US and which, by many accounts, was trying to improve relations with the US. GW Bush unnecessarily attacked Iraq and Clinton
destroyed Haiti and bombed Yugoslavia, among other actions.
From a peace perspective, Trump looks comparatively great (provided he doesn't attack Iraq or invade Venezuela). But, since
it's impossible to recognize Trump for anything positive, or to support him in any way, it's now impossible for Democrats to
promote peace. Doing so might help Trump. It would, of necessity, require acknowledging Trump's uniqueness among recent US Presidents
in not starting new wars.
Realist , July 3, 2019 at 03:28
I agree. mbob makes perfect sense in his analysis.
The Democrats must be brought back to reality with a sound repudiation by the voters, otherwise they are of no use to America
and will have no long-term future.
Obama escalated Afghanistan when he had a popular mandate to withdraw. He facilitated the the Syrian rebellion in conjunction
with ISIS funding Saudi Arabia and Qatar. He instigated the Zalaya (primarily Hillary) and the Ukraine rebellion.
Trump supports the Yemeni genocide.
But yes citizens have been directed to hate Trump the man/symptom rather than the enduring Imperial predatory capitalistic
system.
Opps sorry; so many interventions and invasions, under Obama, special forces trained Malian general overthrew the democratically
elected president of Mali, result, more war,death and destruction.
Robert , July 3, 2019 at 10:48
You are correct in your analysis. Allegra Harpootlian is searching for the peace lobby among Democrat supporters, where it
no longer resides.
As a result of corporate-controlled mainstream media and their support for Democrat elites, Democrat supporters have largely
been brainwashed into hatred for Donald Trump and everything he stands for. This hatred blinds them to the far more important
issue of peace.
Strangely, there is huge US support to remove troops from the ME, but this support resides with the overwhelming majority
of Donald Trump voters. Unfortunately, these are not individuals who typically go to peace demonstrations, but they are sincere
in bringing all US troops home from the ME. Donald Trump himself lobbied on this, and with the exceptions of his anti-Iranian
/ pro-Israel / pro-Saudi Arabia stance and withdrawal from JCPOA, he has not only backed down from military adventurism, but
is the first President since Eisenhower to raise the issue of the influence of the military-industrial complex.
In the face of strong opposition, he is the first President ever to enter North Korea and meet with Kim Jong Un to discuss
nuclear weapons. Mainstream media continues its war-mongering rhetoric, attacking Trump for his "weakness" in not retaliating
against Iran, or in meeting "secretly" with Putin.
Opposition to Trump's peace efforts are not limited to MSM, however, but are entrenched in Democrat and Republican elites,
who attack any orders he gives to withdraw from the ME. It was not Trump, but Democrat and Republican elites who invited NATO's
Stoltenberg to speak to Congress in an attempt to spite Trump.
In essence, you have President Trump and most of his supporters trying to withdraw from military engagements, with
active opposition from Democrats like Adam Schiff, and Republican elites, actively promoting war and military spending.
DJT is like a less-likeable Inspector Clouseau. Sometimes ineptitude is a blessing. You also have a few Republicans, like
journalist Tucker Carlson of Fox News, and Democrats, like Tulsi Gabbard, actively pushing the message of peace.
Erelis , July 3, 2019 at 20:45
I think you got it. The author is right in the sense that there is an anti-war movement, but that movement is in many ways
hidden. As bizarre as it may seen counter to CW wisdom, and in some way ironically crazy, one of the biggest segments of anti-war
sentiment are Trump supporters. After Trump's decision not to attack Iran, I went to various right wing commentators who attacked
Trump, and the reaction against these major right wing war mongers was to support Trump. And with right wing commentators who
supported Trump, absolute agreement. These is of course based on my objective reading reading and totally subjective. But I
believe I am right.
This made me realize there is an untapped anti-war sentiment on the right which is being totally missed. And a lack of imagination
and Trump derangment syndrome which blocks many on the anti-war Left to see it and use it for an anti-war movement. There was
an article in The Intercept that looked research on the correlation between military deaths and voting preference. Here is the
article:
And the thing is that Trump was in many ways the anti-war candidate. And those areas that had high military death rates voted
for Trump. I understand the tribal nature of political affiliation, but it seems what I have read and this article, there may
be indeed an untapped anti-war stance with Trump supporters.
And it really just challenges my own beliefs that the major obstacle to the war mongers are Trump supporters.
mbob – I couldn't have said it better myself. Except to add that in addition to destroying Libya, the Nobel Peace Prize winner
Obama, ably assisted by Hillary Clinton, also destroyed Honduras and the Ukraine.
Anarcissie , July 3, 2019 at 11:55
Historically, the Democratic Party has been pro-war and pro-imperialism at least since Wilson. The hatred for Trump on their
part seems to be based entirely on cultural issues -- he is not subservient enough to their gods.
But as for antiwar demonstrations, it's been proved in the streets that they don't accomplish anything. There were huge demonstrations
against the war in Vietnam, but it ground on until conservatives got tired of it. At least half a million people demonstrated
against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and no one important cared. Evidently more fundamental issues than the war of the moment
are involved and I think that is where a lot of people are turning now. The ruling class will find this a lot harder to deal
with because it's decentralized and widely distributed. Hence the panic about Trump and the seething hatred of Sanders.
mbob , July 3, 2019 at 18:15
I attempted to make three points in my post. First, Democrats are now pro-war. Second, solely regarding peace, Trump looks
better than all other recent Presidents because he hasn't started any new wars. Third, the inability of Democrats (or the public
as a whole) to give Trump the benefit of a doubt, or to support him in any way, is contrary to the cause of peace.
Democrats should, without reservation, support Trump's effort to end the Korean War. They should support Trump's desire to
improve relations with Russia. They don't do either of those things. Why? Because it might hurt them politically.
Your comment does not challenge the first two points and reinforces the third.
As for Yemen, yes, Trump is wrong. Democrats rightly oppose him on Yemen -- but remarkably tepidly. Trump is wrong about
a lot of things. I don't like him. I didn't vote for him. But I will vote for him if Democrats nominate someone worse than him,
which they seem inclined to do. (Gabbard is better than Trump. Sanders probably. Maybe Warren. Of the three, only Warren receives
positive press. That makes me skeptical of her.)
Trump stood up to his advisors, Bolton and Pompeo, regarding both Iran and Venezuela. Obama, on the other hand, did not.
He followed the advice of his advisors, with disastrous consequences.
>>In addition to Tuesday's sanctions, the Treasury Department issued an advisory to maritime shipping companies, warning
them off transporting oil to Syria or risking their property and money seized if kept with financial institutions that follow
U.S. sanctions law.
"The United States will aggressively seek to impose sanctions against any party involved in shipping oil to Syria, or seeking
to evade our sanctions on Iranian oil," said Sigal Mandelker, the Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence,
in a release. "Shipping companies, insurers, vessel owners, managers, and operators should all be aware of the grave consequences
of engaging in sanctionable conduct involving Iranian oil shipments."<<
Today British marines seized a tanker near Gibraltar for the crime of transporting oil to Syria. And Trumpian peaceful military
seized Syrian oil fields. Traditional war is increasingly augmented by piracy, which is less bloody, but trades outright carnage
for deprivation of civilians. Giving "measured praise" for that makes me barf.
"... He supported the attacks on Serbia, Libya and Afghanistan. He signed Rubio's letter denouncing the BDS movement. He called for regime change in Syria. ..."
Bernie Sanders a "peace candidate?" Hardly. His opposition to the Iraq invasion was just a
hiccup, and he voted several times to continue funding the Iraq occupation.
He supported the
attacks on Serbia, Libya and Afghanistan. He signed Rubio's letter denouncing the BDS movement.
He called for regime change in Syria.
We’ll see how neoliberal MSM will spin this, but I would say Sanders emerged unscathed, Harris attacked and "wounded" Biden, Biden
sounded like a lightweight, Gillibrand seems to be a very unpleasant person although different form Harris...
Notable quotes:
"... as if polling on donald trump and stuff is just so interesting ..."
"... Kamala Harris got more floor time than anyone else. Harris ended Biden's campaign. The debate is rigged against Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... Did Harris get the debate questions in advance? ..."
"... Her manner of speaking is like someone who doesn’t care, doesn’t take the whole thing seriously. It’s like someone who is cheaply casually condescending on the whole thing, on her having to be there. That’s what I perceived. It is deeply disqualifying from any leadership position. “Food fight”? We at that level now? That makes her cool? My god, what garbage. ..."
"... Harris will alienate The Deplorables, the military, the White Working Class or even black people, who know her as Kamala The Cop. ..."
Pathetic, the whole scene is pathetic. What a way to run a putative democracy, bring back the league of women voters to run
the debates and that idiot with the graphs during commercial breaks while watching this online, I want to break his freaking head
sorry.
I had the idea that your sensibilities were rather more refined than that, knowing anything about or not.
Her manner of speaking is like someone who doesn’t care, doesn’t take the whole thing seriously. It’s like someone who
is cheaply casually condescending on the whole thing, on her having to be there. That’s what I perceived. It is deeply disqualifying
from any leadership position. “Food fight”? We at that level now? That makes her cool? My god, what garbage.
FWIW, Boot Edge Edge’s prehensile sincerity was masterful in my view – shows some real talent.
I’m just observing this out of academic interest and hope we’ll all have a chance to vote for Bernie in the general. But from
tonight, Boot Edge Edge to me stood out as a talent – and everyone else (besides Bernie who was reliably on message and will keep
going more or less the same after this) was garbage or unnecessary (Biden is a disgrace), and the first debate was better.
Cal2, June 27, 2019 at 11:19 pm
In that case, Donald Trump gets our votes, as well as keeping all the potential crossovers, who had supported Trump last time,
and would have voted for Sanders-Gabbard.
Harris will alienate The Deplorables, the military, the White Working Class or even black people, who know her as Kamala
The Cop.
Sanders-Harris would be political suicide for the Democrats.
"... We need to restore the vision of people like FDR, who proposed the Four Freedoms. If that was conceivable then, it should be more conceivable now. ..."
Sanders performance in the first two Democratic Candidates Debate
was better than all the others in both debates by a mile.
Sanders absolutely nailed it, that unless we have the guts to take on the insurance
companies, oil companies, drug companies, etc, nothing will change.*
In the first debate, Warren was the winner, though Tulsi Gabbard made the best foreign
policy points against considerable pressure, and Tulsi is still my preferred candidate of the
two for her anti war positions. Despite not raising her hand regarding Insurance companies, a
big mistake IMO, Tulsi has a longer history of endoring Medicare for All than Warren. But it
was indicative of the slight hedging that weakened Tulsi's performance, leading me to declare
Warren the debate winner. Still, Warren lacked the force, still sounding a bit wonkish
(though--it was her best performance in that regards ever) rather than recognizing the identity
and strength of the forces arrayed against truly progressive proposals.
*Sanders has also been clear that he alone could not do this. But he has been committed to
fighting the corporations since the beginning of his career decades ago. In this regards, he is
by far the most trustworthy of all candidates. People who fear a Democratic Socialist
becoming President should grow beyond the McCarthy era, and realize the best of this country
was built by socialism, but socialism nowadays isn't democratic socialism, it's socialism for
the corporate elite.
We need to restore the vision of people like FDR, who proposed the Four Freedoms. If that
was conceivable then, it should be more conceivable now.
Sanders is the only one who comes close to showing the vison, the grit, and the
incorruptability of FDR, that made the first New Deal possible. And perhaps Sanders seems even
more knowledgable, experienced, and capable of helping us get the rest of the job started.
Also they never read Veblen. The rich have no desire to "mingle with the poors" ;-)
If state colleges and unis became free, I'm pretty sure the wealthy would literally build a
new elite set of tertiary education institutions to satisfy their need to differentiate
themselves from the proles
Let's see if they can keep Bernie in the same cage they put Tulsi in. I can't imagine
they'll be helpful or even polite to him. I expect "debate" questions such as:
Senator Sanders, are you current in your communist party dues?
Bernie, when did you last speak to Vladimir Putin?
How often are you wrong about FDR?
Is your wife still laundering money for beach houses through small liberal arts colleges?
Do you know how to pay for anything, or do you regularly leave restaurants without paying
your bill?
Bonus question: explain why anyone should continue to pay attention to you when your views
are shared by everyone on stage?
I don't know either. But it's been the main stream party line for a while now. "Bernie
should drop out because he's old, white, male, and his opinions are not unique. He's not even
a real Democrat. And he doesn't support the party. So why is he running for president as a
Democrat and picking fights with Biden/Warren/Beto?"
The one that gets me is Bernie the Bomber. Somehow when the pundit class talks about
Bernie and Tulsi, it's only to mention how they coddle dictators.
Coddle (the wrong) dictators. Real Dems coddle our CIA approved dictators. Bernie and
Tulsi coddle those filthy democratically elected "dictators" that want to retain natural
resources for the benefit of their own nations and not for the enrichment of multinationals.
They're monsters!
Seriously though, only the Dems would have a superstar like Bernie and put all their
efforts into sabotaging him. Even the RNC and right wing media was willing to suck it up and
get behind Trump when it was clear he was going to win and had a huge base of support. But,
as is said often now, "the Dems would rather lose to a Republican than win with a
progressive".
Is the CIA's purpose to protect national security or financial security? They seem
confused at times on their purpose and if they were disbanded would the country notice?
Doesn't the Defense Intelligence Agency do most of the heavy security lifting?
Looking at the CIA actions from the Dulles Brothers onwards, I would say that it is to
protect and support all members of the Oligarchy of Money from the 1% to Big Oil to Big
Finance from that pesky Democratic Government and the troublesome Rule of Law.
Actually protecting the United States and never mind Americans themselves is like #47 on
its to-do list.
Did you notice the shift in Bernie's message tonight? He said they needed to have the guts
to take on Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex, and Big Pharma. I didn't hear him
complain about big banks. I think he's been compromised!
"In 1944, FDR proposed an economic bill of rights but died a year later and was never able
to fulfill that vision. Our job, 75 years later," Sanders said, "is to complete what Roosevelt
started."
He then set forth his vision of a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights, which would
recognize that all Americans should have:
The right to a decent job that pays a living wage
The right to quality health care The right to a complete education The right to affordable
housing The right to a clean environment The right to a secure retirement
Sanders listed Democratic presidents vilified by the oligarchs of their time for their
programs of alleged "socialism." Lyndon Johnson was attacked for Medicare, Harry Truman's
proposed national health care program was dubbed "socialized medicine," and Newt Gingrich
called Bill Clinton's health care plan "centralized bureaucratic socialism."
Although none of the other leading 2020 Democratic presidential candidates has embraced
socialism, the party's base has. Candidate John Hickenlooper, former governor of Colorado, was
roundly
booed at the California Democratic convention earlier this month when he said, "If we want
to beat Donald Trump and achieve big progressive goals, socialism is not the answer."
Thomas Piketty, author of " Capital in the Twenty-First
Century ," argues, "Without a strong egalitarian-internationalist platform, it is difficult
to unite low-education, low-income voters from all origins within the same coalition and to
deliver a reduction in inequality."
Keith A. Spencer, writing at Salon ,
cites Piketty for the proposition that "nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to
class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting."
Moreover, a 2018 Gallup
poll determined that a majority of young Americans have a positive opinion of socialism.
According to a
recent Axios poll , 55 percent of women between the ages of 18 and 54 would prefer to live
in a socialist country.
Sanders said the U.S. and the rest of the world face two different political paths. "On one
hand," he noted, "there is a growing movement towards oligarchy and authoritarianism in which a
small number of incredibly wealthy and powerful billionaires own and control a significant part
of the economy and exert enormous influence over the political life of our country. On the
other hand, in opposition to oligarchy, there is a movement of working people and young people
who, in ever increasing numbers, are fighting for justice."
Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of
the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of
Democratic Lawyers and a member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent
book is
"Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues ."
"... Every interview Bernie does is a minefield of loaded questions and false dichotomies. No other candidate faces interrogation like Bernie does. ..."
"... If you are planning to vote for a centrist in the democratic primary, it means that you are unable or unwilling to learn from past mistakes. ..."
"... Compare this to other Democratic Face the Nation low ball interviews. You can see who the MSM really hates ..."
Margaret Brennan sat down with 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders on the
campaign trail in Columbia, South Carolina.
... ... ...
---
"Face the Nation" is America's premier Sunday morning public affairs program. The broadcast is
one of the longest-running news programs in the history of television, having debuted November
7, 1954 on CBS. Every Sunday, "Face the Nation" moderator and CBS News senior foreign affairs
correspondent Margaret Brennan welcomes leaders, newsmakers, and experts to a lively round
table discussion of current events and the latest news.
Bernie always gets grilled harder than any other candidate during these interviews. They
always give Bernie the tough questions about policy and just lob softball questions at people
like Biden and Kamala.
Bernie Sanders suggested that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was "the worst foreign policy
blunder in the history of the country." Bernie you ain't seen nothing yet, if those slavering
imbeciles have anything to do with it. The costs [including long term costs] of the
Iraq/Afghan wars [still ongoing] are estimated at 6 Trillion dollars. Here is what just one
Trillion dollars looks like http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html
"Yet the nation's longest and most expensive war is the one that is still going on. In
addition to nearly 7,000 troops killed, the 16-year conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan will
cost an estimated US$6 trillion due to its prolonged length, rapidly increasing veterans
health care and disability costs and interest on war borrowing. On this Memorial Day, we
should begin to confront the staggering cost and the challenge of paying for this war".
"... Oh, just a limited strike- well, I'm sorry. I just didn't know that it's okay to simply attack another country with bombs just a limited strike- that's an act of warfare. ..."
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about Iran. Was President Trump's decision this week
to call off that strike the right one?
SEN. SANDERS: See, it's like somebody setting a fire to a basket full of paper and then
putting it out. He helped create the crisis and then he stopped the attacks. The idea that
we're looking at the president of the United States who number one, thinks that a war., with
Iran is something that might be good for this country.
MARGARET BRENNAN: He was just doing a limited strike of just a limited strike.
SEN. SANDERS:Oh, just a limited strike- well, I'm sorry. I just didn't know that it's
okay to simply attack another country with bombs just a limited strike- that's an act of
warfare.
So two points. That will set off a conflagration all over the Middle East. If you
think the war is either- the war in Iraq, Margaret was a disaster I believe from the bottom
of my heart that the war- a war with Iran would be even worse, more loss of life never ending
war in that region, massive instability. We're talking about, we have been in Afghanistan now
for eighteen years. This thing will never end. So I will do everything I can number one to
stop a war with Iran. And number two here's an important point. Let's remember what we
learned in civics when we were kids. It is the United States Congress, under our
Constitution, that has warmaking authority not the president of the United States. If he
attacks Iran in my view that would be unconstitutional.
Sanders is wrong, Trump has already attacked Iran -- the sanctions are illegal as was his
violation of JCPOA. Unfortunately, those facts are difficult to explain to a
nation--particularly BigLie Media mavens--who've allowed the Outlaw US Empire's illegal
unilateralism to go unchallenged since 1945. That the USA continuously breaks the law has
never surfaced as a--MAINSTREAM-- political issue, although historians like the late William
Blum, myself, Chomsky, Zinn, and a host of others do and have quite often.
IMO, the #1 problem with every POTUS wannabe is their inability to attack and call-out
that longstanding historic fact, although Gabbard's come close--I wrote her team and
explained the entire historical background to the current state-of-affairs.
Sanders speaks of what the Constitution says. But he ignores or is illiterate regarding
the Supremacy Clause and how it alters/adds to/amends what it says--in this case, what the UN
Charter did to legally/constitutionally curtail traditional US behavior of Unilateralism -- it
cannot be done any longer: PERIOD! Rouhani was 1000000000% absolutely correct in pinning the
tail on the US Donkey, just as I've done continuously since I figured it out in the 1980s
while I was still in the US Army Reserves and trying to determine what constituted an illegal
order.
My argument's not with you, Stever; it's with Sanders and the entire Federal Government.
But at least Sanders is articulating a small part of the overall argument, which has waited
too long to be done.
"... The massive student-debt jubilee would be financed with a tax on Wall Street: Specifically, a 0.5% tax on stock trades, a 0.1% tax on bond trades and a .005% tax on derivatives trades. ..."
"... By introducing the student-debt plan, Sanders has outmaneuvered Elizabeth "I have a plan for that" Warren ..."
In his latest attempt to one-up Elizabeth Warren and establish his brand of "democratic
socialism" as something entirely different from the progressive capitalism practiced by some of
his peers, Bernie Sanders is preparing to unveil a new plan that would involve cancelling all
of the country's outstanding $1.6 trillion in student debt.
The massive student-debt jubilee would be financed with a tax on Wall Street:
Specifically, a 0.5% tax on stock trades, a 0.1% tax on bond trades and a .005% tax on
derivatives trades.
Additionally, Sanders' plan would also provide states with $48 billion to eliminate tuition
and fees at public colleges and universities. Thanks to the market effect, private schools
would almost certainly be forced to cut prices to draw talented students who could simply
attend a state school for free.
Reps Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Pramila Jayapal of Washington have already signed on to
introduce Sanders' legislation in the House on Monday.
The timing of this latest in a series of bold socialist policy proposals from Sanders -
let's not forget, Bernie is largely responsible for making Medicare for All a mainstream issue
in the Democratic Party - comes just ahead of the first Democratic primary debate, where
Sanders will face off directly against his No. 1 rival: Vice President Joe Biden, who has
marketed his candidacy as a return to the 'sensible centrism' of the Democratic Party of
yesteryear.
By introducing the student-debt plan, Sanders has outmaneuvered Elizabeth "I have a plan
for that" Warren and established himself as the most far-left candidate in the crowded
Democratic Primary field. Hopefully, this can help stall Warren's recent advance in the polls.
The plan should help Sanders highlight how Biden's domestic platform includes little in the way
of welfare expansion during the upcoming debate.
My federal student loan monthly statement says I don't have to make a payment. I don't
qualify for any forgiveness because I'm responsible. Nonetheless, I pay the loan every month.
The balance goes down but every month it's still the same story.
I have to imagine the provider prefers students to see that it says zero dollars owed this
month with the hope that they don't pay because it says 0 dollars owed, default, and rack up
a bunch of fees and interest that the student doesn't see in the fine print.
The provider can then get paid by the taxpayer no questions asked. Much more profit and
payment is significantly faster.
Education costs are in the stratosphere 'because' of conversion of univeristires into
neoliberal institution. Which mean that the costs will skyrocket even more.
Somebody once said: If the neoliberal government took over management of the Sahara
desert, in five years, there would be a shortage of sand.
The only way to rein in neoliberals in government is to stop giving them so damned much
money...
The guaranteed student loan program created a mechanism that increases the price of
education. Before the program, graduates could expect 10 times the cost of a years' tuition.
Now, they'de lucky to get one year. The Americans were pushed out of this business and the
UN-Americans replaced them. This goes on for decades until the marks realized that they've
been screwed. ... The victims are in full support since they've been systematically dumbed
down that it seems like a good idea. It's not. This is a bailout of a failed neoliberal
institution.
Zero Hedge commenters are most libertarians (anarcho-capitalists -- unwitting supporters of neoliberalism) , but still
changes after 2016 are noticeable.
Notable quotes:
"... Today I am proposing we complete the unfinished work of Franklin Roosevelt and the Democratic Party by putting forth a 21st century economic bill of rights. ..."
"... Operación Cóndor, also known as Plan Cóndor ; Portuguese : Operação Condor) was a United States –backed campaign of political repression and state terror involving intelligence operations and assassination of opponents, officially and formally implemented in November 1975 by the right-wing dictatorships of the Southern Cone of South America. ..."
"... The program, nominally intended to eradicate communist or Soviet influence and ideas, was created to suppress active or potential opposition movements against the participating governments' neoliberal economic policies, which sought to reverse the economic policies of the previous era. [6] [7] ..."
"... Due to its clandestine nature, the precise number of deaths directly attributable to Operation Condor is highly disputed. Some estimates are that at least 60,000 deaths can be attributed to Condor, roughly 30,000 of these in Argentina, [8] [9] and the so-called " Archives of Terror " list 50,000 killed, 30,000 disappeared and 400,000 imprisoned. [5] [10] American political scientist J. Patrice McSherry gives a figure of at least 402 killed in operations which crossed national borders in a 2002 source, [11] and mentions in a 2009 source that of those who "had gone into exile" and were "kidnapped, tortured and killed in allied countries or illegally transferred to their home countries to be executed . . . hundreds, or thousands, of such persons -- the number still has not been finally determined -- were abducted, tortured, and murdered in Condor operations." [1] Victims included dissidents and leftists, union and peasant leaders, priests and nuns, students and teachers, intellectuals and suspected guerillas. [11] Although it was described by the CIA as "a cooperative effort by the intelligence/security services of several South American countries to combat terrorism and subversion," [12] guerrillas were used as an excuse, as they were never substantial enough to control territory, gain material support by any foreign power, or otherwise threaten national security. [13] [14] [15] Condor's key members were the governments in Argentina , Chile , Uruguay , Paraguay , Bolivia and Brazil . Ecuador and Peru later joined the operation in more peripheral roles. [16] [17] ..."
"... The United States government provided planning, coordinating, training on torture [18] , technical support and supplied military aid to the Juntas during the Johnson , Nixon , Ford , Carter , and the Reagan administrations. [2] Such support was frequently routed through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). ..."
Despite being probably robbed of the Democratic Party's nomination by the Clinton political
machine, the success of the Bernie Sanders' 2016 campaign with his advocacy of "democratic
socialism" was an ominous sign of things to come and, in some sense, more telling of the
political climate than Donald Trump's improbable victory in November, 2016. The millions of
votes garnered by Sanders in the Democratic primaries has emboldened other socialists to seek
political office while socialist ideas are openly spoken of with little fear of political
recriminations.
Sanders has doubled down on his advocacy of democratic socialism in a recent speech at
George Washington University, calling for the completion of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New
Deal of the 1930s:
Today I am proposing we complete the unfinished work of Franklin Roosevelt and the
Democratic Party by putting forth a 21st century economic bill of rights.
Even supposedly "moderate" Democrats are trying to tout their "progressive" credentials,
such as creepy Joe Biden who recently said:
I'm told I get criticized by the New Left. I have the most progressive record of anybody
running for... anybody who would run.
While Sanders' chance of becoming the Democratic nominee in 2020 is still uncertain,
President Trump has already indicated what is going to be a centerpiece of his election
strategy: oppose socialism. The first hint of the strategy came at this year's State of the
Union address when the President declared:
America will never be a socialist country.
While President Trump will espouse his supposed accomplishments (tax cuts, deregulation,
trade) as a contrast to democratic socialism, his emphasis will also deflect attention away
from his most solemn campaign pledge which has not been achieved – a border wall and a
crack down and deportation of illegal immigrants.
Whether this is a winning formula remains to be seen. If the Democrats are led by Bernie
Sanders in 2020, they will probably lose, unless the economy falls off a cliff (very possible)
or the Donald follows the suicidal advice of the war-mongering team of Messrs Bolton and Pompeo
and start a war with Iran.
While the Trump campaign narrative for 2020 may convince the masses who may still not be
ready to vote for outright socialism, the country, like most of the Western world, has long ago
imbibed and adopted many of the philosophy's tenets.
Frank Chodorov, one of the most perceptive and courageous writers of what was affectionately
known as the "Old Right," pointed out over a half century ago that America had enacted many of
the ideas which were enumerated in Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto . Chodorov constantly
chided the Cold War warriors of his time, such as William Buckley, that communism had come to
America without one shot being fired by the Soviets.
Frank Chodorov, 1887-1966
In one of his most penetrating essays, "How Communism Came to America," Chodorov incisively
pointed out the "long-term objectives of communism:"
Among them are government ownership of land, a heavy progressive income tax, abolition of
inheritance rights, a national bank, government ownership or control of communication and
transportation facilities, state-owned factories, a government program for soil conservation,
government schools, free education.
He trenchantly asked:
" How many of these planks of the Communist Manifesto do you support? Federal Reserve
Bank? Interstate Commerce Commission? Federal Communications Commission? Tennessee Valley
Authority? The Sixteenth (income tax) Amendment? The inheritance tax? Government schools with
compulsory attendance and support?"
Further in his piece, Chodorov describes how the American economy, even at the time, had
taken on many features of state capitalism: deficit financing, insurance of bank deposits,
guaranteed mortgages, control of bank credits, regulation of installment buying, price
controls, farm price supports, agricultural credits, RFC loans to business, social security,
government housing, public works, tariffs, foreign loans.
He again asked: "How many of these measures . . . do you oppose?"
The next financial downturn, which is staring America in the face, will be far more
devastating than the last since nothing has been resolved financially while the cause of the
Great Recession – the Federal Reserve – continues to operate with impunity. As
things continue to deteriorate, there will be even greater calls and support for more
socialism. The free market will be blamed.
Ever notice that no real socialist ever proposes killing lots of people? On the other
hand, our capitalist ruling-class is always looking to do lots of killing.
--------------
Trump's Military Drops a Bomb Every 12 Minutes, and No One Is Talking About It
Do you know what you never heard Bernie Sanders say and never will hear him say?
The most famous Karl Marx quote of all time, "Workers of the world, unite!" Why do you
suppose that is?
---------------
Bernie Sanders: A right-wing capitalist posing as a socialist
By Tom Hall
18 June 2019
Last Wednesday, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders gave a speech on "democratic socialism" at
George Washington University. The main function of the speech was to define his supposed
"socialism" as entirely in conformity with the politics of the Democratic Party -- that is, a
"socialism" devoid any opposition to capitalism and war.
Sanders' speech comes within the context of a ruling class that is increasingly fearful of
the growing popularity of socialism. Donald Trump has presented himself over the last several
months as a bulwark against a "socialist takeover" in America. This theme has also been taken
up by many in the Democratic Party, who insist that any reference to socialism in the party's
primaries is impermissible.
Sanders' speech attempts to accomplish the same ends through different means. It exposes
Sanders' effort to combine populist and "socialist" rhetoric with a defense of American
capitalism and the Democratic Party.
Three basic elements of Sanders' speech demonstrate this political fraud. First is
Sanders' dishonest presentation of Franklin Roosevelt and the history of the Democratic
Party.
In a speech billed as defining his conception of "democratic socialism," Sanders
explicitly placed his own politics within the tradition of the Democratic Party, particularly
the liberal New Deal reforms of President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s.
"Over eighty years ago Franklin Delano Roosevelt helped create a government that made
transformative progress in protecting the needs of working families. Today, in the second
decade of the 21st century, we must take up the unfinished business of the New Deal and carry
it to completion," Sanders said. "This is the unfinished business of the Democratic Party and
the vision we must accomplish."
Sanders quoted the "Economic Bill of Rights" proposed by Roosevelt, but never seriously
pursued, in his 1944 State of the Union speech. The centerpiece of Sanders' speech was his
call for a "21st Century Economic Bill of Rights" guaranteeing the right to a high-quality
standard of living.
Sanders portrays Roosevelt as the leader of a popular revolt involving "organized labor,
leaders in the African American community and progressives inside and outside the Party," and
which "led a transformation of the American government and the American economy."
He declared, "Despite [the opposition of the rich], by rallying the American people, FDR
and his progressive coalition created the New Deal, won four terms, and created an economy
that worked for all and not just the few," Sanders claimed.
Sanders' glowing references to Roosevelt are designed to obscure the fact that the
Democratic Party was, and is, a party of the ruling class. Roosevelt was not the political
representative of popular struggles, much less a "democratic socialist," but a particularly
astute representative of the capitalist class, who understood that concessions had to be made
in order to preserve the capitalist system, which was in a state of collapse and widely
discredited, and prevent the danger of socialist revolution.
The gains that were won during this period came not from the political establishment, but
through the mass, insurrectionary struggles of the working class, which Roosevelt and the
Democratic Party sought to contain. Moreover, poverty and unemployment remained endemic
throughout the United States even after the New Deal. The gap between rich and poor, while
lower than before, remained massive. In the South, which remained mired in rural
backwardness, African-Americans continued to face segregation and lynch mob terror.
The New Deal reforms also proved unable to lift the United States out of economic crisis.
This came through World War Two and its destruction of much of the European and world
economy, and at least 60 million lives. Under Roosevelt's leadership, the United States
entered World War II in December 1941.
Prior to and during the war, the "progressive" Roosevelt cracked down on democratic
rights, jailing leaders of the
Trotskyist movement, the most class conscious representatives of the working class, enforcing
a ban on strikes with the assistance of the union bureaucracy and imprisoning hundreds of
thousands of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps.
Roosevelt's "Economic Bill of Rights," proposed but never acted upon towards the end of
the war, was a left-feint that reflected his fear that, if the end of the war brought with it
a return to Depression-era conditions, world capitalism would face even more serious
revolutionary convulsions than in the 1930s. One year after the speech, Roosevelt replaced
his vice president, Henry Wallace, with Harry Truman -- a concession to the right-wing of the
Democratic Party.
After the war, Roosevelt's program of liberal reforms, now coupled with Cold War
anticommunism, was continued only as long as it could be financed out of rising productivity
made possible by the emergence of the United States as world superpower. But the "Economic
Bill of Rights," even during the zenith of American capitalism, remained a dead letter. By
the end of the 1960s, with the end of the postwar boom and the beginning of the long-term
decline of American hegemony, the Democrats abandoned these programs and moved sharply to the
right.
But this is precisely the point at which Sanders' historical excursion stops. This enables
him to suppress the fact that the Democratic Party long ago repudiated these reforms and is
now a full partner in undermining and dismantling the very social programs whose further
development Sanders presents as the "unfinished business" of the Democratic Party. In fact,
as far the Democratic Party is concerned, their "unfinished business" is destroying every
gain won by the working class in a century of struggle.
The second element of Sanders' speech is the complete absence of any reference to foreign
policy or war. Events outside of the United States are barely mentioned at all. This guilty
silence, which Sanders has long maintained in speeches meant for a broader audience, is aimed
at covering for Sanders' support for imperialist war
and American nationalism.
Sanders gives indirect signals to the ruling class of his support for war at points
throughout his speech. When Sanders lists off a series of "authoritarian rulers" throughout
the world, he tops off the list with Vladimir Putin in Russia and Xi Jinping in China, a sign
of support for both his party's demands for confrontation with Russia and
Trump's trade war measures against China .
Significantly, Sanders manages to avoid even mentioning World War II in a speech
supposedly centered on the political legacy of Franklin Roosevelt. He also favorably cites
former presidents Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson, without referencing the fact that both
were widely reviled as warmongers and mass murderers: Truman for his dropping of the atomic
bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and for the Korean War, and Johnson for his massive
escalation of the Vietnam War.
The reference to Johnson is particularly significant. Johnson's Great Society programs
foundered against the massive costs of the war in Vietnam, signaling the end of the whole
period of liberal reform. By the late 1960s, the Democratic Party could no longer balance
within itself welfare programs aimed at securing the support of working class with the needs
of American imperialism.
As Sanders knows well, having begun his political career as a student protester in the
1960s, this pushed a whole generation of students and working-class youth to the left towards
anti-capitalist and radical politics, among whom Johnson's name became virtually an epithet.
A popular slogan during the protests against the Vietnam War was "Hey, Hey, LBJ, How many
kids did you kill today?"
By glossing over this and presenting Johnson in a favorable, even "democratic socialist"
light, Sanders is not only rehabilitating Johnson, he is promoting a more basic falsehood --
that an imperialist and militaristic foreign policy is compatible with democracy and social
equality at home, a lie which forms the center of Sanders' own politics.
The third element of Sanders' speech is that he does not explain how it is possible to
guarantee a high standard of living for everyone without a frontal assault on the capitalist
system, especially under conditions where the ruling class considers even a modest increase
in the share of income going to workers impermissible. In Sanders' "socialism," there is no
there there He proposes a whole series of "rights," without any suggestion that they would
require a fundamental change in social relations.
Moreover, the turn towards authoritarian forms of rule, a fact which Sanders himself is
obliged to note, demonstrates that the levels of social inequality are no longer compatible
with democratic rights. This is not only expressed in Trump, as Sanders implies, but also
within the Democratic Party itself, which is engaged in palace coup methods in its
internecine struggle against Trump.
If an "Economic Bill of Rights" was unachievable during the high point of American
economic and political power, then it is all the more impossible today, when American
capitalism is mired in a terminal decline. There can be no doubt that Sanders, were he
elected president, would jettison this proposal even more rapidly than Roosevelt.
Indeed, while Roosevelt was prepared to take on powerful elements within the political
establishment in order to force through his program of reforms, Sanders has already
demonstrated his political spinelessness. The defining moment of Sanders' political career
remains his groveling capitulation to Hillary Clinton in 2016 after an election campaign
marred by corruption and fraud.
A genuine fight for the social rights of the working class, including the right to a job,
a secure retirement, high quality healthcare and education, requires an uncompromising
struggle of the working class against the capitalist system. This means the establishment of
a workers government, in the United States and internationally, to massively redistribute
wealth and transform the giant banks and corporations into publicly-owned utilities,
democratically controlled by the working class.
This requires a persistent struggle against the influence of all forms of bourgeois
ideology within the working class, above all "left" variants such as that promoted by
Sanders.
Gotta love the Trumptards and Trailer Park Rednecks touting Capitalism. They've, never
experienced real Capitalism or they'd be crying like babies, begging for mercy. Since FDR's
New Deal in the 1930s the US has been partly (badly) Socialist.
So let's go Full Capitalist, tough guys: no minimum wage, line up each morning and bid
lowest for a job; no health care at all, get sick, go die; food stamps, ha!, eat grass; no
pension, work till you drop, then pauper's grave; no unions, every man for himself against
the bosses. Like it so far?
Denmark is Socialist, cradle-to-grave health care, free education, minimum wage $43/hr.
Oh, it's expensive but everyone's healthy, active and pretty friendly. No ********
billionaires like the Trumpster, Soros, Gates, people who wouldn't throw a starving man a
crust. No American Dream, only Danish reality.
But no Walmart AR15 to shoot your neighbors. Right. America's better.
Capitalist Barack Obama gave rich capitalists trillions of dollars in free-stuff bailouts
and free-stuff military spending and free-stuff imperialist wars. Capitalist Donald Trump
then came along and gave those raping, looting, murderous capitalists $1.5 trillion in
free-stuff tax cuts.
Definitions
Socialism: Trillions of dollars of free stuff for the 99%, paid for by their labor
Capitalism: Trillions of dollars of free stuff for the super-rich 1%, paid for by the
labor of the 99%.
Ever notice that your beloved ruling-class capitalists whose great wealth gives them the
power to set all the laws and determine all the policy never make any attempt to stop crony
capitalism?
Capitalism is inherently cronyism. The cronyism cannot be separated out and no rich
capitalist would have any interest in doing so even if it could.
Your support of a death cult ideology is duly noted and capitalism has lifted more people
out of poverty than any other ism. Marx was a lunatic who never worked a day in his vile
useless life. His writings inspired Stalin and Mao to murder millions.
The government on both sides of the fence subsidize corporations at the expense of the
masses, so your solution is to give the government total control and ownership? You're a
fuckwit if you believe the elites won't have an even better time under socialism. They would
have nothing in their way. The only solution is to privatize everything if you actually
wanted a better life for the ones getting screwed, but I won't even waste my time. Carry on
with your idiotic thoughts.
That government you right-wingers have all experienced in America and all despise is a
capitalist government.
The battle between socialism and capitalism is the battle between the workers who produce
the wealth and the parasites who take that wealth from the workers. That's why capitalism
tells you that socialism is government. They can't tell you that socialism is society run by
the producers of wealth rather than the parasites. Capitalists like to leave the
working-class completely out of the equation. That's because they're scared shitless that the
99% might realize that they are actually all socialists.
Capitalism has nothing to do with the offenses you describe. You're simply gullible enough
to believe politicians when they blame capitalism for their ill gotten gains, grease and
dirt. When they have the rest of the masses as dumb as you, then socialism will make their
job even easier.
RIGHT-WING MORONS: We trust our lying, cheating, stealing, warmongering, murderous,
corrupt, criminal capitalist elite to tell us everything we need to know about socialism.
They would never lie to us about socialism. They would never just define the working-class
masses completely out of the equation even as Karl Marx specifically wrote, "Workers of the
world, unite!"
The program, nominally intended to eradicate communist or Soviet influence and ideas,
was created to suppress active or potential opposition movements against the participating
governments' neoliberal economic policies, which sought
to reverse the economic policies of the previous era. [6][7]
Due to its clandestine nature, the precise number of deaths directly attributable to
Operation Condor is highly disputed. Some estimates are that at least 60,000 deaths can be
attributed to Condor, roughly 30,000 of these in Argentina, [8][9] and the so-called
" Archives of
Terror " list 50,000 killed, 30,000 disappeared and 400,000 imprisoned.
[5][10]
American political scientist J. Patrice McSherry gives a figure of
at least 402 killed in operations which crossed national borders in a 2002 source,
[11] and
mentions in a 2009 source that of those who "had gone into exile" and were "kidnapped,
tortured and killed in allied countries or illegally transferred to their home countries to
be executed . . . hundreds, or thousands, of such persons -- the number still has not been
finally determined -- were abducted, tortured, and murdered in Condor operations."
[1]
Victims included dissidents and leftists, union and peasant leaders, priests and nuns,
students and teachers, intellectuals and suspected guerillas. [11]
Although it was described by the CIA as "a cooperative effort by the intelligence/security
services of several South American countries to combat terrorism and subversion,"
[12]guerrillas were used as an excuse, as they were never substantial enough to control
territory, gain material support by any foreign power, or otherwise threaten national
security. [13][14][15] Condor's key
members were the governments in Argentina , Chile , Uruguay , Paraguay , Bolivia and Brazil . Ecuador and Peru later joined the operation in more peripheral
roles. [16][17]
The United States government provided planning, coordinating, training on torture
[18] , technical
support and supplied military aid to the Juntas during the Johnson , Nixon ,
Ford ,
Carter
, and the Reagan administrations.
[2]
Such support was frequently routed through the Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA).
You've never read Marx. He never advocated overthrowing Capitalism; rather he predicted
its demise due to its inherent chaos, waste and selfishness. It cannot exist in civilized
society. Just look at America, and see he was right.
"... If Bernie happens to survive the collusion going on to tank his campaign, Trump and the GOP will "socialist" him to death from sun up to sun down. The clown car of establishment Democrats will also take more than a shot or two. His speech was simply his attempt to embrace and frame this dirty word into something Americans can relate to. For that, he gets mocked by the media and butchered by neolibs, libertarians, right-wingers, corporatists, and pompous lefties. ..."
"... He referenced MLK, FDR, and Marx trying to name a just few socialists that people can compare, contrast and relate to. ..."
"... The day after Bernie's speech, Trump came out with a plan to subsidize farmers, aka big ag, to make up for losses from his tariffs. No one asked "how will you pay for it". No hue or cry anywhere. ..."
"... I think it is highly probable that Bernie's ship, our ship, sailed in 2016; and he missed the boat by remaining in a system so vile and so corrupt that it can only be reformed by rising from the ashes. ..."
"... Warren hid in 2016, and she is sabotaging 2020. She is the real sheepdog that so many here, me on occasion too, accuse Bernie of being. She talks like a progressive and votes like a Republican. She is Obama 2.0, 2020's Trojan Horse. ..."
dkmich on Fri, 06/14/2019 - 12:36pm By all means, speak your piece.
But will someone please explain to me how in the hell everyone turned Bernie from social
democrat into fucking Marx? Never once have I heard Bernie say that capitalism should not exist
in the United States.
If Bernie happens to survive the collusion going on to tank his campaign, Trump and the
GOP will "socialist" him to death from sun up to sun down. The clown car of establishment
Democrats will also take more than a shot or two. His speech was simply his attempt to embrace
and frame this dirty word into something Americans can relate to. For that, he gets mocked by
the media and butchered by neolibs, libertarians, right-wingers, corporatists, and pompous
lefties.
He referenced MLK, FDR, and Marx trying to name a just few socialists that people can
compare, contrast and relate to.
Oh there are many, and of course we must define what qualifies someone to be a
'socialist'. For example, Bernie Sanders is largely considered a social democrat although
many 'true' or 'hardcore' socialists will adamantly say he is not a true socialist because he
doesn't advocated for the means of production to be controlled democratically by the
workers.
For argument's sake we'll only use people who advocated or had a philosophy of altering
the current system of economy to that of a traditionally socialist one. For this reason also,
it will include Marxists whom were types of socialists too (until the term socialist was
later used to differentiate itself from authoritarian communism).
Without further ado, I shall take you through the fascinating (and sometimes violent)
world of socialism.
Albert Einstein
Che Guevara
Rosa Luxemburg
Emma Goldman
George Orwell
Oscar Wilde
Nelson Mandela
V. I. Lenin
Mao Zedong
Malcolm X
Martin Luther King Jr. - Yep, he was a democratic socialist. History tends to gloss
over the fact that many human rights activists and movements were actually linked to
socialism and even communism. I like to call it 'capitalist whitewashing'
Leon Trotsky
Bertrand Russell
John Lennon
Pete Seeger
The point being, pick your choose. I bet people can argue over this list for days. It
doesn't change the fact that Bernie was absolutely right. The government provides billionaires
and corporations with cash and safety nets no questions asked. Privatize the profits and
socialize the losses to use that word again.
The day after Bernie's speech, Trump came out with a plan to subsidize farmers, aka big
ag, to make up for losses from his tariffs. No one asked "how will you pay for it". No hue or
cry anywhere.
Jamie Dimon took his government handout and a bonus for committing fraud that no one ever
went to jail for. He didn't even have to pass a drug test to get it.
Roads, firemen, cops, school are paid for with our public dollars. That means we own them
and their means of production/service: fire halls, police stations, cop cars, school buildings,
and wages. Why do you think privatization so outrageous and pisses so many people off? Because
capitalists are taking our assets for pennies on the dollar so they can then charge us to use
what we own. Again, privatizing the profits and socializing the losses.
I think it is highly probable that Bernie's ship, our ship, sailed in 2016; and he missed
the boat by remaining in a system so vile and so corrupt that it can only be reformed by rising
from the ashes. The party is manufacturing candidates faster than Bezos makes a billion
hoping one of them will stick. At worst, they'll dilute the first round of voting enough for
the superdelegates to step in and tell us kids where to sit.
Warren hid in 2016, and she is sabotaging 2020. She is the real sheepdog that so many
here, me on occasion too, accuse Bernie of being. She talks like a progressive and votes like a
Republican. She is Obama 2.0, 2020's Trojan Horse.
Here is the debate schedule. Since Warren is tied with Bernie for second place in CA, does
it look like they set this up to protect her? Who at the kiddies table is going to lay a glove
on her? Helping to assure people tune in for the warm up debate, they put it on night one.
Wednesday:
Booker
Castro
de Blasio
Delaney
Gabbard
Inslee
Klobuchar
O'Rourke
Warren
Thursday:
Biden
Bennet
Buttigieg
Gillibrand
Harris
Hickenlooper
Sanders
Swalwell
Williamson
Yang
Bernie to give a speech on democratic socialism. Clearly sets him apart from others and
has huge implications in regards to policy, organizing, and strategy:
yes, he directly quoted fdr in the context of that historical moment, got a standing o,
then smiled and said something like "that does seem to apply to our era, doesn't it?"
it seemed a little like he'd planned on getting applause
makes me wonder, does someone over there visit nc regularly?
He's definitely bringing the heat! If you thought he might shy away from Republican cries
of 'socialism', banish those thoughts.
It's a little slow for the 1st 25 min or so. But he really gets going in the latter part
of it. Talks a lot about "freedom" around the 40 minute mark.
Pitches a 21st Century 'Economic Bill of Rights'.
– right to a job
– paid living wage
– right to health care
– right to education
– right to affordable housing
– right to clean environment
Too many imponderables with this analogy. Such as, can you hear the Neo saying under
his/her breath: "The Finance is strong with this one!" Or, an endless montage of ghostly
voices whispering in political ears, "Run XXX, run!" And finally, where is the young and
innocent farm toiler who will redeem the New Deal? Chelsea? She might fit the bill. She's the
'hidden' scion of powerful and 'connected' Nouveaux Aristocrats.
I think the livestream is over now. It was being broadcast on C-span. I called my mother
to see if she was watching, and she was, but it was "interrupted"
The oligarchy has two choices, Trump or Bernie. Which do you think they will pick?
Will the former pick cause the general strike?
Where's my popcorn?
Will youtube ban this video for inappropriate content?
Exciting times, in the 6th, happening "faster than expected".
"... Here's the problem: it doesn't matter if you'd support Biden if he were to get the nomination, the Democratic base will simply not back another corporatist shill, ..."
"... No matter how much you think people should hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, they're not going to get out of bed to go vote for someone they don't trust. The base is driving this election cycle, there is no way around it, if we don't hold the base we lose. ..."
"... Biden is a standard Joke in both parties known as an Obama lackey ..."
"... His first campaign fundraiser after his announcement was hosted by the CEO of Comcast. That is wholly out of touch with the middle class. ..."
"... She has passed Sanders in his relatively much more limited agenda, trumping him on policies castrating Wall St---Sanders has not much evolved beyond positions he's held since the 1970s, including understanding how to address the two largest parts of the Democratic base, women and blacks. ..."
"... Biden is not centre. If you think mainstream Democrats are centre, you're already to the right of people like the National Front (both UK and French). You're already a rabid extremist. Even someone like Sanders would be considered fairly firmly centrist in the rest of the free world. State funded health and education is accepted practice here, not a novel socialist/communist fantasy that will turn you into a Soviet drone. It's what we pay taxes for, not for a war machine to enforce business profit. ..."
"... Democrats are extreme right, Sanders is centrist...you don't actually have a left at all. ..."
"... That argument [ Elections are about preventing bad things from happening] is a double-edged sword. Many voters acted on that precept in 2016 which accounts for the creature that now squats in the White House. ..."
"... Are people who say this generally clueless or just unaware of the make up of Congress since January 2017? What change could Sanders have brought? What bills were the Republicans going to pass that Sanders would have signed? Do they not remember what Mitch McConnell said when Obama took office? Do they imagine that McConnell would shift his focus from stymieing any chance of enacting policies the president promoted with Sanders instead of Obama? ..."
"... Did you watching Bernie's townhall at Fox News? He seemed like he was in his 60s and handled many tough questions well. He seemed to be winning over some of the independents and conservatives in that crowd ..."
"... Finally the Guardian gets something right. We don't need these Clinton Era holdovers ..."
Here's the problem: it doesn't matter if you'd support Biden if he were to get the
nomination, the Democratic base will simply not back another corporatist shill, especially
after getting stabbed in the ankle in 2016.
No matter how much you think people should hold
their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, they're not going to get out of bed to go
vote for someone they don't trust. The base is driving this election cycle, there is no way
around it, if we don't hold the base we lose.
The writers and readers of the Guardian (aka the Fox of the Left) who believe that the
American electorate has somehow shifted leftward remind me a delightful roommate that I had
back in Pleistocene. He came home one day convinced that George McGovern would win. "How did
you come up with that?" I asked. "I don't know a single person who is voting for Nixon."
It's
that level of bubble-driven stridency that will keep many of you at home on election day and
had another 4 years to the worst piece of crap to occupy the White House. Sure, there are
many people preferable to Biden, but a piece of burnt toast is preferable to Trump.
The Dems
won the midterms not on ideological grounds but by the pragmatic turnaround of middle class
white suburban women. Clinton did not lose in '16 because she was a "zombie centrist" but
because of her campaign's severe hubris, a lesson not learned from '08. Unless you prefer
ranting [and lefties often seem to prefer being in opposition to actually doing the heavy
lifting of compromise and governing], you will have to get rid of Trump by going with your
n-th choice, not your first one.
Sorry, that's the way it works outside of Berkeley, Austin,
Madison, Eugene, Brooklyn, Cambridge, and Asheville.
You're missing something. Plenty of people who support the actual left WILL be happy if we
get Biden, if it means we no longer have Trump.
The US system is built on compromise. Biden is a compromise, for sure. But would YOU
rather have Trump again? Really?
I don't want Biden. But last time I figured the left couldn't lose to a fucking moron I
was proven wrong.
Literally all the polling conducted in the 2016 election showed Bernie annihilating Trump by
a far higher margin than Clinton, who was losing in many polls. Biden is virtually a carbon
copy of Clinton. He is an establishment shill with the same voting record and the same
vulnerabilities that sank Clinton.
Like Hillary he shits on the most popular policies in the
country, and he shits on the base pushing those policies, and has shown zero signs of
learning from the 2016 catastrophe. He launched his campaign on a message of returning to the
same empty neoliberal politics that delivered us Donald Trump. Meanwhile Bernie is in fact
running on the most popular policies in the country. 70% of the American people, even a
majority 52% of Republicans, support Medicare For All. 82% of Americans support raising the
minimum wage. 76% of Americans support raising taxes on the rich. 60% of Americans support
free college tuition. 70% of Americans want stricter laws on assault weapons. 94% of
Americans support universal background checks. 58% of Americans support abortion rights in
all or most cases. 62% of Americans support legalizing marijuana. 78% of Americans support
stricter Wall Street regulation. 61% of Americans support ending the Afghanistan war. 72% of
Americans support expanding Social Security. 80% of Americans support the Green New Deal.
Literally all the data shows Bernie would be a far stronger candidate than a center right
corporate Democrat like Biden.
Biden is a standard Joke in both parties known as an Obama lackey and dim witted apologist
who will be blown out of the hunt by a female Dark Horse candidate yet to rise up out of the
dung pile of Democrat wannabes. The only real hope for the Democrats, guess who?
The somewhat grating and professorial Warren, as if lecturing to kindergartners, is becoming
the third choice in the polls behind Biden and Sanders due to her galaxy of hard-nosed, fully
fleshed-out policies the public is embracing.
She has passed Sanders in his relatively much
more limited agenda, trumping him on policies castrating Wall St---Sanders has not much
evolved beyond positions he's held since the 1970s, including understanding how to address
the two largest parts of the Democratic base, women and blacks.
I have no doubt Warren will
be an important member of the cabinet where she can implement her policies, which is why she
will be in Biden's cabinet. Biden has touched on gutting Wall St greed, signalling the rise
of her influence. For all his centrist corruption he grasps the desires of the base,
understanding his popularity would suffer if he didn't.
"The Democrats are the ones who were supposed to save us. It was their failure in this duty
that allowed the catastrophes to pile up."
It's not just the failure. It is cynical collaboration to placate the financially
powerful. The Republican project for at least the last 40 years has been to resurrect "Robber
Baron" era neo-feudalism with Republican leadership lining up for their share of the take.
Witness the breathless fawning of the likes of Scott Walker when he thought the prankster he
was talking to was a Koch. Mainstream media long accepted that political outcomes can be
bought, that lavishly funded lobbies can block popular initiatives and railroad publicly
distasteful ones, and feature fundraising scorecards as a measure of electability. As a
matter of fact, what does that say about our democratic process and equality under law? Back
in the 1980s Business Week featured a discussion of how manufactures and retailers were
backing away from a "middle class" centered focus to a "Tffany-Wallmart" strategy? Does such
a move support E Pluribus Unum or feudalistic social bifurcation?
Sadly, the Clinton, Obama, Biden school is way to focused on go along to get along, while
equity of opportunity and wealth, and equal protection under law has steadily diminished.
Obama, who campaigned on "change you can believe in" and "the audacity to hope" was less than
audacious when it came to the strangle-hold of too big to fail on the economy, and made them
even bigger. Yes, he was far more socially responsible than his predecessor but hob nobbed
with the "Great Recession's" architects and turned over redress for Mainstreet to the banks,
with predictable results. Many who voted for Trump were seeking any kind of change over more
of the same.
Better yet: progressive Democrats have realized a few key points:
* Medicare for all polls really damned well. Amazing well.
* Raising minimum wage polls really well. Hugely well.
* American progressive liberal policies, when not framed as such, poll really well. Americans
want these things. These issues are winners.
* Turnout. Turnout. Turnout. It is not about getting people who always vote Democratic at
every election to consider you. It is about getting people who do not regularly vote to
turnout at the polls. (Look at Spain where the threat of Vox encouraged huge numbers of women
to vote and the socialists and the left came out as winners.)
Biden is not on solid ground with issues supported by the electorate and catering to the
center is going g to repress turnout. (Which could have ugly down ticket implications.)
Biden is not centre. If you think mainstream Democrats are centre, you're already to the
right of people like the National Front (both UK and French). You're already a rabid
extremist. Even someone like Sanders would be considered fairly firmly centrist in the rest
of the free world. State funded health and education is accepted practice here, not a novel
socialist/communist fantasy that will turn you into a Soviet drone. It's what we pay taxes
for, not for a war machine to enforce business profit.
GOP is fascistic, Democrats are extreme right, Sanders is centrist...you don't actually
have a left at all.
"Elections are about preventing bad things from happening...:"
-- -- -- -- - That argument [ Elections are about preventing bad things from happening] is a double-edged sword. Many voters acted on that precept in 2016 which
accounts for the creature that now squats in the White House.
Saunders would have beaten Trump and brought real change
Are people who say this generally clueless or just unaware of the make up of Congress since
January 2017? What change could Sanders have brought? What bills were the Republicans going to pass that
Sanders would have signed? Do they not remember what Mitch McConnell said when Obama took
office? Do they imagine that McConnell would shift his focus from stymieing any chance of
enacting policies the president promoted with Sanders instead of Obama?
It's just about the most ridiculous claim a person could make about American politics.
Did you watching Bernie's townhall at Fox News? He seemed like he was in his 60s and handled
many tough questions well. He seemed to be winning over some of the independents and
conservatives in that crowd
Finally the Guardian gets something right. We don't need these Clinton Era holdovers and we don't need anymore Geriatrics in the White House.
There are some great new younger candidates who understand the modern economy, the corrupt
foreign policy and have good things to say. Try Yang and Gabbard. Get with the times
people.
Bernie Sanders showed up uninvited to a Walmart shareholders meeting Wednesday, blasting
what he called the retail giant's "starvation wages" and imploring it to pay people at
least $15 an hour.
But if you read further down
Sanders was invited to speak as a proxy for Walmart worker Cat Davis, a leader of the
pro-worker group United for Respect. It was Davis' proposal that Sanders pitched.
So was he invited or uninvited? Why is the lede contradicted by the 5th paragraph in?
Surely intentional, designed to make him look like a butt-in-ski rather than a proxy for a
WMT employee.
One of the most obvious and pervasive symptoms of our Empire's rapid decline and the
crapification of literally everything is the absolute dearth of copy editors worth a
damn.
Everyday when I do my Google News view I see at least one or sometimes two pure propaganda
hit pieces from the MSM trashing Sanders.
The one at below link is especially egregious in sandwiching a photo of Sanders with the
Russian flag on one side and Venezuela on the other. This is just a day or two after a story
showing a photo of him with a picture of two houses and a bag of money.
The Politico article about unions and the Green New Deal discusses the disconnect between unions and elected Democrats
while glossing over earlier policies that contributed to it. Unstated in the article is the years and decades that Democrats,
once elected, enact policies (NAFTA, allowing China in the WTO, etc.) that hurt unions. Democrats occasionally pass
legislation that tempers the decline of unions, but are always weak and less central than the party’s attempts to align with
business and Wall Street. The unions have justifiable fear that Democrats won’t help them when the time comes. And I don’t
think environmentalists are doing themselves any favors when using phrases like “just transition,” or emphasizing investments
in new technologies. These sound similar to what unions heard about the impact of the trade deals, which haven’t worked out
for union members.
Proponents of the Green New Deal should differentiate themselves from the Democratic proponents of free trade and similar
policies if they are to gain the support of unions. One aspect that I keep getting to is mandating that the construction and
operation of facilities must be done by unionized workers if it is to get government funding (including tax credits) or be
used to meet any mandates. I’m not sold on this idea, but at the very least it is something tangible for unions.
In a recent "off the record" conversation with Page Six's Cindy Adams, Clinton sounded off on
the sprawling field of Democrat presidential candidates. According to Adams, Clinton has "no
good words for Sanders, writing that the Obama-era secretary of state believes "Anyone
overtaking him in a district considered his, he'll burn the place down."
Clinton has blamed her own election loss to President Trump on former President Barack
Obama, fired FBI Director James Comey, the Democrat National Committee (DNC), and the nation
of Russia. She has also blamed Sanders, who begrudgingly endorsed her, declaring at the time
that she "will make an outstanding president."
span ed by The Voice In th... on Mon, 06/03/2019 - 6:04pm
@The Voice In the
Wilderness
As in "the Democratic elite are entitled to your vote."
"the Democratic elite are entitled to the party nomination."
"the Democratic elite are entitled to praise and worship from the progressives that they
betray."
Good domestic policy suggestions and debate skills. Horrible understanding of foreign policy
(he completely subscribes to the Russiagate hoax)
His capitulation to Hillary in 2016 still linger behind his back despite all bravado. he
betrayed his followers, many of who put money of this while being far from rich. he betrayed them
all. As such he does not deserve to run.
Warren and Tulsi are definitely better options then Sanders for 2020.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., became a household name in 2016 when he ran a progressive
campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination -- and came close to securing it. He's back
in the 2020 race, but this time up against more than 20 other candidates. Sanders sits down
with Judy Woodruff to discuss trade with China, health care, student debt, Russian election
interference and more.
The real story behind this or any other presidency is Who could stand up to the deep
state/neocons?
Trump is an outsider who is up against powerful, entrenched forces who apparently do
whatever they want to do. (and they would be the same had Bernie won the presidency).
Bernie seems to lack the spine. Tulsi on the other hand is a tough cookie--but could she
ever find adequate military and DOJ support?
America's revolution to a socialist, government-planned society complete with reserve currency helicopter money also known as
"MMT", may or may not be successful but it certainly will be attempted, and every moment will be not only televised but also tweeted.
On Thursday morning, Visa and MasterCard tumbled after the democratic party's "progressive" socialist wing consisting of Bernie
Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, announced they would introduce legislation on Thursday to cap credit card interest rates at
15%, a sharp drop from current levels . The proposal follows not long after AOC also proposed the "Green New Deal" - which among
its various policy proposals urged to give a generous and recurring cash handout to any and every American, regardless if they work
or not, and which according to analysts would cost the US as much as $100 trillion over the next several years.
In addition to a 15% federal cap on interest rates, states could establish their own lower limits, under the legislation.
Sanders, the socialist Vermont senator running for the Democratic nomination for president, told the WaPo in an interview that
a decade after taxpayers bailed out big banks, the industry is taking advantage of the public by charging exorbitant rates. " Wall
Street today makes tens of billions from people at outrageous interest rates," he said.
Ocasio-Cortez, the socialist New York representative who is expected to run for the Democratic nomination for president as soon
as she is eligible, will introduce the House version of the bill.
According to some, the proposal is quite timely, and comes just as credit card rates recently hit an all time high despite artificially
low interest rates, according to Creditcards.com, which has been tracking the data since 2007 and compiles data from 100 popular
cards. The median interest rate was 21.36% last week compared with 20.24% about a year ago and 12.62% about a decade ago, according
to the website.
Rates have been rising fastest for those with the lowest credit scores , said Ted Rossman, an industry analyst for Creditcards.com.
"Issuers are taking an opportunity to charge people with lesser credit a bit more," he said.
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4855
For borrowers with high credit scores the average rate was 17.73 percent last week compared with 16.71 percent a year ago. For
those with poor credit scores, the average is now about 24.99 percent compared with 23.77 percent a year ago. The difference in the
increase is about 20 basis points higher for customers with a low credit score. A basis point is a common way to measure changes
in percentages.
"It may not sound like that much, but that is just in one year," Rossman said. And even small increases in rates can be crippling
to a cash strapped borrower, he said. "It is the ultimate slap in the face when you're already down."
That may well be, but we wonder what Sanders and AOC will do when the bulk of their supporters, those with the lowest credit rating
and by implication paying the highest interest rates - are de-carded as credit card companies tighten standards "just enough" to
eliminate all those who would be in the 15%+ interest universe anyway . Will they then force credit card companies to issue cheap
(or free) debt to anyone? Inquiring minds want to know...
Meanwhile, considering that in a time of inverted yield curves banks are scrambling for every dollar in interest income, the proposal
is expected to meet stern resistance from the banking industry, which brought in $113 billion in interest and fees from credit cards
last year, up 35 percent since 2012, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. It also has zero chance of passing the Senate for
at least the next two years, where Republicans hold the majority.
"I am sure it will be criticized," Sanders said of the legislation. "I have a radical idea: Maybe Congress should stand up for
ordinary people."
Quoted
by the WaPo , the 15 percent cap would be the same as the one Congress imposed on credit unions in 1980, Sanders said. (The National
Credit Union Administration, the industry's regulator, raised that cap to 18 percent in 1987 and has repeatedly renewed it at that
higher level.)
Subprime consumers would discover their credit lines would be eliminated overnight. Could create a wave of bankruptcies in
short order. If they really want to crack down they need to start tinkering with the rates these payday loan companies charge.
Interest rate reflects that credit card debt is unsecured. If you cap it, most people will simply not have access to credit
cards as the banks won't take the risk. Next, there will be a bill that ensures everyone has a credit card. Going into debt is
an American past time, right?
Sure, lowering the interest rates banks can charge on credit cards is a good idea - at first glance - but, in reality, it is
simply another "gatekeeper" move. That means addressing a symptom of an issue, rather than it's real causative reason for existing.
The central banking system, and the banks it controls internationally, including the Fed and headquartered in Basil, Switzerland
- is a criminal enterprise designed to transfer the wealth of sovereign nations into the pockets of a tiny minority of fiends,
and in the process, handing over all power to govern victim nations - through the influence of money in politics. This tiny group
of very sick people are behind 90% of the misery and death in this world - including all wars and profits derived therein. Since
they also control the media they have also foisted an incredibly successful mind control program on their victims. Here in the
US, people run around after whatever the latest "big story" is purported to be - always making sure to box themselves into their
manufactured personalities, repeating what they have been programmed to say. Everyone is watching the giant circus, and misses
the machinations of profound evil - resulting in horrific consequences for all life on Earth.
The Fed and the banks need to exposed for what they are and destroyed, and the fiends behind them exposed, stripped of all
assets, and sentenced to hard labor. Unfortunately, the US government and it's various branches of "justice" is owned by said
fiends and would have to be overthrown to do what needs to be done.
America's revolution to a socialist, government-planned society complete with reserve currency
helicopter money also known as "MMT", may or may not be successful but it certainly will be
attempted, and every moment will be not only televised but also tweeted.
On Thursday morning,
Visa and MasterCard tumbled after the democratic party's "progressive" socialist wing consisting of
Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, announced they would
introduce legislation on
Thursday to cap credit card interest rates at 15%, a sharp drop from current levels
. The
proposal follows not long after AOC also proposed the "Green New Deal" - which among its various
policy proposals urged to give a generous and recurring cash handout to any and every American,
regardless if they work or not, and which according to analysts would cost the US as much as $100
trillion over the next several years.
In addition to a 15% federal cap on interest rates, states could establish their own lower
limits, under the legislation.
Sanders, the socialist Vermont senator running for the Democratic nomination for president, told
the WaPo in an interview that a decade after taxpayers bailed out big banks, the industry is taking
advantage of the public by charging exorbitant rates. "
Wall Street today makes tens of
billions from people at outrageous interest rates," he said.
Ocasio-Cortez, the socialist New York representative who is expected to run for the Democratic
nomination for president as soon as she is eligible, will introduce the House version of the bill.
According to some, the proposal is quite timely, and comes just as credit card rates recently
hit an all time high despite artificially low interest rates, according to Creditcards.com, which
has been tracking the data since 2007 and compiles data from 100 popular cards. The median interest
rate was 21.36% last week compared with 20.24% about a year ago and 12.62% about a decade ago,
according to the website.
Rates have been rising fastest for those with the lowest credit scores
, said
Ted Rossman, an industry analyst for Creditcards.com. "Issuers are taking an opportunity to
charge people with lesser credit a bit more," he said.
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4855
For borrowers with high credit scores the average rate was 17.73 percent last week compared with
16.71 percent a year ago. For those with poor credit scores, the average is now about 24.99 percent
compared with 23.77 percent a year ago. The difference in the increase is about 20 basis points
higher for customers with a low credit score. A basis point is a common way to measure changes in
percentages.
"It may not sound like that much, but that is just in one year," Rossman said. And even small
increases in rates can be crippling to a cash strapped borrower, he said. "It is the ultimate slap
in the face when you're already down."
That may well be, but
we wonder what Sanders and AOC will do when the bulk of their
supporters, those with the lowest credit rating and by implication paying the highest interest
rates - are
de-carded
as credit card companies tighten standards "just enough" to
eliminate all those who would be in the 15%+ interest universe anyway
. Will they then
force credit card companies to issue cheap (or free) debt to anyone? Inquiring minds want to
know...
Meanwhile, considering that in a time of inverted yield curves banks are scrambling for every
dollar in interest income, the proposal is expected to meet stern resistance from the banking
industry, which brought in $113 billion in interest and fees from credit cards last year, up 35
percent since 2012, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. It also has zero chance of passing
the Senate for at least the next two years, where Republicans hold the majority.
"I am sure it will be criticized," Sanders said of the legislation. "I have a radical idea:
Maybe Congress should stand up for ordinary people."
Quoted
by the WaPo
, the 15 percent cap would be the same as the one Congress imposed on credit unions
in 1980, Sanders said. (The National Credit Union Administration, the industry's regulator, raised
that cap to 18 percent in 1987 and has repeatedly renewed it at that higher level.)
Subprime consumers would discover their credit lines would be
eliminated overnight. Could create a wave of bankruptcies in
short order. If they really want to crack down they need to start
tinkering with the rates these payday loan companies charge.
Interest rate reflects that credit card debt is unsecured. If you
cap it, most people will simply not have access to credit cards as
the banks won't take the risk. Next, there will be a bill that
ensures everyone has a credit card. Going into debt is an American
past time, right?
Sure, lowering the interest rates banks can charge on credit cards
is a good idea - at first glance - but, in reality, it is simply
another "gatekeeper" move. That means addressing a symptom of an
issue, rather than it's real causative reason for existing. The
central banking system, and the banks it controls internationally,
including the Fed and headquartered in Basil, Switzerland - is a
criminal enterprise designed to transfer the wealth of sovereign
nations into the pockets of a tiny minority of fiends, and in the
process, handing over all power to govern victim nations - through
the influence of money in politics. This tiny group of very sick
people are behind 90% of the misery and death in this world -
including all wars and profits derived therein. Since they also
control the media they have also foisted an incredibly successful
mind control program on their victims. Here in the US, people run
around after whatever the latest "big story" is purported to be -
always making sure to box themselves into their manufactured
personalities, repeating what they have been programmed to say.
Everyone is watching the giant circus, and misses the machinations
of profound evil - resulting in horrific consequences for all life
on Earth.
The Fed and the banks need to exposed for what they
are and destroyed, and the fiends behind them exposed, stripped of
all assets, and sentenced to hard labor. Unfortunately, the US
government and it's various branches of "justice" is owned by said
fiends and would have to be overthrown to do what needs to be
done.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called on Thursday for Congress to continue an investigation
into Russia's role in the 2016 presidential election and whether President Trump sought to
obstruct a law enforcement probe into the matter.
The military sucks up 54% of
discretionary federal spending. Pentagon bloat has a huge effect on domestic priorities; the
nearly $1
trillion a year that goes to exploiting, oppressing, torturing, maiming and murdering
foreigners could go to building schools, college scholarships, curing diseases, poetry slams,
whatever. Anything, even tax cuts for the rich, would be better than bombs. But as then GOP
presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said in 2015, "The military is not a social experiment.
The purpose of the military is to
kill people and break things ." If you're like me, you want as little killing and breaking
as possible.
Unfortunately, no major Democratic presidential candidate favors substantial cuts to
Pentagon appropriations.
Current frontrunner Joe Biden (
33% in the polls) doesn't talk
much about defense spending. He reminds us that his son served in Iraq (so he cares about
the military) and that we shouldn't prioritize defense over domestic programs. Vague. Though
specific programs might get trimmed, Lockheed Martin could rest easy under a President
Biden.
"Since he arrived in Congress, [runner-up] Bernie Sanders [19%] has been a fierce
crusader against Pentagon spending , calling for defense cuts that few Democrats have been
willing to support," The Hill reported in 2016. "As late as 2002, he supported a 50 percent cut
for the Pentagon." Bernie is
still a Pentagon critic but he won't commit to a specific amount to cut. He wouldn't
slash and Bern. He'd trim.
Elizabeth Warren (8%) wants "to identify which programs actually benefit American security
in the 21st century, and which programs merely line the pockets of defense contractors -- then
pull out a sharp knife and make some
cuts ."
... ... ...
Kamala Harris (5%) has not weighed
in on military spending. She has received substantial campaign contributions from the
defense industry, though.
The Democrats on Wars for Fun
As senator, Biden voted for the optional wars against
Afghanistan and
Iraq . He
lied about his votes so maybe he felt bad about them. He similarly seems to regret
his ro le in
destroying Libya.
Sanders voted to invade Afghanistan . His
comment at the time reads as hopelessly naïve about the bloodthirsty Bush-Cheney regime:
"The use of force is one tool that we have at our disposal to fight against the horror of
terrorism and mass murder it is something that must be used wisely and with great discretion."
Sanders voted against
invading Iraq , favored regime change in Libya (
albeit nonviolently ) and voted to bomb Syria .
There have been no major new wars since 2013, when Warren joined the Senate so her antiwar
bona fides have not been tested. Like many of her colleagues, she wants an end to the "forever
war" against Afghanistan. She also wants us out of
Syria .
Democrats on NSA Spying Against Americans
... ... ...
Joe Biden, though to the right on other foreign-policy issues, was a critic of NSA spying
for years, going
back at least to 2006. Under Obama, however, he
backtracked . Even worse, Biden
called the president of Ecuador in 2013 to request that he deny asylum to NSA whistleblower
Edward Snowden.
Multiculturalism means that you confer political privileges on many an individual whose
illiberal practices run counter to, even undermine, the American political tradition.
Radical leaders across the U.S. quite seriously consider Illegal immigrants as candidates
for the vote -- and for every other financial benefit that comes from the work of American
citizens.
The rights of all able-bodied idle individuals to an income derived from labor not their
own: That, too, is a debate that has arisen in democracy, where the demos rules like a
despot.
But then moral degeneracy is inherent in raw democracy. The best political thinkers,
including America's constitution-makers, warned a long time ago that mass, egalitarian society
would thus degenerate.
What Bernie Sanders prescribes for the country -- unconditional voting -- is but an
extension of "mass franchise," which was feared by the greatest thinkers on Democracy. Prime
Minister George Canning of Britain, for instance.
Canning, whose thought is distilled in Russell Kirk's magnificent exegesis, "The
Conservative Mind," thought that "the franchise should be accorded to persons and classes
insofar as they possess the qualifications for right judgment and are worthy members of their
particular corporations."
By "corporations," Canning (1770-1827) meant something quite different to our contemporary,
community-killing multinationals.
"Corporations," in the nomenclature of the times, meant very plainly in "the spirit of
cooperation, based upon the idea of a neighborhood. [C]ities, parishes, townships, professions,
and trades are all the corporate bodies that constitute the state."
To the extent that an individual citizen is a decent member of these " little
platoons " (Edmund Burke's iridescent term), he may be considered, as Canning saw it, for
political participation.
"If voting becomes a universal and arbitrary right," cautioned Canning, "citizens become
mere political atoms, rather than members of venerable corporations; and in time this anonymous
mass of voters will degenerate into pure democracy," which, in reality is "the enthronement of
demagoguery and mediocrity." ("The Conservative Mind," p. 131.)
That's us. Demagoguery and mediocrity are king in contemporary democracies, where the
organic, enduring, merit-based communities extolled by Canning, no longer exists and are no
longer valued.
This is the point at which America finds itself and against which William Lecky, another
brilliant British political philosopher and politician, argued.
The author of "Democracy and Liberty" (1896) predicted that "the continual degradation of
the suffrage" through "mass franchise" would end in "a new despotism."
Then as today, radical, nascent egalitarians, who championed the universal vote abhorred by
Lecky, attacked "institution after institution," harbored "systematic hostility" toward "owners
of landed property" and private property and insisted that "representative institutions" and
the franchise be extended to all irrespective of "circumstance and character."
The franchise should be granted by whom? You're forgetting the 800 pound gorilla and where he
sits when he enters the room. Franchises and every other grant are granted by those who have
the power to grant them.
Canning's "organic, enduring, merit-based communities" will emerge, in ghastly form, as
the solipsistic constituencies of identity politics. Why do people like Omar laugh at America
and Americans? "Here's a people so stupid as to clasp the adder to its breast. You're
clasping? I'm biting."
Bernie is utopian. Utopians do terrible things if and when they have the power to do them.
But you can't fault him for insincerity.
The younger Tsarnaev who hid out near my home town was doing what his older brother told
him to do assuming that the bombing wasn't a false flag. Not an excuse. Only to say the kid
had no political convictions and probably wouldn't bother to vote if he could.
Sanders is just a wine and cheese socialist, totally an armchair theorist. He has no
background in actually doing anything besides being involved in politics which has provided a
living for him. It's doubtful he could run a couple of Walmarts. This is his last go-around
and he's out to see how much in contributions he can garner. Pushing the edge, theoretically
of course, keeps him in the conversation. He's worthless but such is the state of politics
where characters like him, Biden, and the rest of the Dem lineup could be taken seriously.
Just one big clown show.
@Jim
Bob Lassiter Yes, but, his wife could steal money from a collapsing college to serve her
daughter. Corruption must run in the family as Bernie has been conspicuously silent on this
subject. He must feel the Burn!
"... In fact, Trump gave the Democrats his theme for peace by 2020 ..."
"... If Sanders emerged as the nominee, we would have an election with a Democrat running with the catchphrase “no more wars” that Trump had promoted in 2016. Thus, Trump would be defending the bombing of Yemeni rebels and civilians by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... None of the main candidates for the 2020 Democratic nomination — Joe Biden, Sanders, Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker– seems as aggressive as Trump has become. ..."
"... Trump pulled the United States out of the nuclear agreement with Iran, negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry, and re-imposed severe sanctions against the Iranians. He declared the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran a terrorist organization, to which Tehran responded with the same action against the U.S. Central Command. ..."
"... Trump has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, moved the U.S. embassy there, closed the consulate that was in charge of Palestinian affairs, cut off aid to Palestinians, recognized the annexation by Israel of the Golan Heights snatched from Syria in 1967 and kept silent about Netanyahu’s threat to annex the Jewish settlements in the West Bank. ..."
"The president has said he doesn't want to see this country wrapped up in endless wars and I agree with that," Bernie Sanders
said to the Fox News audience last week at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Then, looking directly at the camera, he added: "Mr. President,
tonight you have the opportunity to do something extraordinary: sign that resolution. Saudi Arabia must not determine the military
or foreign policy of this country."
Sanders was talking about a resolution on the War Powers Act that would put an end to U.S. involvement in the 5-year civil war
in Yemen. This war has created one of the biggest humanitarian crises in the world of our time, with thousands of children dead in
the middle of a cholera epidemic and famine.
Supported by a Democratic Party united in Congress, and an anti-interventionist faction of the Republican Party headed by Senators
Rand Paul and Mike Lee of Utah, the War Powers resolution had passed both houses of Congress.
But 24 hours after Sanders urged the President to sign it, Trump vetoed the resolution, describing it as a "dangerous attempt
to undermine my constitutional authority."
According to journalist Buchanan J. Buchanan, “with enough Republican votes in both chambers to resist Trump’s veto, this could
have been the end of the matter; but it wasn’t. In fact, Trump gave the Democrats his theme for peace by 2020.”
If Sanders emerged as the nominee, we would have an election with a Democrat running with the catchphrase “no more wars” that
Trump had promoted in 2016. Thus, Trump would be defending the bombing of Yemeni rebels and civilians by Crown Prince Mohammed bin
Salman of Saudi Arabia.
In 2008, John McCain, hawk leader in the Senate, was defeated by the progressive Illinois Senator Barack Obama, who had won his
nomination by defeating the bellicose Hillary Clinton who had voted for authorizing the war in Iraq. In 2012, the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, who was much more aggressive than Obama in his approach to Russia lost.
However, in 2016, Trump presented himself as a different kind of Republican, an opponent of the Iraq war, an anti-interventionist,
and promising to get along with Russian Vladimir Putin and getting out of the Middle East wars.
None of the main candidates for the 2020 Democratic nomination — Joe Biden, Sanders, Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke, Pete Buttigieg,
Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker– seems as aggressive as Trump has become.
Trump pulled the United States out of the nuclear agreement with Iran, negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry, and re-imposed
severe sanctions against the Iranians. He declared the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran a terrorist organization, to which
Tehran responded with the same action against the U.S. Central Command.
Trump has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, moved the U.S. embassy there, closed the consulate that was in charge
of Palestinian affairs, cut off aid to Palestinians, recognized the annexation by Israel of the Golan Heights snatched from Syria
in 1967 and kept silent about Netanyahu’s threat to annex the Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
Trump has spoken of getting all U.S. troops out of Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. However, they are still there.
Although Sanders supports Israel, he says he is looking for a two-state solution, and criticizes Netanyahu’s regime.
Trump came to power promising to get along with Moscow, but he sent Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and announced the US
withdrawal of the 1987 Treaty of Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) subscribed by Ronald Reagan, who banned all ground-based
nuclear intermediate range missiles.
When Putin sent a hundred Russian soldiers to Venezuela to repair the S-400 anti-aircraft and anti-missile system that was damaged
in the recent blackouts, Trump provocatively ordered the Russians to “get out” of the Bolivarian and Chavista country. According
to Buchanan, the gravity center of U.S. policy is shifting towards Trump’s position in 2016. And the anti-interventionist wing of
the Republican Party is growing.
The anti-interventionist wing of the Republican Party together with the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party in Congress are
capable — as they were War Powers Act resolution on Yemen– to produce a new bipartisan majority.
Buchanan predicts that in the 2020 primaries, foreign policy will be in the center and the Democratic Party would have captured
the ground with the catchphrase “no more wars” that candidate Donald Trump exploited in 2016.
Bernie Sanders kicked off his campaign just about two months ago in Brooklyn, New York
opening with a speech saying, "we are going to defeat the most
dangerous president in modern history." He urged for "an economy which works for all, not
just the 1%." In the first sentences of his speech he remarked that "the underlying principles
of our government will not be greed, hatred and lies. It will not be racism, sexism,
xenophobia, homophobia and religious bigotry." The tone and approach of the speech sounded like
a new and improved Bernie Sanders ready to tackle "identity" issues and oppression head on.
This however did not stop the Democratic establishment from staying on their
anti-progressive message. Zerlina
Maxwell , a paid Clinton operative and "MSNBC analyst" lamented that "twenty-three minutes
in, Bernie finally mentioned race and gender." For Democrats that watch MSNBC and didn't hear
Sanders's Brooklyn speech, it reinforced what they already thought about him and 2016. The only
problem is that Maxwell's assertion was demonstrably false and the Sander's team should have
been quick to correct the misinformation. In any event, the well-disciplined
MSNBC panel sat silent after Zerlina Maxwell's untrue remarks just like the Sanders
team.
Since his opening speech, Sanders has been ineffective in answering certain questions or has
been beaten to the punch, on what too many white social democrats call, "identity politics."
Sanders was in fact, one of two white elected officials that supported one of the most
progressive political platforms in memory,
Jesse Jackson's 1984 bid. For his Brooklyn speech, he was introduced by three prominent
African-Americans, most notably, former Ohio state Senator
Nina Turner .
Sanders discussed the current state of inequality as it relates to both the carceral state
and xenophobic impulses. This was an enormous step for him and an incredibly important point of
distinction from his previous run, but for some reason these points were nonexistent at his
recent She the People Forum
appearance. Sanders should avoid reading his press and needs to stop giving canned answers on
race.
Why Sanders continues to stumble on the trail and has much more difficulty than he indicated
in his speech is confounding. Why DSA rushed an endorsement vote when some Afro-Socialists
Caucus members wanted to wait is also troubling. Few, if any, assume he himself lacks
sincerity or principle on these matters. In his opening speech, he pointed to the GOP that
actually 'weaponizes' "by color, origin, gender, religion, and sexual orientation." Also in his
kickoff speech
Sanders referenced his own family that "escaped widespread anti-Semitism."
He addressed these issues openly and repeatedly and incorporated them with a message about
progressive foreign policy, single payer healthcare, housing, rent control, labor, and a living
wage, to better "address the racial disparities of wealth and income," while reminding his
base, "we are going to root out institutional racism wherever it
exists." For many, all of these sentiments were indications that his 2020 run would be new and
improved.
"... Trump also seems to think he stands a better chance in a straight fight against Bernie (lobbyist vs grass roots) than a mixed bout against Biden (lobbyist vs lobbyist), so he's looking to take down the Clinton's, Obamas, and the whole motley crew to give Bernie an easier ride to the general. ..."
Trump apparently thinks a Bernie primary victory along with another year of
counter-Russiagate investigations will break the corporate Dems, and give DC lobbyists no
place to lay their campaign cash but at his feet. Instead of draining the swamp, Trump wants
to monopolize it.
Trump also seems to think he stands a better chance in a straight fight against Bernie
(lobbyist vs grass roots) than a mixed bout against Biden (lobbyist vs lobbyist), so he's
looking to take down the Clinton's, Obamas, and the whole motley crew to give Bernie an
easier ride to the general.
Never interrupt your opponent when he's making a mistake, and especially when he's making
that mistake against your other opponent. If Trump is so deluded as to think Biden is a more
dangerous opponent than Bernie, then I say let him keep riling up Dem party insurgents and
reminding Dem Exiters and indies why they want to vote for Bernie.
Because that hornet's nest he's poking today will be coming for him tomorrow.
Still, since some political observers and journalists haven't wrapped their head around the
reality that he could be more than a spoiler who kneecaps the party en route to a complicated
convention and maybe another loss to Donald Trump, Sanders has been able to do this without the
attention or scrutiny that anyone else with his poll numbers, fundraising, and crowds would
face.
"There's a three-out-of-four chance we are not the nominee," Faiz Shakir, Sanders's current
campaign manager, says he tells the senator, "but that one-in-four chance is better than anyone
else in the field."
... ... ...
So he's eagerly gotten into fights, like one over the weekend with the Center for American
Progress about a video produced by an affiliated website that speciously accused him of
profiting off his 2016 run. And then he's fundraised by citing the fights as evidence of
resistance to the revolution he's promising.
span y gjohnsit on Mon, 04/29/2019 - 11:53am Donald Trump The Liar is no fan of
Bernie Sanders, so any advice he gives is totally self-serving. Nevertheless, he can
occasionally tell the truth, if only by accident.
....for the more traditional, but not very bright, Sleepy Joe Biden. Here we go again
Bernie, but this time please show a little more anger and indignation when you get
screwed!
Trump only cares about this primary rigging because it
makes the Dems look bad, but that doesn't mean that he's wrong.
In related news, the dark
money is rolling into the Democratic Party.
A group of Democratic operatives are launching a $60 million political group with plans to
reclaim values-laden terms like "freedom" and "opportunity" for their party ahead of the 2020
election.
..."It's no great secret that the presidential race will be won or lost in Pennsylvania,
Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio -- if we can win back the narrative that the word 'Democrat' equals
people who are fighting for folks who work hard every day, we can continue to win elections,"
Riddle said. "If [Democrats] get defined as being about socialism and these other words
people can hear about out of Washington, then I worry."
Future Majority has enlisted advisers including Dan Sena, who was executive director of
the DCCC for the last election, and Julianna Smoot, a deputy campaign manager on Barack
Obama's 2012 reelection effort. Two major Democratic donors are co-chairing the group: Philip
Munger, son of Berkshire Hathaway billionaire Charles Munger, and Dan Tierney, founder of
high-speed trading company GETGO. Keith Mestrich, president and CEO of Amalgamated Bank, is
also helping fund the group.
Ah, yes. CEOs and billionaires "fighting for folks who work hard every day". I guess the
question here is who are "folks"?
During the 2018 midterm election, Future Majority briefed the DCCC on matters including
strategies for talking to voters about the economy and how swing voters viewed the Democratic
and Republican parties. Future Majority helped the DCCC "round out a narrative" that spoke to
a broader swath of voters, Sena said, particularly when it came to discussing the economy.
Gee, lemme guess what that narrative about the economy sounded like. Speaking of narratives, this
has got to be my favorite spin so far because it is so damn elitist.
Rather than a politics financed by special interests, Sanders is drawing funds from an army
of local activists, whose commitment to the cause induces them to chip in $20 here or $40
there.
... Call me a contrarian, but I have my doubts about this mode of financing, too. Again,
stipulating that donors have access or influence that average voters do not possess, is it
really better for activists to be the main source of finance? Corporate lobbyists are going
to invest in politics for their stockholders' interests, but activists have a wide array of
ideological views that are often out of step with the rest of society. The Sanders voters in
particular are far to the left of the average American -- and probably the average Democrat,
too.
We complain so much about political polarization these days, and I think with good reason.
But to what extent does the polarization in the last generation lead back to this revolution
in campaign finance? Are grassroots extremists pulling candidates to the ideological fringes
by increments of $20 apiece? It's very possible.
All of this speaks to some inconvenient truths that Americans have failed to fully grok:
Politics is very expensive, somebody has to pay for it, and whoever does is going to get
special access. Who do we want those persons to be? Special interests, activists, somebody
else? We collectively don't know, as we tend not to think much at all about campaign finance.
Maybe if a socialist captures the Democratic nomination this cycle, we'll think a little more
clearly about whether we want our local hippies bankrolling politics.
He even manages to punch some hippies. He should get extra points for that.
"... That Trump's only chance in 2020 is if the Democratic candidate is Hillary (again) - or possibly Biden - has made me wonder about all the bafflegab of him working to get a huge war chest for his 2020 campaign. A link I saw today gives me a clue as to what may be happening. ..."
The key word in that link is "Fox". Sanders wasn't at some leftie flower-sniffing
place, but went right into the lion's den. And the the other thing is that Trump was watching.
(Fox!) Reports are that he was just a little bit impressed.
It was like somebody had thrown a
small thimble full of cool water at him. The man truly does believe he is some kind of
superhero and doesn't have a clue Hillary was probably the only person on the planet he could
have defeated in 2016.
That Trump's only chance in 2020 is if the Democratic candidate is Hillary (again) - or
possibly Biden - has made me wonder about all the bafflegab of him working to get a huge war
chest for his 2020 campaign. A link I saw today gives me a clue as to what may be
happening.
President Trump on Saturday said over Twitter that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is
"again working its magic
in its quest to destroy Crazy Bernie Sanders,"
in favor
of "Sleepy" Joe Biden. Trump then wrote "Here we go again Bernie, but
this time please show
a little more anger and indignation when you get screwed!
"
Thanks to WikiLeaks and admissions by former DNC chair-turned-
Fox News contributor
Donna Brazile, we know that the DNC coordinated with the Clinton Campaign during the 2016
primaries to give Obama's former Secretary of State an unfair advantage over Sanders.
Not only did Brazile give Clinton's team
CNN debate questions
ahead of time - as
revealed by WikiLeaks
, the DNC cut
off Sanders' access to a critical voter database in what
Bernie suggested was a setup.
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) had hired an outside software partner, "NGP VAN," to
manage its voter database. Founded by
Nathaniel Pearlman
- chief technology officer for Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign
- NGP's 'VoteBuilder' software was designed for Democratic candidates (Bernie, Hillary, etc.) to
track and analyze highly detailed information on voters for the purposes of 'microtargeting'
specific demographics.
On December 16th, 2015, NGP VAN updated the Votebuilder with a patch that contained a bug
- allowing the Sanders and the Clinton campaigns to temporarily access each other's proprietary
voter information for around 40 minutes. Lo and behold, the Sanders campaign National Data
Director,
Josh Uretsky
, was found to have accessed Clinton's information and was
promptly fired.
Uretsky's excuse
was that he was simply grabbing Clinton's data during the window of
vulnerability to prove that the breach was real.
Bernie cried false flag!
Sanders claimed that Uretsky was a DNC plant - "
recommended by the DNC's National Data
Director
along with NGP's Pearlman. Sanders sued the DNC in December 2015, only to drop
the case four months later after a DNC investigation concluded that the wrongdoing did not go
beyond Uretsky and three staffers under his command.
More DNC plotting - exposed by WikiLeaks and Donna Brazile:
In her
2017 book
, Brazile said that she had discovered a 2015 deal between the Clinton campaign,
Clinton's joint fundraising committee, and the DNC - which would allow Clinton's campaign to
"control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised." Brazile said that while the
deal "looked unethical," she found "no evidence" that the 2016 primary was rigged.
Meanwhile, in an
email from early May
,
DNC CFO Brad Marshall wrote about a plot to question Sanders's religio
n. While not
naming the Vermont senator directly, it talks about a man of "Jewish heritage" Marshall believes to
be an atheist. It makes reference to voters in Kentucky and West Virginia, two states that were
holding upcoming primary elections.
"It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he
believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an
atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps.
My Southern Baptist
peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist,"
the email says.
"AMEN," DNC Chief Executive Officer Amy K. Dacey replied.
Marshall did not respond to a request for comment. But he did tell
The
Intercept
, which first noticed the email, "I do not recall this. I can say it would not have
been Sanders. It would probably be about a surrogate."
DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz
, meanwhile had written Bernie off
completely - noting in a May 21 email (while there were still nine primary debates to go): "This is
a silly story," adding "
He isn't going to
be president.
" Of course, Sanders told
CNN
's Jake Tapper that if he was elected
president,
Wasserman Schultz would be out at the DNC
.
And what did Bernie do after he lost the primaries, knowing Clinton and the DNC conspired
against him?
He ran to Hillary's side like a lapdog and gave her his full-throated
support.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/v_6BevfMygM
And no wonder DNC chair Tom Perez has urged Republicans
not to use
"stolen
private data"
during the 2020 campaign - since Wikileaks emails contiain massive
evidence of the DNC's collusion against Sanders.
Democratic party candidate Biden has huge, exploitable weakness in relation Ukraine (1).
Given that Biden is the most beatable name to come forward so far Trump and his
administration will do nothing major to involve the U.S. with the internal affairs of
Ukraine.
Macron and Merkel may wish to do something, but given personal unpopularity in their
countries it is unclear what they can deliver.
For the next 12+ months nothing of any significance will happen. If the Dems are foolish
enough to nominate Biden, it could become an issue next year. Trump and Putin would have
aligned interests in stopping the Biden family's exploitation of Ukrainian resources.
Re Bernie, this is a zerohedge post that beautifully sums him up:
Tomsk on July 26, 2018 · at 12:08 pm EST/EDT
It is amazing how many people actually believe that Bernie Saunders is some kind of
decent guy posing an "alternative" to the other 2 contenders when his sole purpose was to
round up "dissenters" and funnel them into the Hillary camp.
As Alexander Azadgan points out –
1. He voted in favor of use of force (euphemism for bombing) 12 sovereign nations that
never represented a threat to the U.S.:
1) Afghanistan.
2) Lebanon.
3) Libya.
4) Palestine.
5) Somalia
6) Syria.
7) Yemen.
8) Yugoslavia
9) Haiti
10) Liberia
11) Zaire (Congo)
12) Sudan
2. He has accepted campaign money from Defense contractor Raytheon, a defense
contractor, he continues his undying support of the $1.5 trillion F-35 industry and said
that predator drones "have done some very good things". Sanders has always voted in favor
of awarding more corporate welfare for the military industrial complex – and even if
he says he's against a particular war he ends up voting in favor of funding it.
3. He routinely backs appropriations for imperial wars, the corporate scam of Obamacare,
wholesale surveillance and bloated defense budgets. He loves to bluster about corporate
welfare and big banks but he voted for funding the Commodity Futures "Modernization" Act
which deregulated commercial banks and created an "unregulated market in derivatives and
swaps" which was the major contributor to the 2007 economic crisis.
4. Regardless of calling himself an "independent", Sanders is a member of the Democratic
caucus and votes 98% of the time with the Democrats and votes in the exact same way as war
criminal Hillary Clinton 93% of the time. Sanders campaigned for Bill Clinton in the 1992
presidential race and again in 1996 -- after Clinton had rammed through the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), vastly expanded the system of mass incarceration and
destroyed welfare.
5. The sheepdog is a card the Democratic Party plays when there's no White House
Democrat running for re-election. The sheepdog is a presidential candidate running
ostensibly to the left of the establishment Democrat to whom the billionaires will award
the nomination. Sheepdogs are herders, . charged with herding activists and voters back
into the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic
Party, either staying home. In 2004 he called on Ralph Nader to abandon his presidential
campaign.
The Democratic Party has played this "sheep dog" card at least 7-8 times in the past
utilizing collaborators such as Eugene McCarthy in 1968, Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988,
Jerry Brown in 1992, Al Sharpton in 2000, Howard Dean in 2004, Dennis Kucinich in 2008 and
in 2016 was Bernie Sanders' turn.
6. Regardless of calling himself a "socialist" he labeled the late Hugo Chávez,
architect of the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela responsible for lifting millions of
lives out of poverty "a dead communist dictator." Then he saddled up for a photo op with
Evo Morales at the Vatican and also voted to extradite former Black Panther member, Assata
Shakur.
7. He refers to ISIS' godfather and warmonger extraordinaire John McCain as "my friend
and a very, very decent person."
8. He routinely parrots the DNC lines: "the Russians hacked our elections" despite there
is no evidence of such hacking, but lowered his head and tucked tail when the DNC actually
rigged the primary elections against him, proving he is more loyal to the Democratic (war)
Party than to the millions of people who supported him and donated to his fraudulent
campaign.
9. He expressed staunch support for the aid of violently right-wing separatist forces
such as the self-styled Kosovo Liberation Army, whose members were trained as Mujahideen,
during Clinton's 100-day bombing of Yugoslavia and Kosovo in 1999. He has an extensive
record of supporting jihadist proxies for the overthrow of sovereign governments in
Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.
10. He supported Bill Clinton's sanctions against Iraq, sanctions that prohibited
medicines for infants and children more than 500,000 innocents killed for no other reason
than that they were Iraqi.
11. He said yes in a voice vote to the Clinton-era crime Bill, the Violent Crime Control
& Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which expanded the death penalty to cover 60 offenses.
So he is obviously pro-death penalty.
Sanders will rally the FSA but that will go nowhere in general election.
Gabbard is serious person. The fact that DNC does approve is one of her strengths. Of
course Wasserman will attempt a Tanya Harding but Tulsi can take her.
I hope she would not team with Biden.
I thing two good women might be powerful:
Behold: Gabbard/Omar.
Sanders is already hip deep in the Deep State, and there is no denying it. In absolute
terms he is an unacceptable candidate . But then a person recalls a famous Winston
Churchill quote:
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
After stating the obvious fact Sanders just isn't much good, you have to ask, compared
to what?
This election cycle it looks as if the Palestinians will be screwed yet again. But I can
imagine that while Sanders will be extremely protective of the Holy Cesspool, he will stop
the practice of kissing Netanyahu's ass to the point of inflammation.
As you say, if we get President Sanders we'd better not also be presented with Vice
President Neocon. In that event I'd expect something or other to happen so as to suddenly
have President Neocon.
Sadly, I think b is caught in a mental framework, like many socialist-leaning Europeans,
that prevents him from thinking critically about Sanders.
All the more strange because everyone can see how Obama and Trump failed to live up to
their rhetoric, how powerful monied interests and the Deep State conduct "managed democracy"
and give us the illusion of democracy . Yet some cling to the notion that democracy
works! making it possible that a socialist hero can be elected.
Until democracy itself is made an issue (akin to the Yellow Vest protests) , we
will continue to be played.
Bernie Sanders may well have the best chance to beat Trump on domestic policies. But he is
no progressive on foreign policy issues.
He has gotten better on this recently but he doesn't have the strength left in him to
properly challenge the lobby, particularly being Jewish his extended family/social circle is
a weakness they'll attack like with Goldstone.
Presumably he calculated that the infamously spiteful man won't be in office come January
2021 and that he can join in the scape-goating of Netanyahu as the unique 'bad-man' whose
policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians and other neighbours wasn't highly popular and endorsed
by Israeli society and we can all forget about it when somebody more presentable takes over
despite engaging in the same policies.
Bernie Sanders has been around in Washington. He knows that his domestic plans are
unaffordable in the Red Scare climate which he's been pushing himself , since all
money will go to the Deep State and the Armies of Mordor. The evidence is he's OK with that.
Anyway, why spend time on this old geezer; he's already lost and in the time since
then, he's exposed himself as a phony and liar.
Z Smith isnt it crystal clear by now...Jack Rabbit is working...very hard it seems...for the
re-election of Donald Trump.
The germane question: why? Is he falling back on the "same ol same ol" purity of the 3rd
party gambit (the same one that has never worked throughout US history and surely has even
less chance of success than ever in 2020)?
Is he ignoring or even against the plain fact that Democrats are trending leftier, less
white and more female thanks in large part to so-called "sheepdog" Bernie's 2016 campaign and
"movement"? Bernie far from being a sheepdog in fact played his hand rather intelligently and
with self-discipline in 2016 rather than lashing out angrily at being fucked over by the
party apparatus and reacting in a manner of which JR would surely approve...such as self
marginalising himself into yet another in an endless string of 3rd party losers who are now
footnotes in history at best.
There
is evidence that Bernie voters stayed home or voted Trump in 2016 in those MW states with
the slimmest margins for Trump. So the evidence indicates more that he fucked Hillary instead
of being her sheepdog... and of course had she won Bernie would not be in the 2020 game,
Obamacare would be solidified with the insurance companies, hospitals, physicians and drug
companies, DLC centrist politics would rule the land and we would not be talking so loudly
today about taxing the rich or advcating Medicare for all.
In several key states -- Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan -- the number of Sanders to
Trump defectors were greater than Trump's margin of victory, according to new numbers
released Wednesday by UMass professor Brian Schaffner.
Does JR simply believe electoral politics is a totally failed bit? I can grok that and
agree...to a point. Problem is he offers exactly nothing as a defined alternative
except...more of the same...vote 3rd party (like in, yawn, 2000, 2008, 2012, 2016) or join a
"movement".
think the doom and gloomers in here decrying Sanders/Gabbard chances as securing the nom are
not being very sensible.
There is no doubt in my mind that Sanders will be the nom. Whether he picks Gabbard or not
will be telling.
Gabbard, so far, has been the straight-up most respectable, classy, and well-spoken
candidate hitting the media circuit. Whispers abound about her legitimacy and should not be
discounted.
And they already denied Sanders once. That was their free pass and you only get one of
those. Ask the Syria-interventionists and they will say the same: "We already burned through
the pass in Iraq and Afghanistan. Otherwise, Assad would have been publicly strung up and
hung on MSNBC by now."
There will be hell to pay if they deny Sanders again.
But this is all contingent on the fact that you don't already think that TPTB are setting
the table specifically for Sanders because he is already an owned man.
Here we go again with the same ol' question for the office of POTUS: "WHO ARE YOU?"
As long as Hunter Biden is still a director
of Burisma Holdings (which includes at least one other unpleasant individual on
the Board of Directors), there is always a chance that elements within or connected to the
Ukrainian government (even under Volodymyr Zelenskiy's Presidency, when he has his back
turned on his fellow politicians), the previous Poroshenko government or Poroshenko himself,
and / or the Maidan Revolution - Crowdstrike, Dmitri Alperovich and Chalupa sisters, we're
looking at all of you - might try to derail any or all of the Democratic Party presidential
candidates in attempts to have Joe Biden declared the official Democrat presidential
contender in 2020. The only question is how openly brazen these people are going to be in
order to save their pet project in Kiev before Ukraine erupts in civil war (and it won't be
civil war in the Donbass area) and the entire country goes down in flames.
As for the rest of the 20 candidates, I would prefer Tulsi Gabbard out of the lot. In this
respect India's general elections, already under way, are going to be important. Gabbard
needs to let go of Narendra Modi and his Hindutva BJP party - her friendship with Modi and
his association with Hindutva are sure to come under scrutiny as will also any connections
she and her office staff have with
The Science of Identity Foundation organisation.
I donated to Tulsi Gabbard's campaign so there would be one anti-war candidate in the
Presidential debates. Having served in the first one, the restart of the Cold War is gut
wrenching. Today it is far more dangerous than 40 years ago. "Détente" is archaic,
Inequality in the West has reached the Gilded Age levels. The USA occupies East Syria even
though its regime change campaign failed. With the estrangement of Western Allies, trade wars
and economic sanctions against Russia and Iran, plus Joe Biden's trench war in Ukraine, the
slightest misstep and the global economy will crash. If a conflict breaks out with Russia or
China, the Trump Administration is too incompetent and arrogant to back down to avoid a
nuclear war. The 2020 election may well be the last chance to save the earth.
The accountability that is on offer in the upcoming election is to alter the structure of
the Democratic Party. The deck was stacked against the progressive challenge in the last
presidential election. Only a candidate who has genuine "fire-in-the-belly" has a chance to
beat Trump. Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and Elizabeth Warren are the only ones I see who
are holding these credentials. I think you are wrong when you say that Sanders is finished
evolving, --and despite his age-- he is the most dynamic, among the older people Americans
seem to prefer to be president. It would do him some good and improve his chance of success,
if he chose for his running mate someone whose passion was equally sincere.
Political sour grapes and fatalism offer us no hope of coming through the next few years
intact.
Sanders is NOT anti-estblishment. He's just good at hiding his support for the establishment
so that he can be used as foil / sheepdog / spoiler.
"Enough with the emails" - Bernie refused to raise "character issues" about Hillary despite
the fact that she would face those same issues in the general election;
faux populist sell-out Obama campaigned for Bernie;
Bernie admitted that Hillary "a friend of 25 years" ;
Schumer refused to fund any Democratic Party candidate that would run against Sanders in
Vermont;
Sanders votes with the Democrats >95% of the time.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
We can debate the merits of each establishment stooge until we're blue in the face but
establishment plans for gaming the race are likely to have already made. It's be another good
show that millions of American's tune in to watch.
My best guess: gay Mayor Pete gets most of the primary media coverage which focuses on his
oh-so-sensible agenda, Obama-like likeability, and "historic" (did I mention that he's gay?)
run for the Presidency. But Pete and his running mate Biden fail to unseat Trump.
2024: Mayor Pete loses Democratic nomination to a women (Chelsea Clinton? she'll be 44)
and she wins the Presidency.
Unless, that is, Americans wake up and demand a real democracy.
'Bernie Sanders may well have the best chance to beat Trump on domestic policies. But he is
no progressive on foreign policy issues'
He campaigned against the Vietnam war before he got elected, he later opposed the Iraq
invasion, and recently led the Senate to oppose US involvement in Yemen. What is your
standard for calling him a progressive? Does he have to be to the Left of Noam Chomsky (who,
incidentally, says Sanders has the best policies out of any candidate)?
Those who cheer Sanders are ignoring both the hidden-in-plain-sight evidence for
"managed democracy" (e.g. duopoly, money-based electoral system; lapdog media; and Imperial
Deep State) and in-your-face lived history: Obama and Trump have both sweet-talked
their 'base' but ruled as servants of the establishment and a member of the Deep State.
What's needed for real change is a Movement that is outside duopoly politics. That is what
the establishment really fears. And that's why we are being pressed to get emotionally
engaged in this sh*t show 18-months before the election. Because they don't want people to
think of alternatives. You enslave yourselves.
Both Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are clowns. They do not have a chance to win against Pres.
Trump, who will be the bankrupcy president. No one else would be able to handle it and the
oligarchs know it. Democracy ? It stopped being a joke.
As for the rest of the 20 candidates, I would prefer Tulsi Gabbard out of the lot. In this
respect India's general elections, already under way, are going to be important. Gabbard
needs to let go of Narendra Modi and his Hindutva BJP party - her friendship with Modi and
his association with Hindutva are sure to come under scrutiny as will also any connections
she and her office staff have with The Science of Identity Foundation organisation.
Posted by: Jen | Apr 25, 2019 7:22:22 PM | 55
I checked out Jen's link regarding the Science of Identity Foundation - it is a very
skillfully written Republican hit job, complete with multiple references to Gabbard's
"support for foreign dictators" Putin and Assad, to her criticism of US fake allegations of
Assad chemical attacks, to her alleged Islamaphobia for arguing that genuine muslims be
differentiated from islamic terrorists, and her criticism of Obama for not bombing ISIS and
al-Qaida. In Part 1 the ultirior motives are relatively well hidden, but the start coming
into view in Parts 2 and 3, especially in her answers to comments in Part 3.
Interesting quote from Part 2 about Gabbard's guru Butler: "His father, the late Dr.
Willis Butler, was well-known locally for his far-left political activism and his staunch
opposition to U.S. involvement in foreign regime change wars, which he considered
counterproductive. Dr. Butler was particularly concerned about U.S. funding of groups in
Central America that he viewed as terrorists. " - sounds like at least Butler's father
had his head screwed on the right way round. If that is the origin in part of Gabbard's
opposition to regime change wars and US funding of terrorists then that at least was a
positive influence (although implicitly painted as negative in the article!)
Having said that, the article raises a number of important questions and is in that
respect an eye opener - it's just that the misleading and tainted manner in which the article
is written is dangerous without verifying the information - classic fake news.
I agree with Jen about the dangers of her support for Modi. I can't help suspecting she
sees the US (far-right) Indian-American elite as an important source of political funding for
her seat, and that I see as problematic.
Looks like tail wags the dog -- CIA controls the US foreign policy and in the last elections
also played active role in promoting Hillary. A the level of top brass we have
several people mentioned by Giraldi who are probably as dangerous as Allen Dulles was. Brennan
is one example.
The parade of rogues that Philip describes is really
alarming. Each with agenda that directly harms
the USA as a country promoting the interest of military-industrial complex and neocon
faction within the government...
Notable quotes:
"... Indeed, one can start with Tenet if one wants to create a roster of recent CIA Directors who have lied to permit the White House to engage in a war crime. Tenet and his staff knew better than anyone that the case against Saddam did not hold water, but President George W. Bush wanted his war and, by gum, he was going to get it if the CIA had any say in the matter. ..."
"... Back then as now, international Islamic terrorism was the name of the game. It kept the money flowing to the national security establishment in the false belief that America was somehow being made "safe." But today the terror narrative has been somewhat supplanted by Russia, which is headed by a contemporary Saddam Hussein in the form of Vladimir Putin. If one believes the media and a majority of congressmen, evil manifest lurks in the gilded halls of the Kremlin. Russia has recently been sanctioned (again) for crimes that are more alleged than demonstrated and President Putin has been selected by the Establishment as the wedge issue that will be used to end President Donald Trump's defiance of the Deep State and all that pertains to it. The intelligence community at its top level would appear to be fully on board with that effort. ..."
"... Remarkably, he also said that there is only "minimal evidence" that Russia is even fighting ISIS. The statement is astonishing as Moscow has most definitely been seriously and directly engaged in support of the Syrian Arab Army. Is it possible that the head of the CIA is unaware of that? It just might be that Pompeo is disparaging the effort because the Russians and Syrians have also been fighting against the U.S. backed "moderate rebels." That the moderate rebels are hardly moderate has been known for years and they are also renowned for their ineffectiveness combined with a tendency to defect to more radical groups taking their U.S. provided weapons with them, a combination of factors which led to their being denied any further American support by a presidential decision that was revealed in the press two weeks ago. ..."
"... Pompeo's predecessor John Brennan is, however, my favorite Agency leader in the category of totally bereft of his senses. ..."
"... Brennan is certainly loyal to his cause, whatever that might be. At the same Aspen meeting attended by Pompeo, he told Wolf Blitzer that if Trump were to fire special counsel Robert Mueller government officials should "refuse to carry out" his orders. In other words, they should begin a coup, admittedly non-violent (one presumes), but nevertheless including federal employees uniting to shut the government down. ..."
"... And finally, there is Michael Morell, also a former Acting Director, who was closely tied to the Hillary Clinton campaign, apparently driven by ambition to become Director in her administration. Morell currently provides commentary for CBS television and is a frequent guest on the Charlie Rose show. Morell considerably raised the ante on Brennan's pre-electoral speculation that there had been some Russian recruitment of Trump people. He observed in August that Putin, a wily ex-career intelligence officer, "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them [did exactly that] early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." ..."
"... Nothing new. In the '50s CIA was making foreign wars and cultivating chaos at home, and blaming all of it on Russia. In the '80s CIA was cultivating anti-nuke groups to undermine Reagan, and blaming it on Russia. CIA has been the primary wellspring of evil for a long time. ..."
"... Yes you read that right and they are going to the rotten core of this coup against the United States by presenting a report stating that the DNC was "Leaked" not hacked. The real hacking came from President Obama's weaponizing of our intelligence agencies against Russia. ..."
"... The CIA is the USA's secret army, it is not comparable to a real intelligence organization like the British MI5. The CIA is more like WWII SOE, designed to set fire to Europe, Churchill's words. ..."
"... As has been the case for decades the Deep State allows Presidents and legislators to make minor decisions in our government as long as those decisions do not in any way interfere with the Deep State's goals of total world hegemony and increase in overwhelming power and wealth. Those who make the important decisions in this country are not elected. The elected 'officials' are sycophants of the Deep State. ..."
"... The term is appropriated from the use to describe the mutually loyal corps of Ataturkians in the Turkish military and intelligence services who were united in service to uphold the ideal of Ataturkian secular modernisation. The term implies no public accountability or publicity unnecessary to its purposes. ..."
"... The CIA's source, its birth, is from British secret service. Brit spying. And Brit secret service, long before the official founding of MI5, did exactly the kinds of things you note the CIA has done. ..."
"... The Mossad is another direct fruit of Brit secret service, as is the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency. ..."
"... While there can be no doubt about the crackpots in high positions of the most powerful bureaucracies, it seems to me that the CIA loonies are merely shock troops for an even worse bunch of evil psychos, the bankster mafiosi. ..."
"... I am a retired CIA operations officer (something none of the men mentioned by Giraldi are – Brennan was a failed wanna be, couldn't cut it as an ops officer). He is spot on in his comments. The majority of people in the CIA, the ones who do the heavy lifting, are patriotic Americans who are proud of serving their country. I am sure that most voted for Trump as they all know too well the truth about the Clintons and Obama. ..."
"... Giraldi is not the only one to notice the upward progress of the most incompetent yes-men in the Agency. A close look at most of them reveals a track record of little or no operational success balanced by excellent sucking up skills. These characters quickly figured out how to get ahead and doing your job in the field is not it. Of course, most are ego maniacs so they are totally oblivious to their own uselessness. ..."
"... How "Russiagate" began: After the primaries, both Hillary and Donald faced divided political parties even though they had won the nomination. These divisions were worse than the normal situation after contested primaries. On the Democratic side, Hillay had just subverted the will of the voters of her party, who seemed to favor Bernie Sanders over her. Hillay had won with corrupt collusion and rigging amongst the DNC, the higher ranks of the Democratic Party, and major media such as the NYT and CNN. ..."
"... Then, a leak of emails from the DNC HQ publicized her interference in the democratic processes of the Democratic Party. This threatened to ene the Hillary for President campaign right then and there. If the majority of Democrats who'd favored Bernie refused to support Hillary because of her corruption and collusion in denying democracy within the party, she was a sure loser in the fall election. The Hillary camp then immediately started blaming Russia for the exposure of her corruption and rigging of the Democratic process. And that's how "Russiagate" began. ..."
"... Take that bunch of mediocre thinkers, and then make most of them obsessed with their own career advancement above all else. The most dangerous place for a career-obsessed individual is outside the group consensus. ..."
"... So, for instance, Trump should veto the act of war known as the recent sanctions bill. Who cares if it gets overridden? Then he goes back to the voters, who are clearly sick of endless war and who for obvious reasons don't want a nuclear war, and he says this is where I stand. Support me by electing Fill-In-The-Blank to Congress. With the nuclear Doomsday Clock pushing ever closer to midnight, he might just win that fight over the big money and media opposition he's sure to face. ..."
"... Not only has Trump failed to even try to fight the Deep State, but he's also failing to set himself up for success in the next elections. ..."
"... What we are seeing now is The Donald's role in the serial Zionist THEATER. Think deeper about the motive behind Mr. Giraldi's choice to use the Orwellian word "Groupthink" in characterizing the CIA zeitgeist? In the classic work "1984," one observes Big Brother as the catalyst in control of the proles' thought pattern & subsequent action. ..."
"... To rise & FALL as a POTUS is a matter of theater and the American proles are entertained by the political for either 4 or 8 years and the Zionists get their next Chosen actor/actress dramatically sworn in on a bible. ..."
Long ago, when I was a spear carrying middle ranker at CIA, a colleague took me aside and said
that he had something to tell me "as a friend," that was very important. He told me that his wife
had worked for years in the Agency's Administrative Directorate, as it was then called, where she
had noticed that some new officers coming out of the Career Trainee program had red tags on their
personnel files. She eventually learned from her boss that the tags represented assessments that
those officers had exceptional potential as senior managers. He added, however, that the reverse
appeared to be true in practice as they were generally speaking serial failures as they ascended
the bureaucratic ladder, even though their careers continued to be onward and upward on paper. My
friend's wife concluded, not unreasonably, that only genuine a-holes had what it took to get promoted
to the most senior ranks.
I was admittedly skeptical but some recent activity by former and current Directors and Acting
Directors of CIA has me wondering if something like my friend's wife's observation about senior management
might indeed be true. But it would have to be something other than tagging files, as many of the
directors and their deputies did not come up through the ranks and there seems to be a similar strain
of lunacy at other U.S. government intelligence agencies. It might be time to check the water supply
in the Washington area as there is very definitely something in the kool-aid that is producing odd
behavior.
Now I should pause for a moment and accept that the role of intelligence services is to identify
potential threats before they become active, so a certain level of acute paranoia goes with the job.
But at the same time, one would expect a level of professionalism which would mandate accuracy rather
than emotion in assessments coupled with an eschewing of any involvement in the politics of foreign
and national security policy formulation. The enthusiasm with which a number of senior CIA personnel
have waded into the Trump swamp and have staked out positions that contradict genuine national interests
suggests that little has been learned since CIA Director George Tenet sat behind Secretary of State
Colin Powell in the UN and nodded sagaciously as Saddam Hussein's high crimes and misdemeanors were
falsely enumerated.
Indeed, one can start with Tenet if one wants to create a roster of recent CIA Directors who
have lied to permit the White House to engage in a war crime. Tenet and his staff knew better than
anyone that the case against Saddam did not hold water, but President George W. Bush wanted his war
and, by gum, he was going to get it if the CIA had any say in the matter.
Back then as now, international Islamic terrorism was the name of the game. It kept the money
flowing to the national security establishment in the false belief that America was somehow being
made "safe." But today the terror narrative has been somewhat supplanted by Russia, which is headed
by a contemporary Saddam Hussein in the form of Vladimir Putin. If one believes the media and a majority
of congressmen, evil manifest lurks in the gilded halls of the Kremlin. Russia has recently been
sanctioned (again) for crimes that are more alleged than demonstrated and President Putin has been
selected by the Establishment as the wedge issue that will be used to end President Donald Trump's
defiance of the Deep State and all that pertains to it. The intelligence community at its top level
would appear to be fully on board with that effort.
The most recent inexplicable comments come from the current CIA Director Mike Pompeo, speaking
at the Aspen Institute Security Forum. He began by asserting that Russia had interfered in the U.S.
election
before saying that the logic behind Russia's Middle Eastern strategy is to stay in place in Syria
so Moscow can "stick it to America." He didn't define the "it" so one must assume that "it" stands
for any utensil available, ranging from cruise missiles to dinner forks. He then elaborated, somewhat
obscurely, that "I think they find anyplace that they can make our lives more difficult, I think
they find that something that's useful."
Remarkably, he also said that there is only "minimal evidence" that Russia is even fighting
ISIS. The statement is astonishing as Moscow has most definitely been seriously and directly engaged
in support of the Syrian Arab Army. Is it possible that the head of the CIA is unaware of that? It
just might be that Pompeo is disparaging the effort because the Russians and Syrians have also been
fighting against the U.S. backed "moderate rebels." That the moderate rebels are hardly moderate
has been known for years and they are also renowned for their ineffectiveness combined with a tendency
to defect to more radical groups taking their U.S. provided weapons with them, a combination of factors
which led to their being denied any further American support by a presidential decision that was
revealed in the press two weeks ago.
Pompeo's predecessor John Brennan is, however, my favorite Agency leader in the category of
totally bereft of his senses. In testimony before the House Intelligence Committee back in May,
he suggested that some Trump associates might have been recruited by the Russian intelligence service.
He testified that
"I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions
between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about
because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether
or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals."
In his testimony, Brennan apparently forgot to mention that the CIA is not supposed to keep tabs
on American citizens. Nor did he explain how he had come upon the information in the first place
as it had been handed over by foreign intelligence services, including the British, Dutch and Estonians,
and at least some of it had been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan unofficially in the first
place. Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian
operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and elected,
which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate started.
Brennan is certainly loyal to his cause, whatever that might be. At the same Aspen meeting
attended by Pompeo, he
told Wolf Blitzer that if Trump were to fire special counsel Robert Mueller government officials
should "refuse to carry out" his orders. In other words, they should begin a coup, admittedly non-violent
(one presumes), but nevertheless including federal employees uniting to shut the government down.
A lesser known former CIA senior official is
John McLaughlin,
who briefly served as acting Director in 2004. McLaughlin was particularly outraged by Trump's recent
speech to the Boy Scouts, which he described as having the feel "of a third world authoritarian's
youth rally." He added that "It gave me the creeps it was like watching the late Venezuelan [President
Hugo] Chavez."
And finally, there is Michael Morell, also a former Acting Director, who was closely tied
to the Hillary Clinton campaign, apparently driven by ambition to become Director in her administration.
Morell currently provides commentary for CBS television and is a frequent guest on the Charlie Rose
show. Morell considerably raised the ante on Brennan's pre-electoral speculation that there had been
some Russian recruitment of Trump people.
He observed in August that Putin, a wily ex-career intelligence officer, "trained to identify
vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them [did exactly that] early in the primaries. Mr.
Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr.
Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
I and others noted at the time that Putin and Trump had never met, not even through proxies, while
we also wondered how one could be both unwitting and a recruited agent as intelligence recruitment
implies control and taking direction. Morell was non-plussed, unflinching and just a tad sanctimonious
in affirming that his own intelligence training (as an analyst who never recruited a spy in his life)
meant that "[I] call it as I see it."
One could also cite Michael Hayden and James Clapper, though the latter was not CIA They all
basically hew to the same line about Russia, often in more-or-less the same words, even though no
actual evidence has been produced to support their claims. That unanimity of thinking is what is
peculiar while academics like Stephen Cohen, Stephen Walt, Andrew Bacevich, and John Mearsheimer,
who have studied Russia in some depth and understand the country and its leadership far better than
a senior CIA officer, detect considerable nuance in what is taking place. They all believe that the
hardline policies current in Washington are based on an eagerness to go with the flow on the comforting
inside-the- beltway narrative that paints Russia as a threat to vital interests. That unanimity of
viewpoint should surprise no one as this is more of less the same government with many of the same
people that led the U.S. into Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. They all have a vested interested in the
health and well-being of a fully funded national security state.
And the other groupthink that seems to prevail among the senior managers except Pompeo is that
they all hate Donald Trump and have done so since long before he won the election. That is somewhat
odd, but it perhaps reflects a fear that Trump would interfere with the richly rewarding establishment
politics that had enabled their careers. But it does not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of CIA
employees. Though it is admittedly unscientific analysis on my part, I know a lot of former and some
current CIA employees but do not know a single one who voted for Hillary Clinton. Nearly all voted
for Trump.
Beyond that exhibition of tunnel vision and sheer ignorance, the involvement of former senior
intelligence officials in politics is itself deplorable and is perhaps symptomatic of the breakdown
in the comfortable bipartisan national security consensus that has characterized the past fifty years.
Once upon time former CIA officers would retire to the Blue Ridge mountains and raise Labradors,
but we are now into something much more dangerous if the intelligence community, which has been responsible
for most of the recent leaks, begins to feel free to assert itself from behind the scenes. As Senator
Chuck Schumer
recently warned "Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community -- they have six ways
from Sunday at getting back at you."
In jumping this fascist nihilist shark, the groupthinkers have closed themselves off from the
logical conclusion to their viewpoint, which is final annihilation.
Brennan, Morell, and Pompeo should better find ways to justify their salaries: the U.S. has
suffered the greatest breach in cybersecurity on their watch:
" an enormous breach of the United States Security Apparatus by as many as 80 Democrat members
of Congress (past and present). We rail on about the Russians and Trump, but t he media avoids
providing nightly updates about these 5 spies that have compromised Congress ."
"In total, Imran's firm was employed by 31 Democrats in Congress, some of whom held extremely
sensitive positions on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House
Committee on Foreign Affair s."
Nothing new. In the '50s CIA was making foreign wars and cultivating chaos at home, and
blaming all of it on Russia. In the '80s CIA was cultivating anti-nuke groups to undermine Reagan,
and blaming it on Russia. CIA has been the primary wellspring of evil for a long time.
And back to reality we have VIPS Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
Yes you read that right and they are going to the rotten core of this coup against the
United States by presenting a report stating that the DNC was "Leaked" not hacked. The real hacking
came from President Obama's weaponizing of our intelligence agencies against Russia.
That is war, World War Three and it would seem now that Congress is marching that way, but
the report below hold the key to fighting back.
One of the VIPS is William Binney fomer NSA Technical Director, an important expert. leading
the group is Ray McGovern with some whit and grace, well yes how about some sanity, to which humor
is important to the insight and to stay in the sights of what is clever thievery and worse. Much
worse,
and there is a twinkle in the eye when realize that it is straight forward.
And Congress could stop it tout sweet, but well old habits but they have taken an Oath of Office,
so, so what, yeah they did go after Bernie, so will you challenge your elected officials, either
do their sworn duty or resign, for what this sanctions bill against Russia and Iran is a declaration
of war, not only against Russia and Iran, but a declaration of war against the United States.
for there is no reason to do this against Russia when indeed there are great opportunities to
get along, but war is the insanity as it is sedition and treason. Tell them that,
I wonder if groupthink exists.
In any organisation people know quite well why the organisation exists, what the threats are to
its existence.
If they think about this, I wonder.
The CIA is the USA's secret army, it is not comparable to a real intelligence organization like
the British MI5.
The CIA is more like WWII SOE, designed to set fire to Europe, Churchill's words.
If indeed Trump changes USA foreign policy, no longer trying to control the world, the CIA is
obsolete, as obsolete as NATO.
" but President George W. Bush wanted his war and, by gum, he was going to get it if the CIA
had any say in the matter."
Not to defend the CIA, but didn't Rumsfeld, doubt the enthusiasm of the CIA for providing the
slanted, bogus, "sexed up" intelligence the Executive required to make its "destroy Iraq now"
case ? So Rumsfeld therefore set up an independent intelligence agency within the Defence Dept
to provide/create the required "intelligence" ?
I think they find anyplace that they can make our lives more difficult, I think they find
that something that's useful."
Yeah, because that's what resource-constrained countries with limited ability to tap the global
capital markets do. Methinks Mr. Pompeo is projecting his and the neocons' fantasies on the Russians.
As has been the case for decades the Deep State allows Presidents and legislators to make minor
decisions in our government as long as those decisions do not in any way interfere with the Deep
State's goals of total world hegemony and increase in overwhelming power and wealth. Those who
make the important decisions in this country are not elected. The elected 'officials' are sycophants
of the Deep State.
Being resistant to jargon and catch phrases it is only slowly that I have accepted that "Deep
State" is not entirely pretentious waffle when used to describe aspects of the US. However I may
not be your only reader PG who would appreciate a clear explanatory description of the American
Deep State and how it works.
Here are some suggested parameters.
The term is appropriated from the use to describe the mutually loyal corps of Ataturkians in
the Turkish military and intelligence services who were united in service to uphold the ideal
of Ataturkian secular modernisation. The term implies no public accountability or publicity unnecessary
to its purposes.
And its origins imply that it is not just one in a number of major influences ln government or
those who vote for it.
So one has to acknowledge that in the US the Deep State has to be different in the important
respect that levers of power are observably wielded by lobbies for the aged, gun owners and sellers,
Israel, Wall Street, bio fuels, sugar and other ag, pharmaceuticals, oil and gas, the arms industry,
Disney and other Hollywood and media, health insurers and the medical profession, and I could
go on.
These are all relevant to legal events like votes on impeachment or to hold up appointments.
The CIA and FBI together completely united (and note how disunited 9/11 showed them to be) wouldn't
remotely approach the old Turkish Deep State's ability to stage a coup. Are all of the putative
elements of the Deep State together today as powerful as J.Edgar Hoover with his dirt files on
everyone? (A contrast and compare exercise of today's presumed Deep State configuration and modus
operandi with the simpler Hoover days might shine some light on who does what and how today. And
how effectively).
To avoid lack of focus can a convincing account of the US Deep State be best given in terms
of a plausible scenario for
getting rid of Trump as President and/or
maintaining the lunacy and hubris which has the US wasting its substance on totally unnecessary
antagonistic relations with China and Russia and interference in the ME?
I would read such accounts with great interest. (Handwavers need not apply).
Of course the US Deep State must hate Russia. First, Jews have a very long history of hating Russia and Russians. That never changed. The
USSR was not Russia; the USSR was Marxism replacing Russia. Jews tended to love that. Rich Jews
from across the world, from the US and the UK of most interest to us, sent money to support the
Bolshevik Revolution.
Russia managed to survive the USSR and is slowly coming back around to Russian common sense
from the Christian perspective. Neither Jews nor their WASP BFFs can ever forgive that. They want
Russia to act now to commit cultural and genetic suicide, like Western Europe and the entire Anglosphere
are doing.
@polistraThe CIA's source, its birth, is from British secret service. Brit spying. And Brit secret service,
long before the official founding of MI5, did exactly the kinds of things you note the CIA has
done.
The Mossad is another direct fruit of Brit secret service, as is the Saudi General Intelligence
Presidency.
While there can be no doubt about the crackpots in high positions of the most powerful bureaucracies,
it seems to me that the CIA loonies are merely shock troops for an even worse bunch of evil psychos,
the bankster mafiosi.
But doing so would mean a voluntary end to playing the role of Sauron, determined to find and
wear the One Ring to Rule Them All. The average Elite WASP, and his Jewish BFF, definitely would
prefer to destroy the world, at least outside their gated compounds of endless luxury, than to
step down from that level of global domination.
@Wizard
of Oz Wiz – Here is an article I did on the Deep State two years ago. It was one of the first
in the US media looking at the issue. It would have to be updated now in light of Trump, but much
of what it states is still more-or-less correct.
But we need to make certain that your use of the word 'mafiosi' does not lead anyone to assume
that group has more than a handful of Italians. Jews, WASPs, and continental Germanics each will
outnumber Italians by at least 30 to 1.
I am a retired CIA operations officer (something none of the men mentioned by Giraldi are –
Brennan was a failed wanna be, couldn't cut it as an ops officer). He is spot on in his comments.
The majority of people in the CIA, the ones who do the heavy lifting, are patriotic Americans
who are proud of serving their country. I am sure that most voted for Trump as they all know too
well the truth about the Clintons and Obama.
Giraldi is not the only one to notice the upward progress of the most incompetent yes-men in the
Agency. A close look at most of them reveals a track record of little or no operational success
balanced by excellent sucking up skills. These characters quickly figured out how to get ahead
and doing your job in the field is not it. Of course, most are ego maniacs so they are totally
oblivious to their own uselessness.
Well before he was elected I had a letter delivered to President Trump in which I outlined in
detail what would happen to him if he did not immediately purge the CIA of these assholes. I know
that at least some people on his staff read it but, of course, my advice was ignored. Trump has
paid dearly for not listening to an ordinary CIA guy who wanted to give him a reality brief on
those vicious snakes.
Historical facts teach humanity that Anglo-Saxon group of Nations was built on slavery, thuggery
and theft of other peace loving Civilizations.
We Slavs are the New "niggers", hate is the glue that holds you "toGether".
People of color have been successfully conditioned and practice it as well.
Time will tell how well it holds when balloon bursts and 99% gets called to serve as cannon fodder.
Terrorizing UNARMED and WEAKER is not true test of "superiority" and "exceptionalism".
Tiny, extremely tiny minority of Anglo-Saxons and Satraps understand this.
How "Russiagate" began: After the primaries, both Hillary and Donald faced divided political parties even though they
had won the nomination. These divisions were worse than the normal situation after contested primaries.
On the Democratic side, Hillay had just subverted the will of the voters of her party, who seemed
to favor Bernie Sanders over her. Hillay had won with corrupt collusion and rigging amongst the
DNC, the higher ranks of the Democratic Party, and major media such as the NYT and CNN.
Then, a leak of emails from the DNC HQ publicized her interference in the democratic processes
of the Democratic Party. This threatened to ene the Hillary for President campaign right then
and there. If the majority of Democrats who'd favored Bernie refused to support Hillary because
of her corruption and collusion in denying democracy within the party, she was a sure loser in
the fall election. The Hillary camp then immediately started blaming Russia for the exposure of her corruption
and rigging of the Democratic process. And that's how "Russiagate" began.
It probably does as do group psychoses and group fantasies.. Anyone who's ever served in a beuaracracy
knows that groupthink exists.
Take a bunch of mediocre minds. And, they do exist, as Garrison Keiler once famously made a
joke out of with his line Welcome to Lake Woebegone, where all the children are above average.
Take that bunch of mediocre thinkers, and then make most of them obsessed with their own career
advancement above all else. The most dangerous place for a career-obsessed individual is outside
the group consensus. If everyone is wrong, then there is safety in the group. After all, if they
are wrong, so was everyone else in the organization. Thus they are immune to attack and censure
for being wrong. But if someone takes a position outside of the group consensus, that can be a
career-ending move if they are wrong, as now everyone else will be in the I-told-U-So camp. And
even if they are correct, they will still be hated and shunned just for being the person who pointed
out to the group that they are wrong.
So, you take your typical average mind, and not only do they not have any great insights of
their own, but they tend to stick to the group out of sheer survival and then when you take a
mass of these mediocre minds you have 'groupthink'.
If only Trump would really clean the swamp - particularly the neo-cons and other traitors and
globalists. One can dream ....
What we've learned from Trump is that 'Draining the Swamp' will
take more than an individual. It will take a political movement.
One sees this on the fringes of politics. Someone gets the idea of running for President, and
they point out all that is wrong. But, they focus only on their own campaign, their own goal,
and they thus gloss over the fact that they'll be outnumbered and powerless even if they win.
Seen this often on the Left. The most recent example is Bernie Sanders. Likewise, had Bernie
been elected President, he too would face an entrenched establishment and media with only a small
fraction of the Congress supporting him.
Change has to be built from the bottom up. There are no shortcuts. Electing a Trump, or a Nader
or a Bernie does not lead to real change. Step one is to build the political movement such that
it has real voting block power and which has already won voting majorities in the legislature
before the movement achieves the election of a President.
What Trump has needed to be doing for this first two years is to form clear divisions that
he could then take to his voters in the mid-term elections. He's needed to lay out his own agenda.
So what if he loses votes in Congress? He then takes that agenda back to the voters in 2018 with
a nationwide slate of Congressional candidates who support that agenda and runs a midterm campaign
asking the voters to help him drain that swamp.
So, for instance, Trump should veto the act of war known as the recent sanctions bill. Who
cares if it gets overridden? Then he goes back to the voters, who are clearly sick of endless
war and who for obvious reasons don't want a nuclear war, and he says this is where I stand. Support
me by electing Fill-In-The-Blank to Congress. With the nuclear Doomsday Clock pushing ever closer
to midnight, he might just win that fight over the big money and media opposition he's sure to
face.
Not only has Trump failed to even try to fight the Deep State, but he's also failing to set
himself up for success in the next elections.
It is a serious error to consider President Trump "naive."
What we are seeing now is The Donald's role in the serial Zionist THEATER. Think deeper about the motive behind Mr. Giraldi's choice to use the Orwellian word "Groupthink"
in characterizing the CIA zeitgeist? In the classic work "1984," one observes Big Brother as the catalyst in control of the proles'
thought pattern & subsequent action.
To rise & FALL as a POTUS is a matter of theater and the American proles are entertained by
the political for either 4 or 8 years and the Zionists get their next Chosen actor/actress dramatically
sworn in on a bible.
Mr. Trump is neither naive nor stupid. Sheldon Adelson would not donate $millioms to any POTUS
wannabe who could not effectively lead the American Groupthink tradition. Subsequently, the political
horror show is brought to you in the understandable form of the perpetually elusive Deep State
which gets annual Academy Award.
Bernie Sanders and the Myth of the 1 Percent
The very rich are richer than people imagine.
By Paul Krugman
A peculiar chapter in the 2020 presidential race ended Monday, when Bernie Sanders, after
months of foot-dragging, finally released his tax returns. The odd thing was that the returns
appear to be perfectly innocuous. So what was all that about?
The answer seems to be that Sanders got a lot of book royalties after the 2016 campaign,
and was afraid that revealing this fact would produce headlines mocking him for now being
part of the 1 Percent. Indeed, some journalists did try to make his income an issue.
This line of attack is, however, deeply stupid. Politicians who support policies that
would raise their own taxes and strengthen a social safety net they're unlikely to need
aren't being hypocrites; if anything, they're demonstrating their civic virtue.
But failure to understand what hypocrisy means isn't the only way our discourse about
politics and inequality goes off the rails. The catchphrase "the 1 Percent" has also become a
problem, obscuring the nature of class in 21st-century America.
Focusing on the top percentile of the income distribution was originally intended as a
corrective to the comforting but false notion that growing inequality was mainly about a
rising payoff to education. The reality is that over the past few decades the typical college
graduate has seen only modest gains, with the big money going to a small group at the top.
Talking about "the 1 Percent" was shorthand for acknowledging this reality, and tying that
reality to readily available data.
But putting Bernie Sanders and the Koch brothers in the same class is obviously getting
things wrong in a different way.
True, there's a huge difference between being affluent enough that you don't have to worry
much about money and living with the financial insecurity that afflicts many Americans who
consider themselves middle class. According to the Federal Reserve, 40 percent of U.S. adults
don't have enough cash to meet a $400 emergency expense; a much larger number of Americans
would be severely strained by the kinds of costs that routinely arise when, say, illness
strikes, even for those who have health insurance.
So if you have an income high enough that you can easily afford health care and good
housing, have plenty of liquid assets and find it hard to imagine ever needing food stamps,
you're part of a privileged minority.
But there's also a big difference between being affluent, even very affluent, and having
the kind of wealth that puts you in a completely separate social universe. It's a difference
summed up three decades ago in the movie "Wall Street," when Gordon Gekko mocks the limited
ambitions of someone who just wants to be "a $400,000-a-year working Wall Street stiff flying
first class and being comfortable."
Even now, most Americans don't seem to realize just how rich today's rich are. At a recent
event, my CUNY colleague Janet Gornick was greeted with disbelief when she mentioned in
passing that the top 25 hedge fund managers make an average of $850 million a year. But her
number was correct.
One survey found that Americans, on average, think that corporate C.E.O.s are paid about
30 times as much as ordinary workers, which hasn't been true since the 1970s. These days the
ratio is more like 300 to 1.
Why should we care about the very rich? It's not about envy, it's about oligarchy.
With great wealth comes both great power and a separation from the concerns of ordinary
citizens. What the very rich want, they often get; but what they want is often harmful to the
rest of the nation. There are some public-spirited billionaires, some very wealthy liberals.
But they aren't typical of their class.
The very rich don't need Medicare or Social Security; they don't use public education or
public transit; they may not even be that reliant on public roads (there are helicopters,
after all). Meanwhile, they don't want to pay taxes.
Sure enough, and contrary to popular belief, billionaires mostly (although often
stealthily) wield their political power on behalf of tax cuts at the top, a weaker safety net
and deregulation. And financial support from the very rich is the most important force
sustaining the extremist right-wing politics that now dominates the Republican Party.
That's why it's important to understand who we mean when we talk about the very rich. It's
not doctors, lawyers or, yes, authors, some of whom make it into "the 1 Percent." It's a much
more rarefied social stratum.
None of this means that the merely affluent should be exempt from the burden of creating a
more decent society. The Affordable Care Act was paid for in part by taxes on incomes in
excess of $200,000, so 400K-a-year working stiffs did pay some of the cost. That's O.K.: They
(we) can afford it. And whining that $200,000 a year isn't really rich is unseemly.
But we should be able to understand both that the affluent in general should be paying
more in taxes, and that the very rich are different from you and me -- and Bernie
Sanders. The class divide that lies at the root of our political polarization is much
starker, much more extreme than most people seem to realize.
The usual media suspects, the Trump-Putin conspiracy crowd, ignored this: Bernie was a
smashing success on FoxNews Bethlehem, Pa townhall.
veryone agrees: Bernie Sanders' Fox News appearance was a major success.
"Sanders takes on Fox -- and emerges triumphant," proclaimed Politico. Vice judged
Bernie's appearance "victorious." The Washington Post opined that Bernie's stellar
performance "suggest[s] that [Trump] can, indeed, be beaten." The Atlantic, usually eager to
declare that Bernie has blundered, conceded that "it paid off."
But most coverage restricts its analysis to Sanders' 2020 election prospects, overlooking
the true significance of the event. It's not just that he's willing to make a pitch to Fox's
viewership and thus stands a better chance at winning the presidency -- it's that the Right
could lose some of the working-class support it doesn't deserve, a process that could easily
snowball out of their control." https://jacobinmag.com/2019/04/berni-sanders-town-hall-fox-news
And when Bernie asked the crowd if they would exchange their company health care plan for
M4A, the crowd went nuts.
Of course, Krugman, Pelosi, and the corrupt, centrist Democratic establishment will
continue to assure us that 'people are happy with their corporate coverage." BS!!!
The 'no, we can't' crowd here will undoubtedly assure us that 'sure, they'd love universal
coverage, but it's not politically feasible.' They need to watch the Fox Town Hall. If it's
not feasible, then it's because Democrats don't want it (in deference to insurance
companies,) not because it's not feasible.
No surprise there. In geopolitics, one bad deed deserves another...US constantly interfering
in others' politics, too. Sadly, Democrats will seize on this to push for confrontation with
Russia. Question is, what do they want, nuclear war?
What's sickly ironic to me is that Democrats could care less about the security of the
voting system, even after the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004.. Why is it OK for
billionaires and corporation to rig electronic voting machines against Democrats? Where was a
Mueller Commission back then?
Personally, I think that billionaires' election theft is much more effective and
consequenctial than any Russian meddling, which was probably not that effective anyway.
Sanders has clearly demonstrated what resonates with progressive voters...and even with many
Fox viewers.
But Pelosi and the corrupt Democratic establishment ignore that...and can't even come up
with any coherent message or an appealing agenda at all. Instead, they insist on continuously
replaying Hillary's sour grapes. What is the point? How many votes will Hillary's bitterness
get for Democrats?
"... Much like Brexit, an antiwar/anit interventionist in the USA has nowhere to go. Both parties have substantial hawkish wings. Any move to peace/antiintervention by the party in power is immediately attacked by the party out of power. MSDNC is practically howling for war with Russia. ..."
"... Of course Trump wants to take the war side. Saudi wants war. Israel wants war. Nothing else counts. ..."
"... Tulsi won't surrender. But she obviously won't win the nomination either. ..."
"... Trump may have said 'no more wars' but he never acted on it. So, someone else came along and picked up the discarded slogan. It's not stealing ..."
"... I wish Tulsi could get more traction. I voted trump believing his anti war statements. Hate his veto of Yemen resolution ..."
"... don't underestimate the perpetual war power's grip on the Democrat party. Pro war liberals like the NYtimes aren't going away in fact they are getting louder. ..."
"... It is remarkable that neither Buchanan nor Khanna would ever consider the necessity to impeach Presidents like Bush, Obama, and Trump for their unconstitutional and criminal acts of aggressive war – or the responsibility of The People to replace the Congress of incumbents with representatives that have not already repeatedly and persistently broken their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution. ..."
"... Instead, Buchanan delivers yet another installment of the Incompetence Dodge: if only the Czar wasn't a sociopathic criminal! If only he listened to us, his loyal supporters! ..."
"... Sanders never "stole" anything, Buchanan. What you're (slowly, dimly) realizing is that your boy Trump never cared a speck for a more sane, less bellicose U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... I will never understand why Trump cultists ever believed he did. A clown who's big complaint about the Iraq war is that "we didn't take the oil" is an unlikely peace advocate. But to be a member of the Trump cult you have to engage in massive psychological projection, daily. ..."
"The president has said that he does not want to see
this country involved in endless wars . I agree with that," Bernie Sanders told the Fox News
audience at Monday's town hall meeting in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
Then, turning and staring straight into the camera, Bernie added: "Mister President, tonight
you have the opportunity to do something extraordinary: sign that resolution. Saudi Arabia
should not be determining the military or foreign policy of this country." Sanders was talking about a War Powers Act resolution that would have ended U.S. involvement
in the five-year civil war in Yemen that has created one of the great humanitarian crises of
our time, with thousands of dead children amidst an epidemic of cholera and a famine.
Supported by a united Democratic Party on the Hill, and an anti-interventionist faction of
the GOP led by Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee of Utah, the War Powers resolution had passed
both houses of Congress. But 24 hours after Sanders urged him to sign it, Trump, heeding the hawks in his Cabinet and
National Security Council, vetoed S.J.Res.7, calling it a "dangerous attempt to weaken my
constitutional authorities." With sufficient Republican votes in both houses to sustain Trump's veto, that should have
been the end of the matter.
It is not: Trump may have just ceded the peace issue in 2020 to the Democrats. If Sanders
emerges as the nominee, we will have an election with a Democrat running on the "no-more-wars"
theme Trump touted in 2016. And Trump will be left defending the bombing of Yemeni rebels and
civilians by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia. Does Trump really want to go into 2020 as a war party president? Does he want to go into 2020 with Democrats denouncing "Trump's endless wars" in the Middle
East? Because that is where he is headed.
In 2008, John McCain, leading hawk in the Senate, was routed by a left-wing first-term
senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who had won his nomination by defeating the more hawkish
Hillary Clinton, who had voted to authorize the war in Iraq. In 2012, the Republican nominee Mitt Romney, who was far more hawkish than Obama on Russia,
lost. Yet in 2016, Trump ran as a different kind of Republican, an opponent of the Iraq war and an
anti-interventionist who wanted to get along with Russia's Vladimir Putin and get out of these
Middle East wars. Looking closely at the front-running candidates for the Democratic nomination of 2020 -- Joe
Biden, Sanders, Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker --
not one appears to be as hawkish as Trump has become. Trump pulled us out of the nuclear deal with Iran negotiated by Secretary of State John
Kerry and reimposed severe sanctions.
He declared Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, to which
Tehran has responded by declaring U.S. Central Command a terrorist organization. Ominously, the
IRGC and its trained Shiite militias in Iraq are in close proximity to U.S. troops.
Trump has recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital, moved the U.S. embassy there, closed the
consulate that dealt with Palestinian affairs, cut off aid to the Palestinians, recognized
Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights seized from Syria in 1967, and gone silent on Bibi
Netanyahu's threat to annex Jewish settlements on the West Bank.
Sanders, however, though he stands by Israel, is supporting a two-state solution and
castigating the "right-wing" Netanyahu regime. Trump has talked of pulling all U.S. troops out of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Yet the
troops are still there. Though Trump came into office promising to get along with the Russians, he sent Javelin
anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and announced a pullout from Ronald Reagan's 1987 INF treaty that
outlawed all land-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles. When Putin provocatively sent 100 Russian troops to Venezuela -- ostensibly to repair the
S-400 anti-aircraft and anti-missile system that was damaged in recent blackouts -- Trump,
drawing a red line, ordered the Russians to "get out."
Biden is expected to announce next week. If the stands he takes on Russia, China, Israel,
and the Middle East are more hawkish than the rest of the field, he will be challenged by the
left wing of his party and by Sanders, who voted "no" on the Iraq war that Biden supported. The center of gravity of U.S. politics is shifting towards the Trump position of 2016. And
the anti-interventionist wing of the GOP is growing. And when added to the anti-interventionist and anti-war wing of the Democratic Party on the
Hill, together, they are able, as on the Yemen War Powers resolution, to produce a new
bipartisan majority.
Prediction: by the primaries of 2020, foreign policy will be front and center, and the
Democratic Party will have captured the "no more wars" political high ground that candidate
Donald Trump occupied in 2016.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan
and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at
www.creators.com.
By the way, Pat, do you know that Jimmy Carter did NOT get the US into any war, nor any
"intervention"? Have you showed him any appretiation for it? Or it was a time when you were
all for it as long as it was against Commies?
Prediction: by the primaries of 2020, foreign policy will be front and center, and the Democratic Party will have
captured the "no more wars" political high ground that candidate Donald Trump occupied in 2016.
Agree. But don't worry. On the second ballot, the super delegates will override the
obvious preference of voters for a "no more wars" candidate and give it to Biden. Who will
lose.
Much like Brexit, an antiwar/anit interventionist in the USA has nowhere to go. Both parties
have substantial hawkish wings. Any move to peace/antiintervention by the party in power is
immediately attacked by the party out of power. MSDNC is practically howling for war with
Russia.
No one to blame but himself. The anti-Russia insanity made it hard for him to stick to that
part of his program, but there is a lot more he could have done, starting by not surrounding
himself with war-mongering idiots like Pompeo and Bolton.
I mean, can we actually be honest here? The Neocons simply do not see Sanders as a genuine
threat. He has an unfair advantage. He can, for instance, criticize American foreign policy
without being accused of anti-semitism.
Those who wish Trump had maintained a more maverick
stance of foreign policy should ask themselves if they supported him energetically enough.
He's a survivor first and foremost. If you aren't working to offer him a legit life
preserver, this is all on you.
>>When Putin provocatively sent 100 Russian troops to Venezuela<<<
And this is why Trump is going to win on the 'national security' issue. As long as U.S.
troops don't actually fight and die in foreign countries the voters love U.S. 'being tough
with its enemies'.
As long as Trump confines his actions to tormenting 3rd world countries, like Venezuela,
Cuba, Nicaragua, Syria, and Yemen with sanctions and military assistance to other
belligerents any opposition will be portrayed as 'hating or apologizing for America the force
for good'.
Being objective, what is more provocative, sending a small number of specialists to
prevent cyber sabotage for the standing govt, or trying to install a new President, seizing
their assets and preventing their oil trade. We are the bullies and the day when we finally
squander our wealth we will find out that we have no friends despite being an alleged force
for good.
I thought that we determined a long time ago that taking something out of another persons
trash can was not stealing.
Trump may have said 'no more wars' but he never acted on it. So, someone else came along
and picked up the discarded slogan. It's not stealing
I wish Tulsi could get more traction. I voted trump believing his anti war statements. Hate
his veto of Yemen resolution. I still defend trump from unfair attacks but am not a supporter
any more.
Pat – good analysis. But don't underestimate the perpetual war power's grip on the
Democrat party. Pro war liberals like the NYtimes aren't going away in fact they are getting
louder.
Adriana "By the way, Pat, do you know that Jimmy Carter did NOT get the US into any war, nor
any 'intervention'? Have you showed him any appretiation [sic] for it? Or it was a time when
you were all for it as long as it was against Commies?"
No, but he did initiate funding for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan BEFORE the Soviet
"invasion," specifically to incite the Soviets to invade and get caught in their own Vietnam
War-like quagmire. President Carter succeeded in that effort, but the world has suffered the
unintended consequences of US funding for jihadist militants ever since.
Oh, and the Carter Administration also continued to recognize the Khmer Rouge as the
"legitimate" government of Cambodia after the Vietnamese Stalinists drove them from power in
1978. I'm sure this was partly done with Cold War calculations in mind – US ally
Communist China was an enemy to both the Soviet Union and its Vietnamese client state, and
the Khmer Rouge were clients of China – but I do not doubt that sticking it to the
Vietnamese who had so recently embarrassed the US played a part in that policy decision,
too.
The Reagan Administration maintained both policies, by the way, by continuing to fund the
Mujahideen and to uphold the fiction that the Khmer Rouge was still Cambodia's legitimate
government (kind of like the fiction that Juan Guaidó is Venezuela's "legitimate"
president).
You are right, if I had just more energetically supported Trump he wouldn't be giving Israel
and Saudi Arabia everything they want and trying to start a war with Iran. That poor guy.
Would just saying nice things about him have been enough or should I have completely drank
the koolade, MAGA hat and all?
Regarding Pat's argument as usual there is some truth here, but he keeps acting like this
is a complete surprise and that Trump has "become" a hawk. Yes some of the campaign promises
mentioned are accurate but he was talking about blowing up Iranian ships and tearing up the
nuclear agreement on the campaign trail. He was never an anti-war candidate, he was just
anti-whatever the previous presidents did candidate. Besides one statement about being
even-handed there was every indication he was going to be at least as reflexively pro-Israel
as any previous president and unsurprisingly he is more. Paul was the only
anti-interventionist candidate and anyone who thinks otherwise was either willfully ignorant
or not paying attention.
It is remarkable that Buchanan considers Trump's veto to be constitutional, but then, so
does Khanna. It is remarkable that neither Buchanan nor Khanna would ever consider the
necessity to impeach Presidents like Bush, Obama, and Trump for their unconstitutional and
criminal acts of aggressive war – or the responsibility of The People to replace the
Congress of incumbents with representatives that have not already repeatedly and persistently
broken their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Instead, Buchanan delivers yet another installment of the Incompetence Dodge: if only the
Czar wasn't a sociopathic criminal! If only he listened to us, his loyal supporters!
It is difficult to decide which kind of unprincipled opportunist is worse – the kind
that successfully profits from Trump, like McConnell, or the kind that hopes in vain for
their paleolithic cause to benefit.
Besides breaking his "no more wars" campaign promises, Trump has not built a wall, jailed
Hillary, capped the deficit, re-instated Glass-Steagall, overturned Obamacare, controlled the
cost of prescription drugs, de-funded Planned Parenthood,
nor pushed legislation for the infrastructure of the country. The potential "peace president"
in 2016 is nothing more than another "perpetual war president".
Sanders never "stole" anything, Buchanan. What you're (slowly, dimly) realizing is that your
boy Trump never cared a speck for a more sane, less bellicose U.S. foreign policy.
I will never understand why Trump cultists ever believed he did. A clown who's big
complaint about the Iraq war is that "we didn't take the oil" is an unlikely peace advocate.
But to be a member of the Trump cult you have to engage in massive psychological projection,
daily.
Of course in Buchanan's case there's another excuse: He's been so dazzled by Trump's
relentless bigotry that everything else, every lie, every cheat, is simply a second- or
third-tier concern, something to explain away. How many pathetic exercises in blame-shifting
has The American Con published under Buchanan's byline since 2016? And all signs are that
they'll keep right on with it until the happy day when Trump is finally gone.
"... The Clinton camp has demonstrated an almost monomaniacal focus on 'winning' to the exclusion of all else. ..."
"... If Sanders splits the Democrat Party, he will be handing Trump a second term, but laying the groundwork for a reformed and restored Democrat Party in later campaigns. If Sanders toes the line and supports Clinton for a second run, he will also be basically handing Trump a second term. (Unless something catastrophic happens between now and the election. Those Black Swans will pop up out of nowhere, as is their wont.) ..."
"... The Clinton phenomenon shows up a basic flaw in politics. Concentration of political power, no matter how effected, will end up in ruin. What is so sad is that the Clintons are not unique, but exemplars of a perennial trend; corruption, both personal and public. ..."
"... While I certainly don't doubt that the Clintonistas are banking on that strategy, it's dependent on all the not-Bernie candidates happily playing along being cannon fodder to stop Bernie. ..."
"... The present top predator class's basic mistake is a common one. After a string of success's, no group seriously considers the fact that nothing is permanent. That would bring the groups self identity as being "Exceptional" into doubt. Hopefully, this present apex predator class will suffer the same malign fate as have all others who have gone before. ..."
"... The Sanders staff and supporters and well-wishers should think about how to re-engineer Trump's "fake news" schtick as much or as little to be able to use it for the Sanders' Campaigns own self-defense and protection. ..."
"... Where is the congressional investigation of the role the press played in "the disinformation campaign against the American people and their presidential election of 2016?" now THAT would be news worthy. ..."
"... Some us remember that WaPo published 16 negative pieces on Bernie in 16 hours during the run up to the last election. By those standards, "our famously free press" is only getting warmed up but the electorate is ready this time. ..."
But let's
start with a national problem in the 2016 election -- the role of the press in trying to make
sure, to the extent it could, that Bernie Sanders would lose to Hillary Clinton. One of the
best sources of information for this is Thomas Frank's long-form examination " Swat Team: The media's
extermination of Bernie Sanders, and real reform ," written for the November 2016 issue of
Harper's Magazine . (Unless you're a Harper's subscriber, the article is
paywalled. An archived version can
be found here .)
Frank states his goal: "My project in the pages that follow is to review the media's
attitude toward yet a third politician, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who ran for the
Democratic presidential nomination earlier this year. By examining this recent history, much of
it already forgotten, I hope to rescue a number of worthwhile facts about the press's attitude
toward Sanders. Just as crucially, however, I intend to raise some larger questions about the
politics of the media in this time of difficulty and transition (or, depending on your panic
threshold, industry-wide apocalypse) for newspapers."
His examination of the "press's attitude toward Sanders" produces a striking discovery:
I have never before seen the press take sides like they did this year, openly and even
gleefully bad-mouthing candidates who did not meet with their approval.
This shocked me when I first noticed it. It felt like the news stories went out of their
way to mock Sanders or to twist his words, while the op-ed pages, which of course don't
pretend to be balanced, seemed to be of one voice in denouncing my candidate. A New York
Times article greeted the Sanders campaign in December by announcing that the public had
moved away from his signature issue of the crumbling middle class. "Americans are more
anxious about terrorism than income inequality," the paper declared -- nice try, liberal, and
thanks for playing. In March, the Times was caught making a number of post-publication
tweaks to a news story about the senator, changing what had been a sunny tale of his
legislative victories into a darker account of his outrageous proposals. When Sanders was
finally defeated in June, the same paper waved him goodbye with a bedtime-for-Grandpa
headline, HILLARY CLINTON MADE HISTORY, BUT BERNIE SANDERS STUBBORNLY IGNORED IT.
Frank marshalls much data to support his claims. I'll leave you to examine those details for
yourself.
"Defining Sanders Out"
Frank then turns to the question of why this occurred (emphasis mine below):
I think that what befell the Vermont senator at the hands of the Post should be of
interest to all of us. For starters, what I describe here represents a challenge to the
standard theory of liberal bias. Sanders was, obviously, well to the left of Hillary Clinton,
and yet that did not protect him from the scorn of the Post -- a paper that
media-hating conservatives regard as a sort of liberal death squad. Nor was Sanders undone by
some seedy journalistic obsession with scandal or pseudoscandal. On the contrary, his record
seemed remarkably free of public falsehoods, security-compromising email screwups,
suspiciously large paychecks for pedestrian speeches, escapades with a comely staffer, or any
of that stuff.
An alternative hypothesis is required for what happened to Sanders, and I want to propose
one that takes into account who the media are in these rapidly changing times. As we shall
see, for the sort of people who write and edit the opinion pages of the Post ,
there was something deeply threatening about Sanders and his political views . He
seems to have represented something horrifying, something that could not be spoken of
directly but that clearly needed to be suppressed.
That threat was to their own status as insider Ivy League–educated
friends-of-people-with-power, especially Democratic Party power, which had aligned itself with
the upper 10%, the professional class, against the lower 90%, the great unwashed.
In Bernie Sanders and his "political revolution" I believe these same people saw
something kind of horrifying: a throwback to the low-rent Democratic politics of many decades
ago . Sanders may refer to himself as a progressive, but to the affluent white-collar
class, what he represented was atavism, a regression to a time when demagogues in rumpled
jackets pandered to vulgar public prejudices against banks and capitalists and foreign
factory owners. Ugh.
Choosing Clinton over Sanders was, I think, a no-brainer for this group. They understand
modern economics, they know not to fear Wall Street or free trade. And they addressed
themselves to the Sanders campaign by doing what professionals always do: defining the
boundaries of legitimacy, by which I mean, defining Sanders out.
And it wasn't just bias in the way the news was written; the editorials and op-eds
were also brutal. As Frank points out, "the Post's pundit platoon just seemed to despise Bernie
Sanders."
Four Year Later
It's been four years since 2015, when the upstart first reared his head and showed himself a
viable threat. The forces arrayed against him have had time to reflect, as have the forces on
his side.
Will the the leaders of the present Party do all they can to extinguish the threat of
Sanders' "political revolution"? It's clear they've
already started . Will the press do their part to stem the tide? The jury's out so far.
Some coverage has been remarkably
bad (also
here ), while other coverage is
surprisingly fair . We'll see.
In those four years the voters have also had time to reflect. Many took note of the 2016
sabotage, as they would call it, and many are ready, their remembered anger just waiting to be
rekindled. Party leaders are aware of this. As a former vice-chair of the DNC
said recently , "if we even have anybody raising an eyebrow of 'I'm not happy about this,'
we're going to lose [the general election] and they'll have this loss on their hands," meaning
the DNC.
It won't take much to make a martyr of Sanders in the eyes of his supporters, especially
after 2016. The only questions are:
• Is the fear of Sanders and his political revolution, which would send many of them
scrambling for other work and start to cut Party ties to the donor class, enough to make their
opposition turn to obviously illegal means?
• If Sanders is indeed made "a martyr," as the party official quoted above fears, what
will be the response of the independent voters who swell those stadium appearances?
The stakes were high in 2016. Given our greater nearness to looming catastrophes, climate
being just one of them, the stakes are exponentially higher today. We do indeed live in
interesting times .
Putting on my Bespoke Tinfoil Hat, I'll posit that the "dirty tricks" are already
happening. As Magister Strether declared, the Clintonistas also have had two years to plan
for combating a strong Sanders campaign.
To the extent this is about politics, it is about institutional politics, not public policy
politics. The Clinton camp has demonstrated an almost monomaniacal focus on 'winning' to the
exclusion of all else.
So, I expect a crowded field of Democrat primary candidates to drown
out Sanders as much as possible and to, most importantly, deny Sanders a first round win at
the convention. Then, the "olde guard" comes into play and the Superdelegates can swing the
nomination to H Clinton as a "Unity Candidate."
That is when Sanders will face his most
difficult decision. Will he abandon the Democrat Party as a bad job? Sanders seems to be
leaving a Third Party run option open with his development of a parallel structure to the
Party apparatus.
If Sanders splits the Democrat Party, he will be handing Trump a second term, but laying the
groundwork for a reformed and restored Democrat Party in later campaigns. If Sanders toes the
line and supports Clinton for a second run, he will also be basically handing Trump a second
term. (Unless something catastrophic happens between now and the election. Those Black Swans
will pop up out of nowhere, as is their wont.)
The interesting problem here is whether or not any party can govern the nation with only ten
or fifteen percent of the population's support. To manage such would, presumably, involve the
full on imposition of an authoritarian state.
Our cousins to the South have much to teach us about how extremes of inequality play out "on
the ground." Oligarchies will sail along without a care in the world until a major opposition
rises up to contest for supremacy. Usually, as the Southern experience shows, those contests
will end up in fire and bloodshed, over and over again, down the years.
The Clinton phenomenon shows up a basic flaw in politics. Concentration of political power,
no matter how effected, will end up in ruin. What is so sad is that the Clintons are not
unique, but exemplars of a perennial trend; corruption, both personal and public.
America was supposed to bring the "blessings of democracy" to the "less well off" of the
southlands. The opposite is happening today.
While I certainly don't doubt that the Clintonistas are banking on that strategy, it's
dependent on all the not-Bernie candidates happily playing along being cannon fodder to stop
Bernie.
Problem is, the establishment isn't as unified as it was in 2016, and many of them
would have no problem poking the rest of the establishment in the eye if they thought it
would increase their chances of winning. A split convention with ~9 candidates coming in with
delegates isn't just a threat to Bernie's chance, it's a threat to all but one candidate.
There's a strong motivation for them, even stronger than for Bernie quite frankly, to thin
the herd out as fast as possible, and I think we're going to see some ugly politics done with
that goal in mind. The establishment in-fighting is going to be nastier than the
Bernie-establishment fighting.
Of course, if it does work out and they superdelegate Biden in even though Bernie had the
most overall votes but shy of an outright majority, they'll be dooming themselves to not just
giving Trump another term but relegating the Democrats to second place status in US politics
for a generation. But clearly they're willing to pay that price to keep their country club in
control of the party.
I think the crowd of establishment neoliberals is going to backfire on the DNC. They will fragment
their loyalists while uniting the Sanders voters, who saw through the same shtick in 2016,
and arguably in 2012.
In typical DNC fashion, their scheme to rig the election by bringing in superdelegates for
the second round will be sabotaged by their arrogance and opportunistic minions all running
for their own [x] slots, and diluting the strength of their donor owners.
The other side is not understanding HRC's support either. Her voters weren't all
neoliberals. Between the certainty of her victory, the narratives of a secret "liberal" HRC,
and her importance to an older generation, these are not transferrable to other candidates
because Terry MacAuliffe or any celebrity says so.
Obama vowed to take it personally if African Americans don't show 2014 Democrats the same
support he received in 2012. Cult like attention doesn't necessarily transfer.
True. And, if you wish to draw parallels, the demise of social-democratic parties in
Europe, especially the British, German, and French, shows this is a global pattern being
juiced by, and carried out by, a global elite of which the US is part and a leading
member.
Bernie wants to have a rebuilt, renewed Democratic Party that reflects social-democratic
norms as they have historically been in Europe. The problem? Soc-Dem parties have mostly
surrendered to the neo-liberal agenda just as the Dems here have. Sweden, Denmark, the
Netherlands – all have shifted mightily to the Right.It is no mistake or error on their
part. Their class interests demand they take sides. All these parties are outgrowths of
professional upper middle-class elements who have taken these parties from the working class.
In doing so, they dragged the "liberal" press with them to become propaganda mouthpieces for
their true "brothers". The causes and particular results within each party could take volumes
to describe – suffice it to say they wee all enemies of elites in their origin, and
were treated as such, spied upon, infiltrated, and whatever else it took to tame them.
All of that seemingly coordinated effort would appear to tin-foil-hatters and many others
to be evidence of some conspiring, if not RICOesque activity. Given the thrust of
those noted anti-Sanders media efforts, the century-old Upton Sinclair quote may be
repurposed.
It is difficult to get a man to understand report on something, when his salary
(and social standing, and access to the best parties, tables, schools, et cetera) depends
on his not understanding acknowledging it.
Freedom of the press keeps getting attacked from ever more clever enemies, thereby
reinforcing its utter necessity.
Sinclair's Quote (TM) is famous exactly because it is applicable across all timelines, all
classes of person, and all types of organization.
Human nature doesn't seem to have changed over the last hundred millennia or so.
Going back over the recent past several thousand years of human history, it becomes clear
that the present assault on press freedom is but another evolution of the perpetual war on
the individual's right to think independently.
The present top predator class's basic mistake is a common one. After a string of success's,
no group seriously considers the fact that nothing is permanent. That would bring the groups
self identity as being "Exceptional" into doubt. Hopefully, this present apex predator class
will suffer the same malign fate as have all others who have gone before.
Happy Good Friday to all the religious out there. For the rest, enjoy a weekday without the
stock market to worry about.
They could also come out and vote for one of the little Vanity Third Parties. If the
DemParty ticket is not some combination of Sanders Warren Gabbard . . . . and several-to-many
million Bitter Berners vote for a Third Party, and the Dem Ticket loses, and the numbers of
Dem voters + the numbers of Third Party voters would add up to having been a victory for the
Dems; then a message will have been sent about the cruciality of the Bitter Berner vote and
how it can not be safely ignored if "winning the election" really is the goal.
I think its incumbent to remember its not Sanders per se that is causing orthodoxy to act
out . its what he represents e.g. something that can throw a spanner in the good works of
neoliberalism.
Sanders crimes are for enabling the unwashed an opportunity to consider options outside
that dominate narrative.
Challenging the the foundational cornerstone of methodological individualism and all the
aspects bolted on too it – seems a critical point to advance. Lots of time and energy
is spent on questioning the bolt-ons, yet for every one refuted the core can spit out more,
dog chasing tail experience.
Even to the point of forwarding nationalism in one breath and bespoke individualism in the
other – our nationalism protects my squillions . and the consequences of that is
"Natural" [tm].
One of Sander's main 'crimes' is to offer the "unwashed" potentially 'real' Hope. The
Obama-bot offered Hope in bad faith. Thus, both sides of the Classical Greeks' ambiguous view
of 'Hope' are on display. Hope came last out of Pandora's box. The Chorus is still out on the
verdict.
With Obama's false hope, you'd be lucky to receive a dry sip from the water bag as you
continue to grasp, with bloodied and blistered hands, that trireme oar, knowing in the back
of your mind that you'll Never truly escape the chains holding you down to that hot, burning
deck of death !
The Sanders staff and supporters and well-wishers should think about how to re-engineer
Trump's "fake news" schtick as much or as little to be able to use it for the Sanders'
Campaigns own self-defense and protection.
Whenever the media run a dishonest news article, the Sanders Campaign could call it Fake
News. Whenever the media run a dishonest editorial, the Sanders Campaign could call it Fake
Views. The Sanders Campaign could speak of Fake News and Views from the Rich Corporate
MSM.
the "liberal", "progressive" upper class and most of the upper middle class democrats did
well by trump's tax giveaway.
noam chomsky calls them moderate republicans. they stand for identity issues but not
financial ones, nothing that would involve taxing them to give to the rest of the
country.
when it comes down to it most of them will prefer to give trump four more years and hope for
the best and taking back the white house with one of their own later than supporting a
socialist. they're hoping not to face that prospect (in the mirror as well as otherwise) by
defeating bernie – and probably warren, who isn't seen as a big threat now – in
the primaries. if the bernie supporters sit the election out then trump is on them goes the
view.
If biden falters early I see bloomberg coming in as a democrat. if bernie wins anyway i see
schultz coming in as an independent.
it will take a near miracle
I want to see a Sanders vs. Trump election not least because it I think the choice it
forces will put the neoliberal, entitled 10% -- the same neoliberal Clinton supporters who
derided and mocked those Sanders supporters who wouldn't or couldn't get on board with HRC --
in an a similar but reversed position.
Will they follow their own self-righteous admonitions
from four years ago and vote for their hated primary opponent to remove Trump as they
hectored Sanders supporters to do? Will they sit out the election, unable to hold their noses
and vote a Sanders ticket likely to raise their taxes? Exactly the way many Sanders
supporters did with HRC and were viciously excoriated by that same 10% for doing? Or will
they go full "evil"/self-loathing and secretly vote for the Satan Trump to keep the country
out of socialist hands and prevent having their taxes raised?
I can't wait to hear the
neoliberal chattering classes trying to publicly reason it out. Many exploding heads, rank
hypocrisy, and much cognitive dissonance will be on full public view.
The article mentions that some media seems reasonably fair this time around maybe some
thinking sanders can't be stopped, or the lack of somebody obviously about to be
coronated.
If Biden doesn't take off more media will become fair institutions want to be on the winning
side.
Anti-Sanders press? Oh come on. The Anti-Clinton press was in full bloom as well. Sanders
has been a mess so far. SJW politics, health care reform and free college ..basically the
Clinton 2016 playbook. It didn't build the enthusiasm to make her campaign electoral proof
against the Trump Russian supporters hack, bots and fake news campaigns to ship up her
likeability issues.
Then Biden comes out with what one union rep called kitchen table issues. Major corporate
welfare for domestic manufacturers, multi trillion dollar infrastructure program, stuff Obama
campaign ed on in 2008 but pivoted away from by September 2009 which in Biden's opinion, hurt
his Presidency.
Bernie much like AOC live so much in esoteric fantasy, much like Hillary
Clinton .which made him such a nice foil to her. The problem is this time, he is going to go
against a bunch of other candidates that are bullshitters, reality manipulators and salesmen,
he gets drowned. Well beyond Biden as well, there is going to be 15+ sniping away.
Bernie needs to pivot imo by fall of the union vote is going to turn on him
You seem confused. The press was anti Sanders and very much pro Clinton during the
primaries.
The anti Clinton press played some role in the general election, but for the most part by
noticing her actual flaws. There was also an enormous amount of anti Trump press, again based
on his actual flaws, but he also received massive free publicity during the whole year and it
turned out his voters simply didn't care about his flaws.
Bernie is using the Clinton playbook? I don't think so. And as for the unions endorsing
Biden, it's been at least 40 years since the rank-and-file voted with the union bosses.
If I say something enough times, especially if I have a big media outlet, it is true. Up
is down; an orange is the city of Houston; DNC slicksters who would sell your grandmother for
cat food are just reg'lar folks fighting for all of us
wow, you don't think the press was aligned against bernie, that is stunning. What color is
the sky in your world? Have you ever been to earth?
So bernie was using hillary's playbook? Hillary clinton?
I'm guessing you think you can just "say stuff", and it will be taken seriously. Fat chance
with that drivel . time to get a clue
even the most casual observer would remember the hit squad on bernie in every aspect of the
media . but for those who don't have the ability to discern reality, the secret is to " bang
the rocks together" . so dude.. watch your fingers.
This is the most incoherent post I have seen on this site. I truly mean that. How in the
world could anyone think that Bernie is copying Clinton of all people? SHE was the one
leading on policy? What bubble do you live in?
"Bernie much like AOC live so much in esoteric fantasy"
Based on what? What policies that he supports are unpopular and would not work? When he
goes to West Virginia and meets with a room full of Trump supporters, goes on Fox and
connects with people there, are you claiming that most other candidates, especially left of
center, could do the same? How could anyone, especially after the leaks, claim that the press
wasn't fully on the side of the Clinton campaign, often openly colluding with the
campaign?
You seem confused about who kept playing the SJW cards as well. I think I remember in the
first Sanders-Clinton debate a point where Sanders called for re-breaking-up, re-Glassing and
re-Steagalling the banks. And Clinton said " breaking up the banks won't do a THING about
racism." And it is the anti-Sanders Neera Tandecrats seeking the nomination who are
presenting themselves as a live action multi-choice menu of SJW Housekeeping Seal of Approval
Identy choices.
Sanders was here yesterday and as requested by Lambert I'll have something to say about it
during Water Cooler. But I will say that the crowd was very enthusiastic and the press
coverage fair. 2020 may not in fact be a replay of 2016. This time Trump including TDS is the
spectre that hangs over the entire process.
Remember when Bernie had pulled even, if not ahead of Hillarity, just prior to the 2016
Dim convention? And he had the Speech of His Life in either AZ or NV?
And Trump was set to speak at the identical time?
And the media focused on Trump's empty podium, mysteriously empty for 1.5 hours
And the media did not cover Bernies speech-of-the-year, not one whit?
Never, ever forget -- and treat the media with the derision and suspicion they have so
justly earned
Yes the Dem press will be flinging poo at Sanders. But take a gander at Faux News and
their town hall with Bernie – and Tucker Carlson's amazing mention of Dem Party
cheating of Sanders in the primary. Just as the "liberal" press gave Trump tons of free
publicity, so too the reactionary press seems to be giving free coverage to Sanders.
It will be nice to see Sanders wipe the floor with Biden. And if the Dems cheat again and
nominate Biden or some other obedient and photogenic bought and paid for candidate, watch
Trump wipe the floor with them.
Will the Dems fall on their swords again to keep Sanders out? They will try, helped by
their pals in the propaganda apparatus.
It's kinda like how we used to tease our Nazi 'bagger, Republican friends, about
Re-antimating Zombie Reagan to run, since they had nobody that wasn't a pathetic, waddling
stereotype to vote for? Maybe, simply run Dead Kennedys. Meanwhile, perhaps a holographic
Fred Rodgers, Sally Struthers' disembodied whine or comforting Dr Seuss character? Liberals
all like Gandalf, right?
The people here have more time than money. And they ( we) have invested our time in
finding out enough things to where the spenders of fire hose-loads of money find us resistant
to their propaganda.
So since the money will not be taken out of politics until the people who engineer the money
into politics have been driven out of public life, the rest of us will have to fight on
various un-monetized battlefields.
Time isn't money. Time is life itself.
A British-India Indian is once supposed to have said ( to the West in general . . .) " You
have all the watches. But we have all the time."
After a couple of years of " the press" yammering on with stories of "Russians" subverting
our elections, when will we see the real "deplorable's" be shamed. The press, and their snide
comments,their acts of omission,their down right lying, their assault on the hearts and minds
of the voting population. The press is probably the most valuable group in the election of
Donald trump. They are the ones who champion the lie and the smear, they are the ones who
make the news "fake", so the supporters of trump have something to latch onto.
Where is the congressional investigation of the role the press played in "the
disinformation campaign against the American people and their presidential election of
2016?"
now THAT would be news worthy.
Thanks for taking on this, Yves! I look forward to future installments!
IMO, it has become increasingly difficult for mainstream media (MSM) to de-legitimatize
Bernie this time around. My take is that I see #TeamSanders taking steps to make sure the
signal-to-noise ratio remains in Sanders' favor. MSM attempts this time around take on
more of a mindless screeching tone, and thus far, given the Senator's now nationwide
popularity, it appears that far less people are being moved by these attempts (see latest
nationwide poll). But it's all going to play on repeat from 2015/2016. Krugman has already
begun his insufferable tone policing and
disqualifying .
Some us remember that WaPo published 16 negative pieces on
Bernie in 16 hours during the run up to the last election. By those standards, "our
famously free press" is only getting warmed up but the electorate is ready this time.
Here in Massachusetts, almost all the Our Revolution chapters are in affluent
municipalities (if you've studied American history you've heard of them: Concord, Cambridge,
Lexington, Amherst), with a couple that are supposedly forming in less affluent communities.
The events that have been advertised have all been in these more affluent communities so I
imagine that's where the real action is. I emailed the one chapter I saw for a more working
class community like my hometown and got no response.
In the Our Revolution MA Facebook group, there are some wonderful people, but there has
been almost no discussion of the housing crisis, which is the biggest progressive issue
facing the state right now. The resolution to the housing crisis will require precisely
overcoming opposition to new housing in those affluent municipalities.
So, how do your organize a real progressive movement when the people who call themselves
progressives are overwhelmingly deeply embedded in the top 10%?
This is unfortunately Putnam's decline of bowling leagues. There isn't an easy answer. One
of the points of The 50 State Strategy was the recognition of this problem and the need for
support and even the ability to access space for the purposes of meeting places. Obama used
his celebrity to stamp out much of these efforts. People can't do it forever, so in a sense
everyone is starting over with an openly hostile DNC under Perez. Obviously, the decade of
additional economic decline for most Americans is a problem.
One problem is the sympathetic among the 10% need to understand the "moderate suburban
Republicans" have polished jackboots ready to go and have no interest in good government
despite their seemingly "polite" nature. The DSA's brake light clinic is probably the model
that needs to be followed, just expanded. Something like "free tax filing" assistance in
January. Obviously, CPAs have to earn a living, but taxes don't need to be done in April.
Maybe they could be paid.
If the establishment rigs the process once again and Sanders doesn't get the nomination, I
will not vote for the anointed Democratic candidate. I forced myself to vote for Hillary
Clinton and I will never do that again. I also will do everything in my power to burn down
the Democratic party. I wonder if the establishment has a clue as to how furious most people
are? Are they paying attention to what's happening throughout Europe–and I wonder how
long it will be before you see weekly protests here? P.S. I'm ordering my yellow vest now
.
Trump betrayed anti-war republicans. As the result he lost any support of anti-war
Republicans. That can't be revered as he proved to be a marionette of Israel lobby. How that will
influence outcome of 2020 elections remains to be seen.
"The president has said that he does not want to see this country involved in endless wars .
I agree with that," Bernie Sanders told the Fox News audience at Monday's town hall meeting in
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
Then, turning and staring straight into the camera, Bernie added: "Mister President, tonight
you have the opportunity to do something extraordinary: sign that resolution. Saudi Arabia
should not be determining the military or foreign policy of this country."
Sanders was talking about a War Powers Act resolution that would have ended U.S. involvement
in the five-year civil war in Yemen that has created one of the great humanitarian crises of
our time, with thousands of dead children amidst an epidemic of cholera and a famine.
Supported by a united Democratic Party on the Hill, and an anti-interventionist faction of
the GOP led by Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee of Utah, the War Powers resolution had passed
both houses of Congress.
But 24 hours after Sanders urged him to sign it, Trump, heeding the hawks in his Cabinet and
National Security Council, vetoed S.J.Res.7, calling it a "dangerous attempt to weaken my
constitutional authorities."
With sufficient Republican votes in both houses to sustain Trump's veto, that should have
been the end of the matter.
It is not: Trump may have just ceded the peace issue in 2020 to the Democrats. If Sanders
emerges as the nominee, we will have an election with a Democrat running on the "no-more-wars"
theme Trump touted in 2016. And Trump will be left defending the bombing of Yemeni rebels and
civilians by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia.
Does Trump really want to go into 2020 as a war party president? Does he want to go into
2020 with Democrats denouncing "Trump's endless wars" in the Middle East? Because that is where
he is headed.
In 2008, John McCain, leading hawk in the Senate, was routed by a left-wing first-term
senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who had won his nomination by defeating the more hawkish
Hillary Clinton, who had voted to authorize the war in Iraq.
In 2012, the Republican nominee Mitt Romney, who was far more hawkish than Obama on Russia,
lost.
Yet in 2016, Trump ran as a different kind of Republican, an opponent of the Iraq war and
an anti-interventionist who wanted to get along with Russia's Vladimir Putin and get out of
these Middle East wars.
Looking closely at the front-running candidates for the Democratic nomination of 2020 -- Joe
Biden, Sanders, Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker --
not one appears to be as hawkish as Trump has become.
Trump pulled us out of the nuclear deal with Iran negotiated by Secretary of State John
Kerry and re-imposed severe sanctions.
He declared Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, to which
Tehran has responded by declaring U.S. Central Command a terrorist organization. Ominously, the
IRGC and its trained Shiite militias in Iraq are in close proximity to U.S. troops.
Trump has recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital, moved the U.S. embassy there, closed the
consulate that dealt with Palestinian affairs, cut off aid to the Palestinians, recognized
Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights seized from Syria in 1967, and gone silent on Bibi
Netanyahu's threat to annex Jewish settlements on the West Bank.
Sanders, however, though he stands by Israel, is supporting a two-state solution and
castigating the "right-wing" Netanyahu regime.
Trump has talked of pulling all U.S. troops out of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Yet the
troops are still there.
Though Trump came into office promising to get along with the Russians, he sent Javelin
anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and announced a pullout from Ronald Reagan's 1987 INF treaty that
outlawed all land-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles.
When Putin provocatively sent 100 Russian troops to Venezuela -- ostensibly to repair the
S-400 anti-aircraft and anti-missile system that was damaged in recent blackouts -- Trump,
drawing a red line, ordered the Russians to "get out."
Biden is expected to announce next week. If the stands he takes on Russia, China, Israel,
and the Middle East are more hawkish than the rest of the field, he will be challenged by the
left wing of his party and by Sanders, who voted "no" on the Iraq war that Biden supported.
The center of gravity of U.S. politics is shifting towards the Trump position of 2016. And
the anti-interventionist wing of the GOP is growing.
And when added to the anti-interventionist and anti-war wing of the Democratic Party on the
Hill, together, they are able, as on the Yemen War Powers resolution, to produce a new
bipartisan majority.
Prediction: by the primaries of 2020, foreign policy will be front and center, and the
Democratic Party will have captured the "no more wars" political high ground that candidate
Donald Trump occupied in 2016.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and
read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at
www.creators.com.
"... Great description of the kind of panic I'm sure the network heads were feeling. Would love to hear the anxious chatter in the board rooms of how to disseminate it, how to selectively cut and edit clips for their own narrative, how to twist his words to tarnish him, etc (hope the Bernie folks only agreed under the direction that they'd get the whole video also). ..."
"... The campaign website, Pete for America, doesn't feature a policy section, something that has caught the attention of critics who say Buttigieg is an empty suit ..."
"... From the New York Times today: 'Stop Sanders' Democrats Are Agonizing Over His Momentum ..."
Fox News Crowd CHEERING LOUDLY at Bernie's Town Hall, For Gov't-Run Healthcare, Taxing
the Rich, Protecting SS, etc.
Mark from Queens on Mon, 04/15/2019 - 8:11pm I ain't got much to say here.
Just perusing Twitter and #BernieTownHall is trending, though obviously being overshadowed by
the Notre Dame fire.
And while I don't believe much in electoral politics the message here, the
evidence that the divide and conquer bullshit isn't as effective as we've been led to
believe, the fact that when asked people on the Right do want many of the same
things we want - are all something to behold.
We all know that here. But to actually witness that is always a good reminder, and goes a
long way to dissolving the manufactured divisions that the corporate media manipulates.
Here's some clips and commentary about Bernie's Fox town hall tonight:
Should we raise the minimum wage to a living wage? Yes!
Should we rebuild our crumbling infrastructure? Yes!
Should we ensure veterans get health care they earned? Yes!
Should we protect Social Security and Medicare? Yes!
If you think Bernie isn't doing WORK converting some right leaning fence sitters watching
this Fox News town hall you're delusional. Even if it's just 5% of the audience at home it's
worth it. This is why you engage instead of shame! #BernieTownHall
When propaganda spectacularly blows up in the face of the propagandists it is something
hopeful, at the very least.
Imagine being the CEO of United Healthcare or BlueCross and watching all the money you
spent trying to scare people away from Medicare for All blow up this spectacularly
#BernieTownHall
. pic.twitter.com/gOmmKAXzt0
. . . who emphasize Bernie has less than 30% of the votes in polls (less than the 50% + 1
delegate required to get the nomination) that delegates are awarded by states via primaries
(different formulas), not by total US % vote. So, he can possibly even pull it off on the
first ballot, before the superdelegates' votes kick in.
There really is a chance to pull it off this time! Especially if Bernie does well in the
early primaries and on the newly early Super Tuesday, March 3, 2020.
And for those emphasizing that it's still early. . . the debates start in June, only about
two months away.
When propaganda spectacularly blows up in the face of the propagandists it is
something hopeful, at the very least.
Imagine being the CEO of United Healthcare or BlueCross and watching all the money
you spent trying to scare people away from Medicare for All blow up this spectacularly
#BernieTownHall
. pic.twitter.com/gOmmKAXzt0
I enjoyed these snippets, and particularly how Bret constantly looked like he was debating
pulling a fire alarm to break up this cheerfest or to just run and leave the cohost to deal
with it.
Great description of the kind of panic I'm sure the network heads were feeling. Would love to
hear the anxious chatter in the board rooms of how to disseminate it, how to selectively cut
and edit clips for their own narrative, how to twist his words to tarnish him, etc (hope the
Bernie folks only agreed under the direction that they'd get the whole video also).
This kind of thing blows their whole Us vs. Them cover. They'll probably not be doing this
again.
@Le Frog
"Someone interrupt the cheering, for Gawd Sakes! Change the subject! Cut to commercial!
Anything!"
The UnitedHealth employee who leaked The Post this video says: "I felt Americans needed
to know exactly who it is that's fighting against the idea that healthcare is a right, not
a privilege." https://t.co/fQAXmVTmdf
The campaign website, Pete for America, doesn't feature a policy section, something that
has caught the attention of critics who say Buttigieg is an empty suit -- or, in his case,
empty dress pants plus a white or blue shirt with the sleeves rolled up (tie, but no
blazer). Buttigieg talks in specifics about the Electoral College (he wants to get rid of
it) and the Supreme Court (he imagines an extreme reconfiguration, with 15 judges instead
of nine, five of them confirmed by unanimous vote of the other ten, a way of ensuring
nonpartisanship, he says). On other matters, he is less detailed. "I'm very specific on
policy. I just think that we need to talk about values first. You can't just expect people
to be able to derive your values by looking at the minutiae of your policy proposals," he
told me.
So what are Pete Buttigieg's proposed policies? I gather he's trying to get a toehold on
the "surprise me" vote. Oh, and policy is "minutiae," not the life-or-death matter for
millions which it in fact is.
@Mark from Queens
It's too bad Bernie will probably never get live time on Fox again, and that the DNC idiots
refused to have a debate on Fox. We all had stories of Republicans who liked Bernie in 2016,
even those who would have voted for him over Trump. Democrats just cannot bring themselves to
admit that the reason 2016 played out the way it did wasn't Vladimir Putin's fault, it was
Hillary Clinton's.
Moron Beltway gasbags think that winning over Republican votes requires a conservative or
a racist. No, it requires somebody with authenticity who wants to help average voters.
Trump's scam has been played, and a lot of his 2016 voters won't fall for it again. As in
2016, Dems will lose if they run a milquetoast corporate poser. And as in 2016, they'll try
their damnedest to do just that.
There is no question that Fox News hates Bernie Sanders. Without a doubt Fox News hates the
idea of Medicare For All. So when Bernie has a Town Hall on Fox, you can bet that they wanted
to make him look bad. If you read
Fox's review of the Town Hall that is exactly what happened.
Except that isn't what happened.
What actually happened is that Fox moderator Bret Baier made the unforgivable mistake of
asking the audience - a Fox News audience - what they thought of Medicare For All, and
the reaction
was poetry.
Medicare for All May Be Cheaper For Employers, But They Still Don't Like It
This is HUUUGE!
Medicare For All wouldn't just be great for the working class, it would probably be great for
small businesses. Why haven't I heard more about this? It would immediately bump the approval
rating for MFA by 10%-15%-20% in red states.
which
you can find here , I learned that the crowd was booing the Fox News host for some of
their questions, one being a slimy insinuation that Bernie wanted to let felons vote
because it would help him . They also chanted Bernie's name after his closing remarks
(reminiscent of the NY debate).
I hope FOX seizes the opportunity to, at least in part, reinvent itself under the radar
and appeal to a broader demographic. FOX could carve out a new market niche occupying
pro-Bernie populist territory, where other networks fear to tread.
A lot of FOX viewers are probably economically hard-pressed. It ain't a Bloomberg or CNBC
audience we're talking about here.
#8
Boy, all those centrist assholes were right, it was totally a bad move for Sanders to go
on Fox News for a townhall. What an embarrassing look for him, right?
having Bernie do that town hall. Meanwhile, things at CNN are disgusting. The blatant
anti-Bernie agenda is burning like a thousand suns over there. The bias is so obvious but
it's so strange to watch unfold. I just watched FOX host Bernie Sanders, with a FOX-curated
audience chanting BERNIE! BERNIE! while CNN trashes him. I'm not saying CNN is a bastion of
fair coverage and a beacon of the left, but this is madness in real time.
Last night I was writing about this huge swathe of people across the nation -- the
unrepresented and silenced Left -- who are stepping out into the light once more to show
their strength and support for humane and intelligent national policies that benefit all of
the people equally. They are out there and they know what they want.
Outrageous criminal greed among the ruling class is what is fueling the rise of the
American Left. The Intelligence Cartel thinks an intense round of anti-communist fear and
propaganda blasted across the general population will shut the Left down. The think the
brainwashed centrists and corporate media will chase them back into their marginalized
existence. It's always worked before.
The Democrat leaders, standing the ruins of their shattered Hoax, are not so sure this
time. That's why they pushed a crowd of Democratic contenders into the race to dilute the
focus on inconvenient issues. Fifteen years ago, these new candidates would have all looked
promising -- but the betrayal of the neoliberals who screwed and exploited and abandoned the
working class changed all that. Now, people want their share of government protection against
the terrible economic downturns that the corruption of Wall Street and War Street have dumped
on them -- and their families. They want their human right to a safe and healthy life, for
starters. They want food for their hungry children and a roof over their heads, no matter
what.
@Pluto's Republic but in a lot of ways protection from government. The conservatives
have built their creds on the horror of "I'm from the government, I'm here to help" but in
the end no matter who's in control the real horror has been "I'm from the government". It's
why most people see no difference between the r's and d's. Neither will do them any good and
both misread the support from their "base". The r's and d's serve their masters and it's why
elections have devolved into the farce it is.
@gulfgal98 his potential cross appeal. And it was in his favor that he didn't go
after Biden on the progressive question. Bernie is better off running an issues-only campaign
in his competition with the other Ds; let the people decide who is truly progressive by their
policies and their record.
He also did well in not running from the socialism tag, not that he has much choice. He
will need to continue doing this as this country has been conditioned for decades to
associate it with the hammer and sickle. Continued de-conditioning will be needed.
Also a positive was his feisty, fighting spirit in calling out some of the low-blow
questions, esp the cheap shot from the female moderator about Bernie wanting rapists and
murderers to be able to vote for him. My sense is this sort of tough, punch-back approach is
going to resonate better with voters than the soft, polite, confrontation-averse types which
the DP has so many of.
So overall a very good showing by the Bernmeister, a needed small victory for the D side,
and for the moment that other issue, which didn't come up last night, is on the back
burner.
@gulfgal98 but people were once FDR Democrats. They strongly support social security
and decent wages. They are damned mad that their jobs have been shipped out of the country,
and that their children's prospects are worse than theirs. They will never be corporate
friendly. The Democratic Party left them, but they are not corporate Republicans.
There is the Bernie that I love.
I did not realize how much I needed to see that until I was watching it with tears running
down my face.
I will admit that I was having serious doubts because of how he jumped in the Russiagate boat
and how he seemed to be on the wrong side of the Venezuela issue.
I don't have those doubts anymore.
When talking about the MIC, more than once he said "we have to have a strong defense". I
totally agree, but that's it - just defense. Cut that budget in half (or more) and there's
still plenty for defense - just not enough to set up a base in every country that they are
able to so.
When he mentioned the 12 year deadline is when the tears really started to flow. Have any of
the other candidates even acknowledged that deadline?
I have never voted in my life. If Bernie is not cheated again and he gets on the ballot, I
will register and I will cast my first vote ever. I bet I'm not the only one.
"There's a growing realization that Sanders could end up winning this thing, or
certainly that he stays in so long that he damages the actual winner," said David Brock,
the liberal organizer,
From the New York Times today: 'Stop Sanders' Democrats Are Agonizing Over His
Momentum
@MrWebster
That is what I was thinking. Fox certainly knows how to stack an event like this. How could
they possibly have failed to vet the audience members? On the other hand we saw an interview
a couple of weeks ago with an "average Joe" in a greasy spoon somewhere in the rust belt who
was all on board for (I think it was) Medicare for All.
Maybe their screens are faulty. They are making the mistake of screening for labels (are you
a Republican? are you a conservative? did you vote for Trump?) and are themselves so
ideologically blinded that they don't realize that even people who self-describe with all
those labels still want New Deal policies?
Maybe they have an agenda. Visibly TRY but clearly FAIL to discredit Sanders, to set Sanders
up as the Democratic candidate with the idea that Trump will easily beat him.
Stupid or evil? That's always the question.
In this case I'm coming up with "stupid or stupid".
One of my biggest concerns about the 2016 Sanders campaign was that, at least at the
beginning, it was too easily forced to apologize for attacks on supposed "allies of
progressives" in the Democratic ecosystem -- because "unity."
The prime example of that occurred when Sanders accused the Planned Parenthood Action Fund
-- not Planned Parenthood the health care organization, Planned Parenthood AF, the highly
Clintonist political action committee, which had early-endorsed Clinton despite Sanders'
excellent record on women's issues -- of being "part of the establishment."
He was immediately accused by the rest of the establishment, falsely, of attacking Planned
Parenthood clinics. And he backed down, unwisely in my view. (For more on that episode, read
the first few
paragraphs of this piece .)
Well, the highly Clintonist, highly corporate establishment is at it again, in the form of
the corrupt
Center for American Progress (CAP) and its online publication ThinkProgress . (For more
on their corruption, see also
here and here .)
ThinkProgress published a video critical of Sanders, as Lee Fang (who also delves into
their corruption) explains here:
In response to that video Sanders sent CAP a letter
, saying in part:
Center for American Progress leader Neera Tanden repeatedly calls for unity while
simultaneously maligning my staff and supporters and belittling progressive ideas. I worry
that the corporate money CAP is receiving is inordinately and inappropriately influencing the
role it is playing in the progressive movement . (emphasis mine)
Team Sanders then went a whole lot further than that in a public fundraising letter, parts
of which are reproduced below. Note the expansion of the "corporate money" point from the CAP
letter, and also the directness (emphasis mine throughout):
"We are under attack"
Sisters, Brothers, and Friends –
Just like that, our campaign is under attack from the corporate establishment .
This week, an organization that is the epitome of the political establishment --
the Center for American Progress (CAP) -- unleashed and promoted an online attack video
against Bernie.
And behind the scenes on the day Bernie introduced his Medicare for All bill, they held a
conference call with reporters attacking the bill.
That is the Center for American Progress' real goal. Trying to stop Medicare for All
and our progressive agenda .
CAP's leadership has been pretty upfront about their disdain for Bernie -- and for all of
us. They see our political revolution as a threat to their privilege and influence
.
The Center for American Progress is an organization whose massive annual budget is
bankrolled by billionaires and corporate executives that profit from finance,
pharmaceutical companies, fossil fuels, and sending American jobs overseas.
Last year alone, they took funding from financial giants like Bank of America and
Blackstone, whose CEO was chair of Trump's business council and is a leading
Republican donor.
Before that, they cashed checks from companies like BlueCross Blue Shield, Pfizer,
WalMart , and defense contractors like General Dynamics and BAE Systems .
They also took hundreds of thousands of dollars from the fossil fuel pumping United
Arab Emirates while the country was bombing innocent civilians in Yemen – a war
Bernie has led the fight to end.
The Center for American Progress has deep connections to the economic and political
elites who have done so much damage to working families in every zip code. And what we
must do today is send a message that we are prepared to fight back against those who are
working day and night to defeat our movement .
In solidarity,
Team Bernie
That's powerful stuff, no-holds-barred truth-telling. Note the many bells it
rings:
"corporate establishment" "epitome of the political establishment" "real goal stop
Medicare for All and our progressive agenda" "threat to their privilege and influence" "massive
annual budget is bankrolled by billionaires" "deep connections to the economic and political
elites who have done so much damage to working families" "working day and night to defeat our
movement"
The letter also names a few of the companies and countries that bankroll CAP -- Walmart,
Bank of America, Blue Cross, Blackstone, the UAE. He could have listed a great many more. There
are countless stories emerging from former ThinkProgress writers about CAP leadership
squelching aggressive reporting because their reports were negatively affecting CAP
fundraising. Read this twitter thread by former
ThinkProgress reporter Zaid Jilani to see some of those. There are others as well
.
Bernie Sanders is not backing down this time. Unlike 2016, this will be a battle with the
enemy named out loud and its deeds detailed. Looks like the fight, the one our country has been
avoiding for years, is finally on.
I commented about this on another thread to the effect that this is the beginning of a
"Night of the Long Knives" quality power struggle in the Democrat Party.
Glad to see the Sanders campaign being proactive about the dirty dealing that is being used to
try and stop them.
Now for Sanders to start framing the struggle as being between "Their" Democrat Party and "Our"
Democrat Party. Sanders really needs to pull off what Trump managed to do in the Republican
Party; a hostile takeover.
Exactly right. Unlike Trump, however, Bernie will have to do it with the entire corporate
and political establishments against him. And not even a "left" Fox News in his corner. It will
truly be us against (all of) them.
If any democrat wants to be real, they have to attack other democrats, because the democrats
suck.
As a political party, they are so pathetic, they lost to donald trump.
The republicans are vile , and mornic.that is how they appeal to their base ..
So if anything is to be done to try and break the stalemate, it must be the debate of ideas.
Not the battle of personalities , we have now.
The republicans have no real ideas, just worn out tropes. The democratic leadership, go around
"saying", they are progressives ( pelosi interview),but really they are as tired in their way
of thinking as the republicans .
Both groups are not worth a thing.
when pelosi pointed out AOC had a group of five she was being dismissive saying she was
steering a bigger ship democrats of all stripes. even the republicans who won seats as
democrats . but really her and her band of good for nothing democrats, doesn't count for
anything near the five new democrats who are out spoken, and have the good character to be on
the right side of history..
I for one, would vote for anyone who battles the democratic blob of a machine. and anyone who
doesn't have a problem with the democratic party, is un-electable.
Pelosi needs to go.
So sanders should fight the democratic corporatists in the senate, if he is trying to be real.
It is about time he needs that "audacity of hope" thingy.
Bernie is definitely in it to win this time. Last night he crushed it on Fox News. He had
the Fox Town Hall audience cheering and applauding. Yes, Fox News.
It's exactly what both sides of the broken political duopoly feared. Trump's tweet on the
subject bears testament to the latter . The pre #BernieFoxTownHall agita from
pearl-clutching Dem cultists online serves as evidence of the former .
Sanders is staying away from some issues, such as Assange arrest and Venezuela, which has
caused some complaints from the Left. Personally, I think he is being tactical and smart in
that he is attempting to reach the largest portion of the electorate. I doubt that he or his
staff is ignorant on these type issues, but he is set on a goal and does not want to let issues
that might divert his direction toward that goal. Or am I being unduly naïve? I am pretty
skeptical of all politicians, but his consistent history gives me some confidence that he will
be straight on these issues if elected/.
Saying something about two radically different people doesn't logically lead to the same
thing. Obama was great at giving speeches, was a historic candidate and did try to (in a vague
way) make it sound as if he wanted to change the system. He didn't. He pretended to want to
re-negotiate NAFTA, but when the Canadians freaked a bit, his campaign assured them that it was
just talk, cause it was. It was obvious before he took office, to anyone paying attention, that
Obama was a neoliberal that wouldn't change much of anything. But Obama in 2008 is not Bernie
then or now. Obama in 2008 is Beto or mayor Pete now. Empty platitudes, totally cut off from
the struggles of working people, paid to not structurally change what needs to structurally
change by people that benefit from the system as is. Obama was just much better at being that
empty slate than the 2020 version of him. I can almost smell the mayor Pete book deal though,
and I am sure he can too.
Thanks for this comment. I tried to read yesterday's New York piece
on the Democrats' Folksiest Heartland Hope, but between that
mcPhoto at the top, and the conversational, we're-all-in-this
together tone of the writer, stopped after a couple of paras.
The #resistance are all so tired; do they not realize that?
Regarding Mister Obama's speeches, to me they reeked of
hollowness. He had the gestures and cadences down, though.
I think you are not being unduly naive. Watch some of Bernie's videos from the 80ies. He is
very clear eyed about what he's dealing with – and has always said the same thing. He is
being realistic, tactical and smart – raising powerful issues where there is clear daily
pain for the common person that can bring a powerful response – is anyone really
surprised about the Fox audience reaction? (Im only surprised they didnt stack the room with
fakes who would boo him ).
The foreign policy issues are not so clear cut for the common working class person (please
understand that!) and would muddle the message. He finally sees an opening and he is going for
it. He knows what he's doing.
The other thing about Fox is that the owner Murdochs are amoral and apolitical. They go
where the money is. Totally neoliberal. That is all they care about. They know the money train
is coming to a very complex junction and are setting up to go with the money, whether corporate
or little people's.
I think this touches on what could be the most important aspect of a Sanders presidency
– it's not so much the policies (they are important), but the people that would be
brought into government. This letter is an indication that the usual suspects will not be
running the show. In that regard, it could be similar to Reagan's time in office, except way,
way better.
Just got another email from Bernie's campaign. Here it is:
Subject: A serious threat to our campaign
The New York Times has an article today with the headline "'Stop Sanders' Democrats
Are Agonizing Over His Momentum."
"From canapé-filled fund-raisers on the coasts to the cloakrooms of Washington,
mainstream Democrats are increasingly worried " the article begins.
"The Bernie question comes up in every fundraising meeting I do," said one fundraiser.
"It has gone from being a low hum to a rumble," said an operative.
"He did us a disservice in the last election," said another.
"You can see him reading the headlines now," Mr. [David] Brock mused: "'Rich people don't
like me.'"
Mr. Brock -- who smeared Anita Hill and who led an effort to stop our political revolution
four years ago -- is almost correct. They don't just hate Bernie Sanders. They hate everything
our political revolution embodies. They hate Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, breaking up
big banks, free public college for all.
That is why, in the next 48 hours, we are launching a fundraising drive that I hope will
send an unmistakable message to the political establishment about the strength of our political
revolution.
That's why I'm asking you today:
[Link to donation site] Make a $27 contribution to our campaign as part of our emergency
48-hour fundraising drive to fight back against the "anti-Sanders" campaign being hatched by
the financial elite of this country. [End link]
They may have "canapé-filled fundraisers." We have each other.
Well, just moments after reading the NYT article in question, which is quite a doozy, this
popped up in my in box:
"The New York Times has an article today with the headline "'Stop Sanders' Democrats Are
Agonizing Over His Momentum."
"From canapé-filled fund-raisers on the coasts to the cloakrooms of Washington,
mainstream Democrats are increasingly worried " the article begins.
"The Bernie question comes up in every fundraising meeting I do," said one fundraiser.
"It has gone from being a low hum to a rumble," said an operative.
"He did us a disservice in the last election," said another.
"You can see him reading the headlines now," Mr. [David] Brock mused: "'Rich people don't like
me.'"
Mr. Brock -- who smeared Anita Hill and who led an effort to stop our political revolution four
years ago -- is almost correct. They don't just hate Bernie Sanders. They hate everything our
political revolution embodies. They hate Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, breaking up big
banks, free public college for all.
That is why, in the next 48 hours, we are launching a fundraising drive that I hope will send
an unmistakable message to the political establishment about the strength of our political
revolution.
That's why I'm asking you today:
Make a contribution to our campaign as part of our emergency 48-hour fundraising drive to fight
back against the "anti-Sanders" campaign being hatched by the financial elite of this
country.
They may have "canapé-filled fundraisers." We have each other.
In solidarity,
Faiz Shakir
Campaign Manager
Forgetting nothing, learning nothing. One of the true, primal joys of Bernie's 2016 campaign
was hitting the donate button every time the dollar dems dumped on him.
Likewise. I'm giving every time they dump on him, and again every time he hits back. At this
pace, $27 may get to be too expensive. A good problem to have I'd say.
"Bernie Sanders Accuses Liberal Think Tank of Smearing Progressive Candidates"
The "liberal" outfit under discussion is the Center For American Progress. This outfit is
against "single payer" health care. It was in favor of Obama's escalation in Afghanistan.
Funding comes from billionaires like Soros and corporations like Wal-Mart.
The blogger complaining about Sander's awful behavior is a Biden fan, I generally don't
link to stupid sites, and all the connected ones in this case qualify.
I think Trump completely discredited himself in foreign policy due to appointment of Bush II team of neocon which drive it.
So the only chance for him to win is if US voters do not care about foreign policy. Demagogy will not work like in 2016 as
he now have a dismal record including attempt in regime change in Venezuela.
Notable quotes:
"... the vast majority of Americans don't give a hoot about issues of war, peace, and international diplomacy. Why should they care? It's not as though anything is asked of them as citizens. By cynically ditching the draft, Tricky Dick Nixon took the wind out of the sails of current and future antiwar movements, and permanently cleaved a gap between the U.S. people and their military ..."
"... Mothers no longer lose sleep over their teenage sons serving their country and they – along with the rest of the family – quit caring about foreign policy. Such it is, and so it will be, that the 2020 presidential election is likely to be decided by "kitchen-table" affairs like healthcare, immigration, race, and taxes. ..."
"... In 2016, he (correctly) made Hillary"regime change" Clinton out to be the true hawk in the race. Trump, on the other hand, combined tough guy bravado (he'd "bomb the shit" out of ISIS) with earthy good sense (there'd be no more "stupid" Iraq invasions. And it worked. ..."
"... Mark my words: if the DNC – which apparently picks the party's candidates – backs a conventional neoliberal foreign policy nominee, Trump will wipe the floor with him or her. ..."
"... If they want to stand a chance in 2020, the Dems had better back a nominee with a clear, alternative progressive foreign policy or get one the domestic-focused candidates up to speed and fast. ..."
"... So here's how my mental math works: a progressive candidate needs to win over libertarian-minded Republicans and Independents (think Rand Paul-types) by force of their commonsense alternative to Trump's foreign policy. ..."
"... Still, there's more than a little reason for concern . Look at how "Nasty" Nancy Pelosi and the establishment Dems came down on Ilhan Omar for that representative's essentially accurate tweets criticizing the Israel Lobby. ..."
"... Tulsi Gabbard, though she still looks the long shot, remains intriguing given here genuine antiwar (and combat veteran) credentials. ..."
"... Then again, even Bernie has his foreign affairs flaws – such as reflexively denouncing the BDS movement and occasionally calling for regime change in Syria. Nevertheless, both Bernie and Tulsi demonstrate that there's some promise for fresh opposition foreign policy. ..."
The 2020 election will not turn on global issues – and more's the pity. After all, thanks to decades upon decades of accumulating
executive power in an increasingly
imperial presidency,
it is in foreign affairs that the commander-in-chief possesses near dictatorial power. Conversely, in domestic policy, a hostile
Congress can – just ask Barry Obama – effectively block most of a president's agenda.
Still, the vast majority of Americans don't give a hoot about issues of war, peace, and international diplomacy. Why should
they care? It's not as though anything is asked of them as citizens. By cynically
ditching the
draft, Tricky Dick Nixon took the wind out of the sails of current and future antiwar movements, and permanently cleaved a gap between
the U.S. people and their military.
Mothers no longer lose sleep over their teenage sons serving their country and they – along with the rest of the family –
quit caring about foreign policy. Such it is, and so it will be, that the 2020 presidential election is likely to be decided by "kitchen-table"
affairs like healthcare, immigration, race, and taxes.
Be that as it may, serious observers should pay plenty of attention to international strategy.
First, because the occupant of the Oval Office makes policy almost unilaterally – including the decision of whether or not
to end the human race with America's suicidal nuclear button.
Second, because 2020 is likely to be another close contest, turning on the votes of a few hundred thousand swing state voters.
As such, Trump's opponent will need to win every vote on every issue – including foreign affairs. What's more, there are still
some folks who genuinely care about a potential commander-in-chief's international bonafides.
So, while Dems can't win the White House with foreign policy alone, they can lose it by ignoring these issues or – oh so typically
– presenting a muddled overseas strategy.
This is serious.
Just in case there are any out there still underestimating Trump – I, for one, predict he'll win in 2020 – make no mistake, he's
no pushover on foreign policy. Sure he doesn't know much – but neither does the average voter. Nonetheless, Trump is no dope. He's
got the pulse of (white) voters across this country and senses that the populace is tired of spending blood and cash (but mostly
its cash) on Mideast forever wars. In 2016, he (correctly) made Hillary"regime change" Clinton out to be the true hawk in the
race. Trump, on the other hand, combined tough guy bravado (he'd
"bomb the shit"
out of ISIS) with earthy good sense (there'd be no more
"stupid" Iraq invasions. And it worked.
So, with 2020 in mind, whether you're a progressive, a libertarian, or just a Trump-hater, its vital that the opposition (most
likely the Dems) nominate a candidate who can hang with Trump in foreign affairs.
Mark my words: if the DNC – which apparently
picks the party's
candidates – backs a conventional neoliberal foreign policy nominee, Trump will wipe the floor with him or her. And, if the
Dems national security platform reads like a jumbled, jargon-filled sheet full of boring (like it usually does) than Joe the proverbial
plumber is going to back The Donald.
That's what has me worried. As one candidate after another enters an already crowded field, this author is left wondering whether
any of them are commander-in-chief material. So far I see a huge crew (Liz, Kirsten, Kamala, Beto) that live and die by domestic
policy; two potentially conventional foreign policy guys (Biden and Booker); and two other wildcards (Bernie and Tulsi). That's not
a comprehensive list, but you get the point. If they want to stand a chance in 2020, the Dems had better back a nominee with
a clear, alternative progressive foreign policy or get one the domestic-focused candidates up to speed and fast.
So here's how my mental math works: a progressive candidate needs to win over libertarian-minded Republicans and Independents
(think Rand Paul-types) by force of their commonsense alternative to Trump's foreign policy. That means getting the troops out
of the Mideast, pulling the plug from other mindless interventions and cutting runaway defense spending. Then, and only then, can
the two sides begin arguing about what to do with the resultant cash surplus. That's an argument for another day, sure, but here
and now our imaginary Democratic (or Third Party?) nominee needs to end the wars and curtail the excesses of empire. I know many
libertarians – some still nominally Republican – who could get behind that agenda pretty quickly!
Still, there's more than a little reason for concern . Look at how "Nasty" Nancy Pelosi and the establishment Dems came
down on Ilhan
Omar for that representative's essentially accurate tweets criticizing the Israel Lobby. Then there's Joe Biden. Look, he's
definitely running. He's also definitely been wrong time and again on foreign policy – like how he was
for the
Iraq War before he was against it (how'd that turn out for John Kerry in 2004?). And, for all the talk of a progressive "blue wave"
in the party ranks, Biden still polls as the
top choice for
Democratic primary voters. Yikes.
Behind him, thankfully, is old Bernie – who sometimes shows potential in foreign affairs – the only candidate who has both
backed Omar and
been consistent in a career of generally antiwar votes. Still, Bernie won his household name with domestic policy one-liners – trashing
Wall Street and pushing populist economic tropes. Whether he can transform into a more balanced candidate, one that can confidently
compose and deliver a strong alternative foreign policy remains to be seen.
Tulsi Gabbard, though she still looks the long shot, remains intriguing given here genuine antiwar (and combat veteran) credentials.
Still, she'll have her hands full overcoming
problematic skeletons
in her own closet: ties to Indian Hindu nationalists, opposition to the Iran deal, and sometime backing of authoritarians and Islamophobes.
Then again, even Bernie has his foreign affairs
flaws
– such as reflexively denouncing the BDS movement and occasionally calling for regime change in Syria. Nevertheless, both Bernie
and Tulsi demonstrate that there's some promise for fresh opposition foreign policy.
Here's (some) of what that would look like:
speedily withdraw all U.S. troops from the (at least)
seven shooting wars
in the Greater Middle East;
choke off excessive arms deals and expensive military handouts to Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other frenemies;
quit bombing or
enabling
the bombing of impoverished civilians in places like Yemen and Gaza; begin dismantling America's
"empire
of bases" overseas;
seek firm détente rather than conflict with Russia and China;
and cut defense and war-related spending down to size.
Our imaginary candidate would need to convey this commonsense course to a war-weary American people as plainly and coherently
as Trump can. No jargon, no Clintonian wonky crap – simple and to the point. Imagine it: a commonsense course for a clear-eyed country!
Less war and more investment at home. Less war and more middle-class tax cuts. Whatever. That fight will come and the progressives
and independents/libertarians will fight it out. For now, though, what's essential is checking the war machine and military-industrial
behemoth before its too late (it may be already!).
None of this will be easy or likely, of course. But count on this much: the establishment Democrats, media-mogul "left," and centrist
DC think tanks won't save us from the imperial monster or deliver a Trump-defeating strategy in foreign affairs. The Mueller-will-save-us,
Mattis-was-a-hero, reflexively anti-Trump, born-again
hawks like Rachel Maddow and the other disappointing chumps at MSNBC or CNN aren't on our side. Worse yet, they're born losers
when it comes to delivering elections.
All of this may be far-fetched, but is not impossible. Neither libertarians nor progressives can countenance Trump. Nor should
they. One of their only true hopes for compromise rest on foreign policy and a genuine antiwar message. It can be done.
Look, on a personal note, even America's beloved and over-adulated soldiers are reachable on this issue – that's how you know
the foreign policy alliance has potential! For every rah-rah war-fever cheerleader in uniform, there's an exhausted foot soldier
on his Nth tour in the Mideast. There's also a huge chunk (
40%! ) who are racial minorities – usually a reliably anti-Trump demographic. Finally, among the white men and women in uniform
I've personally met a solid core of libertarians. And the
data backs up my anecdotal observation – Ron Paul was highly popular among active-duty military members and their families. A
progressive foreign policy alliance with the libertarian wing of Republicans and Independents would sell better with these such voters
both in and out of uniform. You know the type: sick of war but just as sick of stereotypical liberal snowflakes.
So here's a plea to the "opposition" such at it is: avoid the usual mistakes – don't cede foreign affairs to the Trump and the
Republicans; don't nominate anyone remotely resembling Joe Biden; don't alienate libertarians and independents with wonky or muddled
international policy.
Try something new. Like winning
* * *
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army officer and regular contributor to antiwar.com
. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point.
He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War,
Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers,
Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet
.
During 2016 election campaign: "On foreign policy Hillary is trigger happy" says Trump and he is right 100%... And he continued Hillary
policies.
And the he behaves as 100% pure militarist.
Notable quotes:
"... I've always thought that Hillary's support for the broader mission in Libya put the president on the 51 side of the line for a more aggressive approach ..."
"... Had the secretaries of state and defense both opposed the war, he and others said, the president's decision might have been politically impossible. ..."
"... Except for that last minute of Trump_vs_deep_states, I almost thought that was a Bernie speech. An interesting general election plan is to take Bernie's ideas with a healthy dash of Trump spice in an attempt to coalesce the angry populist vote. ..."
"... Sanders is the last hope to avoid total disaster. Maybe he can help mitigate HRC's hawk stance in the ME. I think Israel is a lost cause though as the problem child with nukes. ..."
"... A political strategy based on xenophobia and divisiveness supports those who benefit from xenophobia and divisiveness – those who exploit labor (including Trump who outsources jobs, hires H2-B workers, and exploits workers domestically and overseas), and those who benefit from the military-industrial-security-serveillance complex; and harms the rest of us. ..."
"... Obama and the Democrats did everything they could to undermine and stamp out progressive organization. ..."
"... Except it's recent US actions which have undermined the Middle East in general. From Saddam to Libya to ISIS etc etc. ..."
"... if you pay them enough. ..."
"... "We have been killing, maiming and displacing millions of Muslims and destroying their countries for the last 15 years with less outcry than transgender bathrooms have generated." ..."
"... Good point. I keep wondering why Hillary the Hawk's actual illegal war and murdering of Muslims is worse than Trump's ban. ..."
"... Imagine Trump running to the left of Hillary on defense / interventionism, trade, and universal healthcare. That would sure make things interesting. He could win. ..."
"... James Carville, astute handicapper that he is, has already sniffed out that Hillary now needs Bernie more than Bernie needs Hillary. ..."
"... even in comparison with Hillary Clinton ..."
"... "core voters come from communities where a lot of people have fought in the post-9/11 Middle Eastern conflicts. Our armed forces are stretched to the breaking point. Trump has strong support among veterans and active duty soldiers" ..."
"... "As a small business owner, not only are you trying to provide benefits to your employees, you're trying to provide benefits to yourself. I have seen our health insurance for my own family, go up $500 dollars a month in the last two years. We went from four hundred something, to nine hundred something. We're just fighting to keep benefits for ourselves. The thought of being able to provide benefits to your employees is almost secondary, yet to keep your employees happy, that's a question that comes across my desk all the time. I have to keep my employees as independent contractors for the most part really to avoid that situation, and so I have turnover" ..."
"... "We do not qualify for a subsidy on the current health insurance plan. My question to you is not only are you looking out for people that can't afford healthcare, but I'm someone that can afford it, but it's taking a big chunk of the money I bring home." ..."
"... "What you're saying is one of the real worries that we're facing with the cost of health insurance because the costs are going up in a lot of markets, not all, but many markets and what you're describing is one of the real challenges." ..."
"... "There's a lot of things I'm looking at to try to figure out how to deal with exactly the problem you're talking about. There are some good ideas out there but we have to subject them to the real world test, will this really help a small business owner or a family be able to afford it. What could have possibly raised your costs four hundred dollars, and that's what I don't understand." ..."
"... You echo my feelings. My loathing of Clinton knows no bounds, and I cannot vote for her, no matter what. But I simply don't trust Trump. He's a gold-digger extrodinaire, and quite the accomplished showman. He knows how to play to the crowd, and he's clearly quite quick to shape shift. The wrecked tatters of what's called the USA "media" gives Trump a YOOOGE pass on simply everything and anything the man says or does. ..."
"... if Donald wins, he could just end up the loneliest man in DC, be ignored, get nothing done ..."
"... Trump doesn't need to see the Zapruder film. He was alive then and knows the story, just like everyone else of a certain age. Nay, verily, he just means to cash in on it. ..."
"... Being Left of Hillary is a really really really low bar. He probably is, but thats probably because Hillary is right wing. You know, like almost all American politicians from both parties. Trumps not left of Bernie (at least not yet or not right now: I expect hes going to swing left in the general to scoop up Bernie voters), and Bernies just an Eisenhower Republican, which is admittedly to the left of basically all the other politicians today. ..."
There are good reasons to harbor serious reservations about The Donald, given that he changes
his position as frequently as most people change their clothes. But so far, he has been consistent
in making an argument that is sorely underrepresented in the media and in policy circles: that our
war-making in the Middle East has been a costly disaster with no upside to the US. Trump even cites,
without naming him, Joe Stiglitz's estimate that
our wars have cost at least $4 trillion.
As Lambert put it, "I hate it when Trump is right."
If you think Trump is overstating his case on Hillary's trigger-happiness, read this New York
Times story,
How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk .
Mrs. Clinton's account of a unified European-Arab front powerfully influenced Mr. Obama. "Because
the president would never have done this thing on our own," said Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy
national security adviser.
Mr. Gates, among others, thought Mrs. Clinton's backing decisive. Mr. Obama later told him
privately in the Oval Office, he said, that the Libya decision was "51-49."
"I've always thought that Hillary's support for the broader mission in Libya put the president
on the 51 side of the line for a more aggressive approach," Mr. Gates said. Had the secretaries
of state and defense both opposed the war, he and others said, the president's decision might
have been politically impossible.
Best assessment yet. This is a great speech bite from Donald but I have no idea if he means it.
(Though I don't agree with it just look at his Muslim Ban stance) Half the time he makes coherent
reasonable arguments, the other half the time I think he definitely is a Clinton Mole. I don't know
which Trump I'm getting hour to hour much less day to day.
Except for that last minute of Trump_vs_deep_states, I almost thought that was a Bernie speech. An interesting
general election plan is to take Bernie's ideas with a healthy dash of Trump spice in an attempt to
coalesce the angry populist vote. It'll be interesting to watch Hillary circle the wagons of the content,
elite center in an attempt to hold off the marginalized hordes of angry "savage plebs", especially if
the convention seems stolen. Still hoping for some miracle to pull Sanders through.
Miracle indeed, Sanders is the last hope to avoid total disaster. Maybe he can help mitigate HRC's
hawk stance in the ME. I think Israel is a lost cause though as the problem child with nukes.
In all seriousness, why is his Muslim ban idea bad? Or for that matter why would it, in principle,
be a bad idea to ban nearly all foreigners from entering the US? After all, it's not as if the US has
some actual need for foreigners to enter considering the large and growing desperately poor domestic
population. Especially considering that heretofore (let's be real here) both legal and illegal immigration
has been mainly exploited to destroy domestic labor conditions in the US.
This is a fact a lot of ostensibly good-hearted progressive and wealthy liberals conveniently ignore
(they'd probably cry themselves to sleep if they could no longer help to improve the lot of that below
minimum wage illegal immigrant maid they hired). Well, the working poor aren't ignoring it, and the
lid is going to blow soon if this keeps up. Donald Trump and the popularity of his Muslim ban is only
an early sign of the brewing discontent.
He didn't propose banning Muslims as a way to address our jobs and economic problems (which it isn't),
he proposed it as a way to address domestic terror (which it isn't). It's a political tactic to stir
up and implicitly sanction hate, prejudice, divisiveness, and violence.
Not arguing your point, however how are Trump supporters reading this? These people are already against
any immigrant coming into the US for economic reasons, and in all honesty they are looking for any excuse
whatsoever to view immigrants in a bad light.
Just to add to that a bit, it's also why immigrant crime is always being hyped up and exaggerated
by Trump supporters. The real issue deep down is that immigrants are threatening them economically,
and they'll use any justification whatsoever to get rid of them.
Is it right? I don't really know how to objectively answer that. But for the people doing it, this
could work out in economic terms for them. So at least from their perspective it's a good idea.
I think people are just so angry with how the squillionaries use "politically correct" proper thinking
about immigration to hide their illegal suppression of wages that even outrageous and outlandish statements
by The Donald will not dissuade his supporters – – after all, the supporters could ask why is this issue
of wage suppression, "by any means necessary", that affects FAR, FAR more people who ARE US citizens
so scrupulously IGNORED by the media (media owned by rich??? – of course). As disturbing as what The
Donald says, what is NOT SAID by the ENTIRE (except Sanders) US political establishment, is far more
disturbing, as I think it shows an utterly captured political caste. As well as the rank hypocrisy that
if any of these immigrants don't have health care after they arrive, the squillionaires couldn't care
less if they died in the streets – no matter how rich they are, they want to make more people poorer.
They are such an evil enemy that people will put up with The Donald.
It is a fact that these tech billionaires engaged in an illegal activity. It is a fact the US government
simply ignored enforcing laws and refuses to punish them.
Trump in my view will not be able to do even a quarter of some of this crap like banning Muslims
– laws do have to be passed. But the fact remains that Trump will probably be the only presidential
nominee (not presidential candidate, i.e., Sanders), and the last one in 40 years, to even merely talk
about these issues.
The fact that Trump succeeds just shows how famished people are to some challenge to the war mongering,
coddling of the rich that is passed off as something that the majority supports.
A political strategy based on xenophobia and divisiveness supports those who benefit from xenophobia
and divisiveness – those who exploit labor (including Trump who outsources jobs, hires H2-B workers,
and exploits workers domestically and overseas), and those who benefit from the military-industrial-security-serveillance
complex; and harms the rest of us.
It seems no more likely that Trump as president will actually promote policies that will "work out
in economic terms" for ordinary people as it was to think Obama would put on this "comfortable shoes"
and join a picket line (though I bought that one at the time).
Hillary basically won relatively well to do minorities who voted for her in 2008 just in smaller
numbers. Poorer minorities stayed home in Southern states where Internet access is less available and
progressive organizations are just churches. On the surface, Sanders sounds very much like the media
perception of President Hope and Change who isn't as popular as much as no one wants to admit the first
non white President was terrible or they actively applauded terrible policy.
Free college probably didn't appeal to people with junk degrees from for profit diploma mills. The
damage is done. People need jobs not school at this point or incomes. A green jobs guarantee act would
have been a better push front and center, but again, this is with hindsight. Many minority voters simply
didn't vote, and Hillary pushed that "you don't know Bernie" line to scare voters that Sanders was another
Obama.
Obama and the Democrats did everything they could to undermine and stamp out progressive organization.
Agree that jobs should be the focus (or income and meeting basic needs). Education as the focus appeals
to the under 25 years old college bound crowd, but not so much to anyone older having to survive out
there in the work world everyday.
I am a Trump supporter and I am not against immigrants or immigration. I am opposed to doing nothing
in the face of a broken immigration system. I do not think it is wise for any country to have millions
and millions of undocumented workers in its midst. I believe we should legalize those that are here.
Those that have committed crimes not related to immigrating or over staying visas should absolutely
be deported and lose the privilege of living in the US. I live in Spain, but am an American. If I broke
minor laws, such as drunk driving, assault or drug possession I would be deported too, seems fair to
me. I believe we have to revamp border security, though I don´t think a wall spanning the entire border
would be wise or effective I personally think Trump is speaking hyperbolically and symbolically about
the wall. Nonetheless, our elites sure do love living behind big walls and gated communities, with armed
security, maybe we should ask them why, walls are just racist anyways, no?
Immigrant crime is not some myth, its real and sometimes it is a very tragic consequence of a broken
immigration system. The fact that the cartels also exploit our broken border and immigration system
is not a myth either, it is reality.
And as for a temporary ban on Muslims coming from Syria, Libya and other locations that have been
devastated by the covert and overt wars of the US I support it totally, for no other reason than public
safety, which is the first reason we institute government. Remember this happened just after Paris,
public safety is a very legitimate concern. Also, why are Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia or
the Gulf States taking in a single refugee? The Saudis have the money and the capacity to to do this.
They have tents used only during the hajj that house thousands upon thousands. Where is that wonderful,
charitable side of Islam?
I wish the world were different. I don´t harbor prejudice against anyone. Those that want to come
and live, grow and contribute to American civilization, Come, please!! But our world is very dangerous,
and we have created enemies that seek to do harm to our society and civilization in anyway that they
can. We have to protect ourselves and our nation. I wish beyond wishing, that it was someone besides
the Donald saying these things, but, it is what it is. I am not gonna shoot the messanger cuase I dont
like his personality, or because I would not be friends with someone like him.
Illegal immigration could likely be enforced in some industries (on the lower paid scale in garment
making sweatshops and so on). And this could probably best be done by prosecuting the employers doing
the hiring. But I'm not at all convinced the country could run without immigrants entirely. Who would
pick the crops? Ok maybe lots of people at a $15 an hour minimum wage. But at current compensation?
Though I don't know if this really needs to be done via illegal immigration, it could be done by much
more formalized guest worker programs I suppose.
Or, we could just let the market work. You WILL get American workers to perform just about any job
if you pay them enough. Obviously, the reasonable price point for labor is currently well below
what a US citizen will accept. But if I offered a million dollars to get my lawn mowed, I would have
a line out the door of American workers begging to have the job.
Guest workers are just another way to depress US citizens' wages. And immigration reform is best
tackled at the employer level, like you said - anybody who doesn't make this part of his or her "reform"
plan is not to be taken seriously. (I regularly mention this to conservatives, and they always look
for a way to justify going after the powerless immigrants anyway.)
High wages can encourage more automation or substitution of crops that require less manual labor
or even cause people to exit farming as uneconomic.. But the number of workers employed in farming is relatively small.
The World Bank has the USA workforce at 161 million in 2014 and if about 2% of this workforce is
employed in farming, this is about 3.2 million people throughout the USA. And the 3.2 million count is probably not all illegal immigrant workers. This report suggests government price supports have encouraged more people to work in agriculture,
implying that the government is indirectly creating low wage jobs by price supports.
From the above pdf. "For example, the institutionalization of what began as emergency income support
in the 1930s has likely slowed the movement of labor out of the farm sector."
I am of the opinion that the law of one price will apply if there is relatively free movement of
workers, legally or illegally, across borders.
Note, Trump never suggests e-verify and employer enforcement, which would be a low cost way of enforcing
citizen employment and would avoid a costly "great wall".
Trump and HRC's investments are probably more profitable due to a lower labor cost influenced by
low wage workers.
And people don't OPPOSE his restrictions on Muslim immigration because they feel so charitable towards
and accepting of Muslims.
We have been killing, maiming and displacing millions of Muslims and destroying their countries for
the last 15 years with less outcry than transgender bathrooms have generated. And we've allowed our
own civil liberties to be radically infringed. All because " THEY hate us for our 'freedoms.'
" Who the hell do you think THEY are?
But it's Trump who is hateful, prejudiced, divisive and bigoted? As if "welcoming" some immigrants
from countries that we callously destroyed perfectly absolves those who were busy waiting in line for
the newest i-gadget and couldn't be bothered to demand an end to the slaughter.
Get a clue. Trump's not talking about murdering anybody. And no amount of puffed up "outrage" and
name-calling is going to get the stain out. Not to mention it's the most sane and humane way to protect
the "homeland" from the "terrorism" that we, ourselves, created.
"We have been killing, maiming and displacing millions of Muslims and destroying their countries
for the last 15 years with less outcry than transgender bathrooms have generated."
Good point. I keep wondering why Hillary the Hawk's actual illegal war and murdering of Muslims is
worse than Trump's ban.
"I'm against all immigration, as it's merely a lever to lower wages." "I'm against the immigration
of muslims, because they're bad terrorists." There is a difference in these two statements.
You are correct that there is too much immigration to the U.S., and it causes economic and environmental
problems. However, Trump's Muslim ban would cover more than immigration. He would also ban temporary
visits by Muslims (except for the mayor of London, I suppose).
I object very strongly to Muslim extremism, and a lot of Muslims have extremist views. But not all
of them do. And many Christians, Hindus, and whatever also have extremist views which should be opposed.
Trump's not proposing a bad on travel by extremist Christians; he's singling out Muslims because they
scare millions of Americans. It's demagoguery.
You are not quite right there. Trump supporters do indeed want to ban Christian immigrants as well
(the vast, overwhelming majority of immigrants from Mexico, central, and South America are Christians
of some sort) although in the case of Christians the excuse is "violent crime" since obviously Trump
supporters can not disparage Christians specifically for their Christianity. Seriously, watch any Trump
speech and you'll see that he spends more time talking about why all American (Christian) immigrants
need to be banned (crime) than why Muslim immigrants need to be banned (terror). Economic insecurity
is at the root of all of it.
Has Trump demanded that Christians from Europe or Canada be prevented from entering the U.S.? I'm
pretty sure he hasn't. If he's really motivated by economic reasons, there's no need to specify a particular
religion, such as Islam, or a particular nationality, such as Mexicans.
People from Europe and Canada already have high salaries. Or they are perceived to have high salaries
in their home countries. IE they are not percieved as an economic threat. I guarantee you, show me a
poor, third world country that is sending a lot of people to US right now and and I'll show you an ethnic
groups that faces some prejudice. Come on, it's not well paid people with stable jobs and incomes who
are going around being prejudiced against immigrants. It's the poor and the desperate who are doing
it.
There is a reason for that. Ignoring that reason and pretending that it's some bizarre and unfathomable
psychological illness just coincidentally affecting people who are also offing themselves from despair
left and right isn't going to make it go away. Rather, you are inviting something terrible to happen.
The Germans didn't decide to follow Hitler because times were good, and a friendly PR campaign encouraging
openness and acceptance among the poor misguided racists and immigrant haters out there will do exactly
nothing to help matters.
I don't think anyone (most anyone anyway) would disagree that there are plenty of Muslims who are
not extremists. The problem for us is, how do you tell the difference? The San Bernadino shooter was
a health inspector, had a wife, kids, a middle class job, ties to the community and still decided to
shoot up his co-workers with his wife in tow. Plenty of the European ISIS recruits come from middle
class families that are seemingly well-adjusted. If these people (keep in mind Farook was a US citizen)
can become terrorists, how can we possibly screen new entrants with any sort of efficacy?
I'd say it's probably worth the miniscule risk of possible immigrants turning out to be terrorists
if there was some other benefit to having them come in, but if we agree there's too much immigration
to the US already and it is hurting actual US citizens, what exactly is the upside to keep allowing
Muslims in?
By the way, I've been lurking on this site for a few weeks now, first time commenter. It's nice to
find some quality discussion on the internet. Nice to meet everyone.
Where are these "extremist Christians" burning and burying people alive, beheading hostages, blasting
away at crowds in night clubs? "Christian extremism" is a figment of your imagination. The attempt to
equate Moslem violence with conservative Christians is utterly absurd. Do you seriously believe that
soime Amish dude is going to run amuck in a New York night club and slaughter hundreds of people?
Obama does not get is morning SITREP delivered with biblical headers
"The religious theme for briefings prepared for the president and his war cabinet was the brainchild
of Major General Glen Shaffer, a committed Christian and director for intelligence serving Mr Rumsfeld
and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In the days before the six-week invasion, Major General Shaffer's staff had created humorous covers
for the briefings to alleviate the stress of preparing for battle.
But as the body count rose, he decided to introduce biblical quotes.
However, many of his Pentagon colleagues were reportedly opposed to the idea, with at least one Muslim
analyst said to be greatly offended.
A defence official warned that if the briefing covers were leaked, the damage to America's standing
in the Arab world 'would be as bad as Abu Ghraib' – the Baghdad prison where U.S. troops abused Iraqis.
But Major General Shaffer, 61, who retired in August 2003, six months after the invasion, claimed
he had the backing of the president and defence secretary. When officials complained, he told them the
practice would continue because it was 'appreciated by my seniors' – Mr Rumsfeld and Mr Bush.
The briefing covers were revealed for the first time by GQ after they were leaked to the U.S. magazine
by a source at the Pentagon."
Disheveled Marsupial . whilst I understand the acts committed transcend time and political party's .
never the less in – The Name Of – can not be white washed away
Did you manage to miss Trump's point in the video that the US has killed millions in the Middle East,
and that if US presidents had gone to the beach for the last 15 years. everyone would have been better
off? And that we murder people by drone in addition to all our undeclared wars? You are seriously pretending
Christians not only have blood on their hands, but started these wars and have killed people in vastly
bigger numbers than we have? I'm not defending terrorists, but your position is a remarkable airbrushing.
The worst domestic terrorist the U.S. ever produced, Timothy McVeigh, wasn't Amish, yet neither was
he Muslim. Denying people the opportunity to immigrate here– based solely on religion– contradicts the
principles of tolerance on which this country was founded.
Yah, this is a Great Country, isn't it, where everyone has the right to own assault weapons, and
the opportunity to assemble and detonate giant bombs hidden in rental trucks, and you can do pretty
much whatever you can get away with, depending on one's degree of immunity and impunity and invisibility
Eric Rudolph and Robert Lewis Dear, Jr., are more examples of Christian terrorists. Outside the country,
there's Anders Breivik (well, he's only partially Christian, but he's definitely not Muslim).
I get your point from a labor standpoint but who gets to decide to shut the door and say 'no more
room at the inn'? Unless it's First Peoples I think it would be pretty hypocritical coming from the
descendants of all the other immigrants who crossed over themselves at some point.
PS: I haven't heard this talked about much but does anyone really believe Trump is serious with all
this immigrant-bashing rhetoric? If he is anywhere near as rich as he claims to be, he got there at
least in part, and likely in large part by exploiting cheap labor. While I've never stayed in a Trump
property to see for myself I'm guessing that all the hotel employees aren't direct descendants of the
Daughters of the American Revolution.
Unless it's First Peoples I think it would be pretty hypocritical coming from the descendants
of all the other immigrants who crossed over themselves at some point.
Everybody outside of Africa, including "First Peoples" (if I understand that phrase correctly), is
a descendant of immigrants. The ancestors of the Amer-Indians (probably) came from Siberia over the
Bering land bridge during the late ice age.
It might be hypocritical for an actual immigrant to advocate restrictions on immigration, but that's
not the case for descendants of immigrants. But if there are restrictions, they shouldn't be based on
religion or race.
I don't really think shutting down immigration is the answer. It's not practical and isn't likely
to solve the problems blamed on immigration even if you could keep people out.
People don't leave their countries en masse unless there's some kind of disaster. A little less imperialism
turning nations to rubble would be a much better solution.
So you believe that no people, anywhere, ever, have a right to determine who can join their community,
contribute to their community, or undercut their community's wages and values. Except if some "First
Peoples" show up and endorse the idea? Do they have divine right of kings or something? What if we got
one Indian to agree? A plurality of them?
If it was right for the natives to resist the destruction of their way of life in 1492-1900, and
it was, it is right for the natives to resist of the destruction of their way of life now. Even if those
natives' skin now comes in multiple colors.
Well, I have trouble believing that Trump is serious about his TPP-bashing and Iraq-war-bashing,
I have trouble believing Trump's words are credible on just about any issue.
It's going to be a rough four years, whether Trump wins or loses.
Well, Sanders still has a chance, although he's a long shot. Democratic voters in Kentucky, Oregon,
the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota,
and the District of Columbia have a chance to save the nomination for him.
In Puerto Rico, Montana, and North Dakota, the election events are open, so anyone who's registered
can vote for Sanders. In California, registered independents can also vote for Sanders.
If its hypocritical, perhaps we should live with that if it is also reality-based and pragmatic.
As in " we've got a good thing going here and we don't need nobody else muscling in on our sweet racket".
Separately, many advocates of ILLEGAL immigration carefully pull a sleight-of-mouth bait-and-switch
between ILLEGAL immigration and legal immigration. Accepters of carefully controlled legal immigration
can still reject ILLEGAL immigration for pragmatic social-survival reasons.
Quite simply, the idea of banning Muslims entry to the U.S. is an affront to the very nature of the
American experiment, of plurality, equality, and religious freedom. However, recent events in Europe,
specifically the sexual assaults in Cologne and elsewhere show that some young Muslim men are a problem.
So are some young American men. An issue we need to wrestle with is how to reduce this problem. Such
problems are not about religion, they are cultural, they are about interpersonal respect and behavior.
But, the West, broadly speaking, has shown horrendous disrespect to Moslems. The U.S. has attacked wedding
parties and funerals, destroyed cities and countries, behaving like Crusaders. Perhaps were the West
to display less barbarism toward Moslems, they would express more respect toward us. Seems worth a try.
He doesn't have to mean anything. Trump needs to drive potential Democratic turnout down. On one
hand, reminding people how awful Hillary is effectively destroys volunteer efforts which is how voters
get registered and identified for gotv. The other side is what is the perception of the average Democratic
voter of Hillary's record. Hillary supporters have pushed the "tested," "likely to win, " and "inevitable"
arguments for a long time now. How many people in the potential electorate understood Hillary was a
hawk when they voted or didn't bother to show up? Bernie used words such as "poor judgement" for fear
of being labeled sexist. Trump won't hold back.
Perhaps, Trump was a mole, but what can Bill offer that the GOP can't? Air Force One might not be
the most luxurious plane, but its the Air Force plane wherever the President is. Thats respect no one
can buy. Reagan was carted through the White House, so why not Trump?
Imagine Trump running to the left of Hillary on defense / interventionism, trade, and universal healthcare.
That would sure make things interesting. He could win.
It ain't over. She's got one countermove left which is to somehow get Bernie on the ticket and grab
the enthusiastic and politically correct (if not fully-informed) millenial vote. Otherwise the dilution
of the blue vote in the swing states will loom large. James Carville, astute handicapper that he is,
has already sniffed out that Hillary now needs Bernie more than Bernie needs Hillary.
Sanders on the ticket would only undermine Sanders. This Is about the DLC or the status quo. The
length of Sanders career has made him credible, but Hillary has already lost this same race to an empty
suit. The Democrats have bled support since Obama went full Reagan, but in many ways, this is a conflict
between Democratic elites and their loyalist followers and everyone else. Accepting assimilation will
only hurt Sanders. Forcing a Vice President onto Hillary such as Gabbard would be a far better aim.
Sanders supporters aren't interested in a status quo candidate, supported by the usual list of villains.
Hillary can get a begrudging vote, but she will never endive enthusiasm. Bernie and Hillary uniting
will only annoy people.
Yes, and then, as his long history with customers, contractors, vendors and creditors has shown,
he'll fuck us.
Please don't take this as advocacy for the Other One, but Donnie's entire career is based on screwing
people over; this is just another, albeit far bigger, hustle.
Don't think for a second that you could rely on him to follow through honestly about anything; it's
always and forever about Donnie.
Hey, there's at least a 1% chance that Trump won't go out if his way to screw the American people
considering the blackbox nature of his candidacy, whereas there is at least a 100% chance that HRC will
screw the American people hard. And add in the fact that she is a known psychopath with an itchy trigger
finger who will have the Red Button on her desk if she gets into the oval office Yeah. Trump isn't
looking too bad now, is he?
I gotta admit that Trump has always been a wild card for me, and while he is likely to screw us,
Hillary definitely will. Still the only candidate worth supporting in any conceivable sense is Bernie.
Given his gleeful endorsement of torture, advocacy for war crimes, nods to totalitarianism and fascism,
his own clear psychopathy, along with his racism, xenophobia, and apparent ignorance on everything from
medicine to the environment, and nuclear weapons, yes he looks bad, even in comparison with Hillary
Clinton , which says a great deal about just how awful he truly is.
I'm personally more frightened by Trump than Clinton. I've lived through almost 8 years of Obama,
plus Bush and Clinton how much worse than those could another 4-8 years of the same be? Trump is a
terrifying like my house on fire. But at the same time, I can certainly understand the desire to vote
for the Green with a clear conscience.
Perhaps we'll get lucky, and Hillary's campaign will collapse before the convention. Bernie would
be the first candidate I could really vote for (and who'd have a real chance at winning).
Why not put your vote where your words are? We're Senator Bernie Sanders to be the candidate, my
vote would be his. If he's not, and he endorses Secretary Clinton, then my vote goes to Doctor Jill
Stein, my favorite candidate anyway. Given the momentum Sanders has generated, were he, instead of supplicating
himself to Clinton following her coronation, to stand behind Ms. Stein Only in my dreams. Sigh
The DLC Third-Way Clintonite Obamacrats will not let Bernie become nominee no matter what. If the
party can't coronate Clinton, the party will try to bolt the severed head of Joe Biden onto Clinton's
headless body . . and run THAT.
That right there is what convinced me that the woman is a psychopath. She should have been carried
out out of the interview in a straight jacket, and yet there are some people who trying to make her
president. Trump may be a narcissist, but I would not say that he's psychotic.
If nothing else you need to support Trump for the survival of humanity.
Thinking about a Trump/hillary_clinton. contest reminds me of the movie 'The Sting'; where a couple of honest
con men take down a dishonest con man who killed their friend. I see Hillary as the dishonest con man.
In reality Trump is NOT to the left of Hillary on universal healthcare. Read his website.
Look since the guy is a major presidential candidate whether one likes that or not, I have no problem
directing people to his website. See how he puts his actual policy positions, such as they are, in his
own words.
Interventionism and trade remain to be seen as personally I think his positions on them are likely
to still uh evolve as they say during the campaign season. So I'm leaving the verdict out there.
I brought up this idea right when he became the presumptive nominee but this isn't really a pivot
left. He's always been less of a hawk than Hillary. One of the few positions he has been relatively
consistent on. I see him biding his time for a full pivot until Bernie is out of the picture. Here's
to hoping that doesn't happen.
My apologies, my friend. Didn't mean to step on you. Meant it as a concurrence. Sipping coffee slowly
today. You're one of my favorite people here for your regularly spot on, insightful comments.
Yes, my big effort to tell myself that Life Under Trump may not be as horrible as I fear is that
the record of outsider presidents (Carter) and celebrity governors (Schwarznegger and Jesse Ventura)
is they get very little done.
Modern governors are bound by devolution and mandates. They are just glorified city managers with
the staff to do the city manager's job. Even popular, insider governors can do very little. The President
can set the terms by which the governors operate.
I'm concerned that HRC will get more done than the Donald, but little of HRC's actions will be positive.
California handled Schwarznegger without too many problems as he tried unsuccessfully to "break down
boxes".
He replaced, via recall, the forgettable democratic Governor Gray Davis who simply disappeared from
politics.
As I recall, Davis papered over the CA energy crisis until after the election, figuring that when
the s**t hit the fan, he'd have been safely reinstalled in office.
I see HRC as possibly getting more wars started, TPP/TTIP approved, a grand bargain done on SS, and
providing more coddling to the financial, medical and insurance industries.
If many or all of HRC's possible negative accomplishments will not be done by Trump, then that could
justify electing a president who accomplishes little..
Yea Schwarznegger was ok. He made a few very devoted enemies in a few unions. But he was probably
far better on pushing environmental issues than Jerry fracking Brown ever was or will be. If it was
him versus Jerry at this point, I might very well prefer Arnold.
I think Trump at least understands that you can't take money from people who don't have any. His
casino enterprise in Atlantic City may have taught him that.
Like Anne Amnisia's link yesterday, I feel like I know where I stand with a Mussolini and can envision
taking a bullet honorably in resistance where the DNC method has been slowly killing me my whole adult
life and, short of Bernie, I can't see how to resist!
If he's ineffectual and doesn't start more wars, at least its more time to organize and Trump's the
kind of "leader" that might give focus to resistance.
Yves, I wish I thought you were right. But The Duck is so bizarre, so definitively unhinged, that
no one can predict what he'll do. He changes positions as the wind blows. And when he follows any philosophy
at all, it's the "Conservative" philosophy. He doesn't believe in global warming. He once said that
there should be NO minimum wage. I'm a Bernie fan, not a Hillary fan, but I would never, ever take the
risk of letting the Hare-Brained Jabberwocky into any position of power, which means, probably, that
I have to vote for Hillary, and even start sending her money after the primaries. Probably.
His healthcare plan on his campaign website is the usual Republican gibberish – repeal Obamacare,
sell insurance across state lines, block grant Medicaid.
He suggested 20-30,000 troops to Syria in response to a debate question, then said he would never
do that, but send " air power and military support" instead. (
LINK )
edit: Position on the website is also to give veterans the ability to "choose" healthcare outside
the VA system. (I'm not knowledgeable to say if this would actually help current pressing VA issues,
but it is a move from a national public health service model to a private care model, so not leftward).
Thanks for that. I think the general idea holds, though: it's a populist remake of politics, and
I think if Trump stakes out some 'unconventional' positions that are to the 'left' of HRC, he could
beat her.
Well, if by left you meant 'left' then we agree :) His appeal is much broader, though IMO a combination
of rightward demagoguery and leftward populist-i-ness.
That VA notion is a dagger pointed at the heart of all those people who for whatever reason, "took
the King's shilling" or drew the short straws in the draft lotteries or, before that, were nailed and
"inducted" just by living in heavy-draft-quota areas. And of course the Greatest Generation, so many
of whom got drug into earlier US imperial wars (Narrative notwithstanding.)
Sending GIs to docs outside the VA system (itself under siege for generations now by the same shits
who bring on the Forever War that generates ever more damaged people needing those "services"), to docs
who in my experience pretty uniformly have zero knowledge of vet-specific problems and diseases and
injuries, who will be paid how much to treat what quota of veterans, again? Crucifying GIs on the HMO
cross, so people can pretend there's "care" for them, via docs who are even more likely than VA docs
(who at least have some protections against arbitrary rules and policies and firings, in a "system"
run by many who institutionalize actual CARE as the main idea) to "go along with the minimization-hurry-up-and-die
program"?
The whole notion is straight Rule #2: "GO DIE, FOKKER! And do it quietly, out of sight, and with
minimum fuss, in a structure that so diffuses the abuses over space and time that it's extremely difficult
for the affected population to even gather the numbers to show how bad it is." Straight "more continuing
more opaque fog of war" bullshit. The same kind of sales BS as used to sell the rest of neoliberalist
misery ("Don't whine now, fools - you voted for it, I have the validated results of the elections right
here, so now it's All Nice And Legal, seeee?) from NAFTA and preceding frauds and vast FIREs, on up
to the present scams.
In the meantime, the Military-Industrial Juggernaut continues to gain mass and momentum. Trump can
natter about "war in the Mideast is a bad deal for the US" (Mideast seemingly not including AfPak, China,
Africa, South America, etc.) as a "bad deal." But will he have any interest in spooling down the turbines
on the enormous Milo Minderbinder Enterprises machine that is daily being "upgraded" and "up-armored"
and "re-weaponed" and "re-doctrined" and "mission-creeped," with the happy participation of every business,
large and small, that can wangle or "extend" a procurement or "study" contract to expand and lethality
and simple bureaucratic-growth size and incompetence (as a military force, in the old sense of what
armies are supposed to do for the Emperoro) of the monster, even as we blog participants do our mostly
ineffectual (if intellectually pleasing) nattering?
Civilian Control of the Military is a dishonest myth - true only in the sense that the Captains of
MICIndustry and drivers of "policy" are not currently Active Duty, though they all, along with the generals
(who live like kings, of course) belong to the same clubs and dip deeply into the same MMT Cornucopia.
And the MIC, from what I read, is quite open and pleased about the state of affairs
I would argue that the MIC is simply part of the 20 percent that derive their middle class existence
by serving at the beck and call of the 1 percent. You are describing the symptoms and not the disease.
We are in the grip of "credentialled" doctors and lawyers. Just as most litigation and most of what
lawyers do is destructive to the average person, it is estimated that half of all surgeries done in
the US are unnecessary. the HIC (health industrial complex) has brainwashed the public to believe that
we need $20,000 per month medications and artificial discs. As you have doubtless seen the third leading
cause of death in the US is medical mistakes. They happen in the VA and in the private sector. Maybe
the notion of more medical care is better is simply not valid. At some point we will have to realize
that rationing in a rational way is going to have to happen. I would rather have someone who went to
medical school decide on what is going to be rationed than some lawyer or business administrator.
There sure is a lot packed into that comment. But my experience with VA doctors and other caregivers
(speaking as a retired "private sector" nurse, VA care recipient and former attorney) is that except
for the psychiatrists and some of the docs that perform disability examinations, the VA caregivers actually
provide care, and they seem to do it pretty well, given the constant attrition of resources and burgeoning
case load the neolibs are imposing. Personal tale: the Medicare 'provider" at the full-spectrum clinic
I used to use was all hot to perform a "common surgical procedure that most older men need." A fee-generating
TURP, which pretty rarely improves the victim's life. The VA doc, looking at the same condition and
presentation, noted the down-sides pretty carefully and said that until I was a lot more "restricted,"
there was no way I "needed" any such invasive procedure. But then his income is not influenced by the
number of cuts he makes
Most of what lawyers do any more, and this has been true for a long time, is combat over wealth transfers,
economic warfare. Ever since partnership was killed off as the mandatory form of lawyer business operations,
with attendant personal liability for partner actions, the rule is "eat what you kill, and kill all
you can." Most doctors I know have caregiving as their primary motivation in going into medicine. (Most
nurses, the same to a much greater extent, and since they start with smaller debt and fewer chances
to bleed the patient and the system that bleeds the nurse pretty badly, they can carry that decency
forward.)
Interesting, of course, that more and more doctors have joint MD and MBA credentials. And working
with other operatives, are gradually and maybe inexorably forcing more of their fellows into "medical
cooperatives" like HCA and JSA, where they become salaried wage slaves with productivity targets and
metrics, and thus "rationers" de facto, by having to respond to "metrics" that are all driven by the
basic business model: "More and more work, from fewer and fewer people, for less and less money, for
higher and higher costs, with ever more crapified outcomes for the mope-ery." Although, I might offer,
there are some of my fellow mopes who actually do benefit from those back surgeries (yes, maybe most
of them are unwarranted, but not all) and meds that only cost "$20,000 per month" because of MARKETS.
Imagine Trump winning as a GOP canidate by running to the left of the DNC canidate. The vision of
the GOP having a collective ulcer/Rovian Meltdown is making me giggle like a schoolgirl all day.
Frankly, I'm *much* more worried about HRC in the Whitehouse than I am about Trump. Reason why is
that he's a relative outsider, not an Establishment guy - and there is always Congress to deal with.
Its not like he would have a total dictatorship, whereas HRC would be able to do far more and deeper
damage to the nation.
My position is Sanders or bust, and I say that as a 20-year member of the GOP (now independent).
Like you said, he changes his positions all the time, and Clinton is no doubt a serious warmonger/war
criminal, but he did also say that he would "bomb the s- out of ISIS," which one might also be inclined
to characterize as trigger happy.
I am equally terrified at the prospect of having Clinton or Trump at the nuclear controls, which
is why we should all send Bernie a few bucks today. The MSM have already gone into full Clinton v Trump
general election mode, though that is certain to change once Bernie wins California.
If you read what Trump has said about our foreign policy, he has been consistent in his view that
the US can't and shouldn't be acting as an imperalist. He does not use those words, but he's said this
often enough that I've even linked to articles describing how Trump is willing to depict America as
being in decline, and this as one manifestation. In addition, his foreign policy speech was slammed
basically because it broke with neocon orthodoxy. I have not read it but people I respect and who are
not temperamentally inclined to favor Trump have, and they said it was sensible and among other things
argued that we could not be fighting with China and Russia at the same time, and pumped for de-escalating
tensions with Russia as the country whose culture and interests were more similar to ours than China's.
Having said that, calling out our belligerence and TPP as bad ideas seem to be the only issues on
which he's not been all over the map (well, actually, he has not backed down on his wall either .)
The other reason to think he might stick with this position more consistently than with others is
that his core voters come from communities where a lot of people have fought in the post-9/11 Middle
Eastern conflicts. Our armed forces are stretched to the breaking point. Trump has strong support among
veterans and active duty soldiers, and it's due to his speaking out against these wars.
Trump can probably get away with continuing to shape shift till Labor Day, since most voters don't
make up their minds till close to the election. It's not pretty to watch him make a bold statement and
then significantly walk it back in the next 24 hours, particularly if it's an issue you care about and
he's said something that is so nuts that it sounds like he cares more about his Nielsen rating than
what makes sense for the country. If he can't put enough policy anchors down by the fall and stick to
them, he will lose a lot of people who might give him a shot out of antipathy to Clinton.
That may well be the case and he was right to call out the Iraq war as a "mistake" during that debate
(given his otherwise unconventional rhetoric, however, I was actually a bit disappointed that he didn't
use the more correct term war crime), but he has also said that he wants to bring back torture and then
some.
As far as I'm concerned though, the race right now is between Clinton and Bernie and I'm fairly confident
that Bernie still has a good chance since he is sure to take California (which, luckily for Bernie,
will seem like a huge surprise).
In a match up between Trump and Clinton my own personal thoughts (that a democratic – i.e. neoliberal
– white house will at least continue to move people to the left, whereas a republican white house will
only galvanize people around bringing another neoliberal to the white house) are irrelevant because
I have virtually no doubt that Trump will win.
Yes, his enthusiasm for torture is pretty creepy and you get a taste of it here indirectly: "That
Saddam, he was a really bad guy but he sure could take care of those terrorists!" While Trump does seem
to genuinely disapprove of all the people our wars have killed for no upside (a commonsense position
in absence among our foreign policy elites), he seems overly confident that we can identify baddies
well and having identified them, we should have no compunction about being brutal with them.
"That Saddam, he was a really bad guy but he sure could take care of those terrorists!"
His meaning here is we should have stayed out of it and let the "really bad guy" (Saddam) handle
Al Quaeda. Of course, the Bush neocons dishonestly morphed Saddam into Al Quaeda. You know the rest
of the story.
I'm willing to bet that he's saying a lot of this stuff for his audience–people who are generally
a pretty angry and bloodthirsty lot. I'm not saying that he's not going to come out for peace, love
and contrition when he's elected president, but I think it is safe to say that his rhetoric now is completely
unrelated to how he'd go about actually governing.
OK, so normally that'd be a horrible admission–if the Democrats hadn't had the brilliant idea of
foisting Hillary onto the American people. What a brain-dead move! I myself could have been persuaded
to support Bernie, but Hillary is the Devil incarnate as far as I'm concerned.
One fact that we have to remember is all the people who designed, advocated for, implemented, and
defended "enhanced interrogation" and than who use "Clintonisms" to say we no longer use torture (because
we never did – "enhanced interrogation") AND because we are "rendering" them someplace else and our
friends are doing the enhanced interrogation – well, such lying devious people in my view are far, far
worse than The Donald.
In my view, there appears to be considerable evidence that the US still defacto tortures – and that
is far, far worse than the appalling, but at least truthful statement of how Trump feels. And of course,
pink misting people may not be torture, but it can't be separated.
Again, which is worse:
A. The Donald up front advocates a policy (of torture), people can be mobilized to oppose it. No legalisms,
dissembling, and every other term that can be used to obfuscate what the US is REALLY doing.
B. The US government asserts it no longer tortures. How many readers here have confidence that that
is a factually true statement, that can be said without word games?
Is saying we should torture WORSE than saying we don't torture, but WE ARE???
I feel the same way. It's preferable to have someone take the morally reprehensible pro-torture stance
than to pretend to be against it while secretly renditioning prisoners and so forth.
except for the fake wmds that started it. and abu ghraib. and the reasons the contractors were hung
in fallujah. and the fake alliance between saddam and al quaida. and outing valerie plame when joe wilson
blew the whistle on the fake purpose of the aluminum tubes.
Enough electoral fraud has been evidenced that I think that the numbers are going to be gamed to
be closer to the non-representative polling that flood the MSM. He may win, but they aren't going to
allow him to win by a lot in such a delegate heavy state.
Unfortunately, I think you are quite right that the California numbers will be rigged/gamed. I had
become quite cynical about American politics, thanks to Obama the More Effective Evil's reign and the
Bush and the Supremes Florida gambit back in 2000. But this primary vote rigging has really moved my
marker so far that I am not even sure what word to use what's more cynical than super duper cynical?
So here's an idea I've been pondering how can the people try to prevent or find this? Could we exit
poll outside the voting places? Yes it would be a limited sample of just one local place but it's something
and in aggregate if lots of people were doing this
I too think they might try to game California. And this is quite alarming considering California
is usually too unimportant to even game. I figure the elections are usually honest here, probably because
they just don't matter one whit. But this time it might matter and they might steal the vote.
"core voters come from communities where a lot of people have fought in the post-9/11 Middle
Eastern conflicts. Our armed forces are stretched to the breaking point. Trump has strong support
among veterans and active duty soldiers"
This.
People tend to also forget that there's a lot of us Gen-X'ers that were deployed over there over
25 years ago, when it was popular, for the same damned thing. Nothing has changed. Sure, some leadership
folks have been taken out, but the body count of Americans soldiers has only risen,and the Region is
now worse off.
The "first time" we had more folks die from non-combat related accidents than from actual combat.
Some of us are sick of our political and corporate establishment selling out our fellow soldiers and
Veterans, even worse is the way they have been treated when they come home. I'm not a Trump supporter,
but this part of his message not only resonates with me, but angers me further. Why? Because I know
that if Hillary Clinton walks into The Oval Office, even more Americans are going to die for lust of
more power and influence.
HRC is simply the evilest human being I have ever seen in politics in my lifetime. Trump may be an
idiot, crass, authoritarian, and any number of negative things, but he is not "evil" – she is.
If the mash up continues as Clinton v. Trump and barring any character sinking actions of Trump,
this man will win in November. To paraphrase Shivani, Clinton is speaking entirely in high minded self-interest,
while Trump has latched onto and is pressing a actual truths of reality (regardless of his personal
convictions or what he wlll actually do if elected).
Trump is more liberal than Clinton here. What exactly are her redeeming qualities again?
I can't really think of any HRC redeeming qualities. "Retail politicking" doesn't seem to be one
of them. Lambert, you no doubt saw this video of her confronted with rising health insurance costs post-ACA?
Her word salad response doesn't begin to address the real issues
During a recent town hall event, a small business owner explained to the Democratic front-runner
that her health insurance has gone up so significantly for her family that the thought of providing
benefits to her employees is secondary at this point.
"As a small business owner, not only are you trying to provide benefits to your employees,
you're trying to provide benefits to yourself. I have seen our health insurance for my own family,
go up $500 dollars a month in the last two years. We went from four hundred something, to nine hundred
something. We're just fighting to keep benefits for ourselves. The thought of being able to provide
benefits to your employees is almost secondary, yet to keep your employees happy, that's a question
that comes across my desk all the time. I have to keep my employees as independent contractors for
the most part really to avoid that situation, and so I have turnover"
"We do not qualify for a subsidy on the current health insurance plan. My question to you
is not only are you looking out for people that can't afford healthcare, but I'm someone that can
afford it, but it's taking a big chunk of the money I bring home."
To which Hillary responded, to make a long story short, that she knows healthcare costs are going
up, and doesn't understand why that would ever be the case.
"What you're saying is one of the real worries that we're facing with the cost of health insurance
because the costs are going up in a lot of markets, not all, but many markets and what you're describing
is one of the real challenges."
"There's a lot of things I'm looking at to try to figure out how to deal with exactly the
problem you're talking about. There are some good ideas out there but we have to subject them to
the real world test, will this really help a small business owner or a family be able to afford it.
What could have possibly raised your costs four hundred dollars, and that's what I don't understand."
"What could have possibly raised your costs four hundred dollars, and that's what I don't
understand." - this from a woman who ostensibly is an expert on health care delivery?
The link is from Zero Hedge but in any case watch the video. Or wait for it to appear in a Trump
campaign ad:
"Or wait for it to appear in a Trump campaign ad" Haha!
I am surprised she didn't pull out the "90% coverage" false-positve. We haven't seen that pony enough.
The notion of imploring "scientific" method here is interesting in light of the party's blood oath to
meritocracy. "There are some good ideas out there but we have to subject them to the real world
test ". It also implies that the process is natural and no accountability is necessary.
Another great DNC experiment. Throwing the blacks in jail for 20 years over nothing "oh well, we
need to try more!" I cannot imagine being in prison right now for some minor drug offense and hearing
the Clintons spew this nonsense.
Jeff Gundlach, one of the few iconoclasts and reigning king of bonds on Wall Street:
"People are going to start putting greater focus on Hillary (Clinton). Voters are going to say, 'No.
I don't want this,'" he told Reuters. "Hillary is going to evolve into an unacceptable choice. If she
is such a great candidate, how come (Bernie Sanders) is beating her?"
Even more. He's based in LA so there's a 400 mile air gap between him in the goldbugging, glibertarian,
wannabe John Galt culture of the Valley exemplified by Peter Theil.
How about a picture of Gundlach for tomorrow's antidote ?
It is warm heartening to see this site who consistently leaning left warming for the Donald. Clinton
is a horrible candidate, flawed human being and her presidency is guaranteed to be marred by scandal
after scandal and deep polarization.
Bern would be a great choice but he has no chance, the corrupt Democratic establishment will stick with
Clinton.
I inuited months ago that the warming to Donald thing would happen. I have a growing conviction that
most of the people here, maybe even you, are going to vote for Donald in November. Even Jason will vote
for Donald (unless he is being employed by that pro-Hillary super pac which I don't think is the case
but just throwing it out there since there are empirically speaking people being paid to produce pro
Hillary comments on the internet). Barring something truly interesting and novel happening between now
and then that is.
The way things are going now this plane seems set for an effortless autopilot victory for Trump.
I have no doubt that everyone will regret too. They'll even regret before they cast the vote, and do
it anyway. Oh man, that's some truly black humor. OK I'll make an even grander prediction: Trump will
inaugurate the post postmodern era (whatever historians eventually decide to call it) where our entire
conception and perception of reality as a society undergoes a radical and unpleasant change. It's a
unique time to be alive. Aren't we lucky?
Wait. I just had an incredible insight. We're already out of the postmodern era, and I can date it
from Sept. 11, 2001as the exit. Historian are going to say that this was a short era, a transitional
era of illusions, delusions and fear, where complete non-reality Trumped the real for an ever so short
period of time. But now we're going to be shocked awake, and what's coming next is going to be incredible
and horrific. Damn, it's such an awesome and strange feeling to see things so clearly all of a sudden!
It's really happening. So this why I've been obsessing over this stuff much recently.
I tried to find a short clip of Brunhilde riding her horse into the flames in Gotterdammerung right
before Valhalla collapses, which is what voting for Trump would be like for me, but I couldn't find
out.
There was an antiwar left on the msm during the Bush years? Kerry's campaign message was "Ill be
W 2.0." Kerry himself was that awful, but there was no antiwar left in the msm. I thought the absence
was the direct cause for the rise of blogs. The real crisis is the shift of websites such as TalkingPointMemo
and CrooksandLiars to Team Blue loyalist sites or when Digby brought on Spoonfed.
Yep. 2006 was when the Dems decapitated the left blogosphere, and as a result we have no independent
media, except for lonely outposts like this one, and whatever those whacky kidz are doing with new media.
I keep donating to Bernie because even if he somehow doesn't win the nomination, he can force Hillary
to be much more like him – if HRC wants Bernie voters to clinch the deal for her. Bernie staying in
and fighting to the end (and my money says he wins) is great and if Hillary doesn't become Bernie, then
the only one that can beat Trump is Bernie, and the super-delegates have got to see that.
Bottom line, Hillary has to become Bernie to beat Trump. Is that going to happen? We'll see.
Bernie staying in until the very end serves two purposes (he CAN still win, especially when he carries
California). The first is, again, he CAN win. The second purpose is to prevent Hillary from shifting
right the way she REALLY wants to for the general. She will have to keep tacking left to fend off a
major slide towards Bernie. The "center" (actually right wing) is out of reach for her as long as Bernie
is there.
Sorry to rain on your thesis, but absent the nomination, all Bernie can do is to force Hillary to
*message* more like him. With her, the operative phrase is "words are wind". There is nothing whatever
to keep her from immediately ditching every progressive-sounding campaign stance once she is in office,
just as Obama did. And I guarantee you that if she does become president, that is precisely what she
will do.
Trump knows the counterweight better than anyone. He's the guy you keep on the job because he's entertaining,
knowing he will sell you out if you let him, and you let him, when it serves a purpose, to adjust the
counterweight.
POLITICS, RE feudalism, is a game, and he loves it, despite the heartburn. All that debt inertia.preventing
the economic motor from gaining traction is psychological. That much he knows, which is a lot more than
the rest of the politicians, making him a better dress maker. But like the others, he has no idea what
to do about it.
He vascillates to maintain options, including a path to the future, while others rule themselves
out. Of course hiring good people is the answer, but most Americans are politicians, like anywhere else,
wanting to know little more than their cubicle, because the net result of majority behavior is punishing
work, in favor of consumers, competing for advantage.
If you spent this time developing skills and finding a spouse that won't cut your throat, you will
do quite well. The casino isn't life; it just keeps a lot of people busy, with busy work. Government
is hapless.
It's hard to know if Trump sees militarization and imperialism as bad because they're bad or bad
because it's not Donald Trump in charge, with a great big straw sucking Benjamins between those rectally
pursed lips. It may take an agent provocateur bullshitter to call bullshit, but that says nothing about
what Trump will do as president. What's likeliest, given his record, is an opportunistic seizure of
the Treasury to rival the occupation of Iraq. When I gaze into my crystal ball at a Trump administration
I see cronyism, graft, corruption, nepotism, and deceit of monumental dimensions, just like the gold
letters spelling Trump plastered over everything he lays his stubby little hands on. Because the Clintons
are appalling doesn't make Trump appealing. It's a farcical contest, and every way, we lose.
You echo my feelings. My loathing of Clinton knows no bounds, and I cannot vote for her, no matter
what. But I simply don't trust Trump. He's a gold-digger extrodinaire, and quite the accomplished showman.
He knows how to play to the crowd, and he's clearly quite quick to shape shift. The wrecked tatters
of what's called the USA "media" gives Trump a YOOOGE pass on simply everything and anything the man
says or does.
I don't trust Trump, and although, yes, he has says a few things that I agree with – and usually
stuff that no one else at his level will ever say – it's essentially meaningless to me. I think Trump
would be a disaster as President, and my "take" – which is based on my own opinion – is that he'll be
Grifter El Supremo and make sure that he walks off with stacks and gobs and buckets of CA$H. For him.
And if the country really tanks and goes bankrupt? So What?
Plus all this about Trump not being a War Hawk? I don't trust it. With the other breath, he's constantly
spewing about "building up" the damn military, which, allegedly Obama has "weakened." Like, we really
need to be spending another gazillion of our tax dollars "building up" the Military??? WHY? If The Donald
is so against all these foreign wars, then why do we need to spend even more money on the Military???
All that signals to me is that Donald expects to go large on MIC investments for HIMSELF.
Story time: so, when I married the Mrs, I offered to fix the mother in laws old bug. She turned me
down and has since demand that I fix what is now a rust bucket, not worth one manhour of my time, going
around to the neighbors, all critters on govt checks rapidly falling behind RE inflation, to build consensus
to the end, among women using men and men using women, all of them having thrown their marriages under
the bus, as if majority vote is going to get me to do something I have no intention of doing.
When hospital gave Grace that shot and sent her to the ICU, per Obamacare expert protocol, all the
critters went into CYA mode, and ultimately called the family, to confirm that the wife and I must be
on drugs, which they did. I don't blame the morons running the court system, and she's the mother in
law.
That debt is nothing more than psychology, but it is more effective than a physical prison. Silicon
Valley is the as is abutment, simply reinforcing stupid with ever greater efficiency, but it is the
endpoint on a collapsing bridge with no retreat, because automation has systematically destroyed the
skill pool and work ethic required to advance further, replacing them with make work and make work skills.
Competing with China and the Middle East to build carp infrastructure to keep As many economic slaves
as busy as possible is not the path forward. As you have seen, govt data is far closer to being 180
degrees wrong than being correct, as designed, which you should expect, from those holding out ignorance
as a virtue.
There are far more elevators that need fixing than I could ever get to, and I am quite capable of
fixing them in a manner that generates power. Who becomes president is irrelevant.
My family in Ohio is massive, they made a killing on RE and currency arbitrage, after selling all
the family farms, and have nothing real to show for it, but rapidly depreciating sunk costs, waiting
to do it again. Rocket scientists.
If the GWOT has cost us $4 Trillion, somebody made $4 Trillion.
That/those somebodies are not about to give up the kind of behavior that makes that
kind of money.
If there is any real, actual third-rail in American politics, it's the MIC budget.
This fact has never been openly acknowledged, even though the American people are pretty sure that
threatening the will of the MIC cost the life of at least one well known politician.
Trump may talk about that enormous waste now, but after his private screening of the Zapruder film
he's going to STFU and get with the program like all the rest.
OTOH, like Yves has pointed out, if Donald wins, he could just end up the loneliest man in DC, be
ignored, get nothing done, and I'm not sure I see a down-side to that.
if Donald wins, he could just end up the loneliest man in DC, be ignored, get nothing done
Exactly my feeling. He will be hated and fought constantly, whereas Clinton (if nominated) is guaranteed
to screw things up. Like her husband (who by the way will be there whispering in ears and making passes
at maids) she will triangulate on issues and pass destructive GOP legislation and likely drag this country
into another foreign policy blunder, where I am betting more young, under-educated, poor citizens with
no prospects or options will be sent to slaughter (themselves and others).
EH? I think The Donald will just go Large on MIC investments for himself. He talks a good game, but
he keeps saying that he's going "build up" the Military, even as he's stating that we shouldn't be fighting
in all of these wars. Why, then, do we need to "build up" the Military?
No one ever said Trump was stupid. I'm sure he's rubbing his grubby tiny vulgarian mitts with glee
thinking about how he, too, can get in on that sweet sweet SWEET MIC payola grift scam. Count on it.
Trump doesn't need to see the Zapruder film. He was alive then and knows the story, just like everyone
else of a certain age. Nay, verily, he just means to cash in on it.
Watt4Bob
May 13, 2016 at 12:30 pm
"OTOH, like Yves has pointed out, if Donald wins, he could just end up the loneliest man in DC, be ignored,
get nothing done, and I'm not sure I see a down-side to that."
I too view that as a feature and not a bug. Seriously, in the last 10, 20, 30 years, I would ask,
what law is viewed as making things better? Was Sarbanes Oxley suppose to do something??? Maybe the
law is OK, they just won't enforce it
I know Obamacare is relentlessly disparaged here, others think it is better than nothing.
Many of you youngsters don't realize this, but there was a time, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, that
there were no deductibles, co-pays, narrow networks, and that you had confidence that your doctor may
have over treated and tested you, but you weren't afraid that you would die because it was too expensive
to treat you.
Just like I don't care if GDP goes up because i won't see any of it, I don't care about all the cancer
research because I am certain I won't be able to afford it, even though I have health "insurance" .
"Employer-sponsored retiree health coverage once played a key role in supplementing Medicare," observe
Tricia Neuman and Anthony Damico of the foundation. "Any way you slice it, this coverage is eroding."
Since 1988, the foundation says, among large firms that offer active workers health coverage, the
percentage that also offer retiree health plans has shrunk to 23% in 2015 from 66% in 1988. The decline,
which has been steady and almost unbroken, almost certainly reflects the rising cost of healthcare and
employers' diminishing sense of responsibility for long-term workers in retirement.
.
Financial protection against unexpected healthcare costs is crucial for many Medicare enrollees, especially
middle- and low-income members, because the gaps in Medicare can be onerous. The deductible for Medicare
Part A, which covers inpatient services, is $1,288 this year, plus a co-pay of $322 per hospital day
after 60 days. Part B, which covers outpatient care, has a modest annual deductible of $166 but pays
only 80% of approved rates for most services.
====================================================
80% of 100,000$ means 20K is left over – with cancer treatments*, kidney treatments, cardiovascular
treatments, such a scenario is more likely than a lot of people will imagine.
*treatments don't include those foam slippers that they charge you 25$ for .
But the consequences of the shift away from employer-sponsored retiree benefits go beyond the rise
in costs for the retirees themselves. Many are choosing to purchase Medigap policies, which fill in
the gaps caused by Medicare's deductibles, cost-sharing rates and benefit limitations. That has the
potential to drive up healthcare costs for the federal government too. That's because Medigap policies
tend to encourage more medical consumption by covering the cost-sharing designed to make consumers more
discerning about trips to the doctor or clinic. Already, nearly 1 in 4 Medicare enrollees had a Medigap
policy - almost as many as had employer-sponsored supplemental coverage.
..
The trend is sure to fuel interest on Capitol Hill in legislating limits to Medigap plans. Such limits
have supporters across the political spectrum: Over the past few years, proposals to prohibit Medigap
plans from covering deductibles have come from the left-leaning Center for American Progress, the centrist
Brookings Institution and conservatives such as Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).
================================
please stop going to the doctor, its expensive .just expire
First time poster, long time lurker. You don't think that Sanders success in the race pushed HRC
to embrace debt free 4 year public college?
We'll see what specific policy commitments come out of the convention, but I don't think the current
campaign would have the same issues if Bernie wasn't there.
Please don't mistake me either, ideologically I'm with Sanders and was supporting him until the NYDN
article and the delegate math became pretty much impossible. If I had my druthers, he'd be the candidate,
but it looks quite quite unlikely now.
I'm concerned that HRC will pivot after the election and give support to the TPP but even then I'm
still anti-Trump more.
Actually, a poster with your email commented in 2014 under another handle. There seems to be a rash
lately of infrequent or new commenters who "support Sanders but" or "supported Sanders until" lately.
For some reason.
That said, you could be right on college (
see here for a comparison of the plans ). It's just that Clinton's talking point about not wanting
to pay for Trump's children is so unserious I can't believe the plan is serious.
I dunno. I see a lot of people decry Trump's immigration ban on Muslims, but Hillary's record as
SecState was incredibly violent toward Muslims internationally and also includes presiding
over a defacto immigration ban from specific "problem" states- banning people for security reasons being
much more tactful than banning Muslims per se.
The nativist appeal Trump is making doesn't go much farther than naming the intent of policy Hillary
has been actually pursuing. Trump wants to use the demonisation of Muslims since 9/11 as a political
lever to gain power and will use anti-Muslim or anti-immigrant (weird to see the two conflated so frequently)
sentiment to achieve specific political goals, preferably sublating it into keynesian infrastructure
programs (wall building or whatever). Hillary intends to keep bombing societies that are increasingly
visibily disintegrating from the cumulative effects of climate change, colonial oppression and marginalisation,
foreign intervention, etc. It's not obvious who gets the benefit of the doubt in a lesser evil contest.
Trump is breaking the "lesser of two evils" argument.
Let's be clear about something here. The "lesser of two evils" is not an argument to find which candidate
is "the less evil." It's an argument used to justify the assumption that your candidate is the less
evil of the other. While else is it that Democrats say Clinton is the less evil while Republicans argue
that Trump is the less evil.
It's obvious watching leftist pundits (many of whom I respect) come out and flatly assert "Clinton
is the better of the two." And there heads usually explode right off their shoulders when they run into
someone who disagrees or is simply skeptical of the claim.
The real problem is when Trump dose speak on trade and war policy, he exposes the fallacy of the
argument. We can't take Trump's word for it – even though we already know Hillary is likely lying, so
it's still a tie. The notion that Trump might actually be honest here isn't even permitted to be considered
because that would make Trump the less evil of the two.
The problem I keep running into is just how do you measure "evil?" This gets even harder to do when
you can't take either at their word. There is always some deeper calculous we are expected to project
on the candidates in order to arrive at our pre-supposed conclusion that our candidate is always the
less evil.
It's the main reason I will not be voting for either.
Forgive me for piling on today Btw,.anyone know who this Carmen Yarrusso is? Excerpt from Counterpunch
(today)
"Trump may be a (loose-cannon) unpredictable evil. But then, based on her long track record, Clinton
is a very predictable evil. In fact, Trump is left of Clinton on such things as legal marijuana, NATO
aggression, and trade policy. His crazy proposals (e.g. Mexican wall, banning Muslims) are just bluster
with zero chance of becoming reality. If Congress can stop Obama, it can stop Trump. But Clinton has
a predictable pro-war track record (Iraq, Libya, Syria) and a predictable track record of changing positions
for political expediency (e.g. Iraq war, NAFTA, Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000, immigration, gun control,
the Keystone XL pipeline, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, same-sex marriage). How can you be sure she
won't conveniently change her current progressive positions as president? A Trump presidency just might
force Democratic Party elites to start seriously addressing the populist concerns they now arrogantly
ignore.
If you vote for Clinton as the lesser of two evils, you're compromising your moral values, you're
condoning the Democratic Party's shoddy treatment of millions of progressives, and you're sabotaging
future real change. You're virtually guaranteeing the Democratic Party elites will put you in this position
again and again. If you refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, maybe you'll help elect Trump (or
maybe your write-in or third party choice will win). But you'll certainly send a very clear message
to Democratic Party elites that you'll no longer tolerate being ignored, marginalized, or shamed with
false lesser of two evil choices."
lol watching people attack Trump well, not sure if it's Clinton's army out to scare us about the
horrors Trump will cause. now it's like the Devil we know vs the Devil we don't know. Kind of hard to
compare Trump to Hillary. Hillary's effective brand of evil is well established and is quite thorough,
shown by the primary votes in NY and AZ, for example. watching the Elites attack, belittle and completely
ignore the existence of Bernie gives us a little clue of what is in store if Hillary gets her way. Trump
is the "known unknown" to use Rumsfeld terminology.
Evil is as evil does. aka Hillary
this is perhaps the one and only time I ever will vote Republican. and I abhor Republicans. Hillary
has earned her reputation, Trump.. well Trump or no Trump, it won't be Hillary getting my vote. Keeping
Bernie out, we all lose.
No, I don't support the current administration's drone war, nor did I support the horrible Iraq war
of 2003, but that doesn't answer my question. I don't understand "Hillary is lying" as a tautology and
the conclusion being that Trump is a better bet than HRC because of that.
But in regards to your question, do you think that the drone war stance will change in the next administration
whether's it's HRC or Trump? Trump said he wants to get more aggressive on terrorists than we currently
are, explicitly endorsing torture.
Well even Sanders has come out in favor of drones, so probably, unless one is die hard Jill Stein
all the way. Then one's hands are entirely clean if also entirely ineffective.
Yeah, because voting for drone strikes, imperialism and corruption is more effective at getting rid
of those things than not voting for drone strikes, imperialism and drone strikes
Theyre both liars. If youre trusting Donald to not drone strike or trusting Hillary to not torture,
youre being duped.
As for your comment further down about Trump saying he wants to torture people more Its not as if
Obama has stopped Bush's torture regime or closed Guantanamo. Hillary too would continue more things.
Honestly I still dont understand why Trump is so much scarier than Hillary. Their differences are
mostly kayfabe. All that xenophobic racist demagogy Trump is doing? More kayfabe. Im still voting Stein,
because I dont vote for corrupt imperialists.
Stein is likewise kayfabe. If the party had gone with Anderson he might well have pulled a Bernie
in the last general election. That just wouldn't do, so the party was rather brazenly railroaded into
nominating Stein.
Just as the best lies are 99% truth the best con-jobs are the ones containing the maximum amount
of truthiness. Some days I like the things I hear Trump saying, the next he gives me a sick feeling
with chills down my spine. Sure, he's not sticking to the approved neo-con, neo-lib, Washington consensus
script but just how stupid do you have to be to not know that Saddam Hussein was a secular Bathist dictator
who executed anyone who he saw as a threat to his power, especially muslim extremists. Just because
Trump can spout off a truthy factoid that is only news to the brain-dead Fox News masses doesn't mean
he is any more of an honest dealer than Bush Jr. Does anyone think Bush, Cheney or Rumsfield were operating
under any illusions that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11? Of course not, they either saw
an opportunity or they engineered an opportunity to do what they wanted to do. Trump has shown himself
to be a bully comfortable with marshaling mob violence or the threat of mob violence. He is an authoritarian
and no defender of civil liberties, habeous corpus or the Geneva convention. He's exactly the type of
megalomanic that would try and seize power in an ailing democracy like our own, and I have no doubts
that if elected he will create some sort of Constitutional crisis that could end in a military coup
or Trump installed as a dictator. He already has a silent pissed-off army of violent brown shirts on
his side. I don't like the way this situation looks and people on the left with intelligence and a grasp
of history are deluding themselves if they think Trump isn't a very dangerous person.
In a possibly unrelated note, I'm 99% sure someone deeply keyed the full length of my car (truck
actually) yesterday while I was surfing for no other reason than my Bernie Sanders bumper sticker right
here in sunny, liberal southern California. Could it have been a Clinton supporter or a joy vandal who
likes keying random people's cars – sure. But if Trump wins I wonder how long it is before halal restaurants
and muslim dry cleaners start getting their windows smashed, then burned. How long before Hindus and
brown people start getting attacked (as a common occurrence, not outlier events that are punished as
they are now) because they are confused as being Muslim or Mexican or deliberately because they just
aren't white and should go home. There's a very nasty underbelly to this Trump thing and I don't like
it.
I agree on the nasty underbelly. On the other hand, I find it refreshing that Trump mentions the
millions of people slaughtered by our foreign policy. I don't hear that from Clinton, at all.
" I find it refreshing that Trump mentions the millions of people slaughtered by our foreign policy.
I don't hear that from Clinton, at all."
Ditto, me too, but I'm not about to cherry-pick Trump's schizophrenic and ever shifting talking points
then soft-peddle candidate Trump while telling people not to worry. I like silver-linings, staying optimistic
and being contrarian (I wouldn't hang out here otherwise) but why ignore the very troubling subtext
in the rest of Trump's speech? The anti-democratic, sneering remarks about suspected terrorists being
executed immediately in Saddam's Iraq instead of "on trial for fifteen years" in pansy-cakes weak, habeas
corpus America. Trump offhandedly mentions; 'Oh by the way, don't buy the lowball collateral damage
numbers you hear from the Pentagon, we're unnecessarily killing a lot of brown people abroad.' But then
he fans the flames of racism with stump speeches about building a wall and banning all muslims from
entering the USA. I can tell you which message his supporters are comprehending if you're unsure. Despite
being a politically heterodox chameleon Trump is showing his true colors. Just because Trump is willing
to break with the orthodoxy while he is campaigning doesn't mean he isn't an aspiring tyrant. Don't
be fooled. Trump isn't enlightened or altruistic, he's a talented demagogue pulling a Con on America-
that's it.
By the way, I wanted to add I am not in any way considering a vote for Hillary if she does in fact
become the Democratic nominee. I am very troubled by the prospect of a President Trump but I will not
allow my vote to be held hostage by the DNC and the very tired "lesser of evils arguments" I realized
my last comment might be construed as a "Trump must be stopped at all costs" Clinton rationalization.
It was not. Trump will be on the conscience of those who vote for him and those who have enabled him.
Maybe we should look at what Trump recently said at AIPAC – y'know, that itsy bitsy little lobby
that seems to strike fear into the hearts of all US politicians Trump included – to get a sense of his
ME policy,
shall we
?
snip
'In Spring 2004, at the height of violence in the Gaza Strip, I was the Grand Marshal of the 40th
Salute to Israel Parade, the largest single gathering in support of the Jewish state."
"My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran. I have been in business
a long time. I know deal-making and let me tell you, this deal is catastrophic – for America, for
Israel, and for the whole Middle East."
"First, we will stand up to Iran's aggressive push to destabilize and dominate the region. Iran
is a very big problem and will continue to be, but if I'm elected President, I know how to deal with
trouble. Iran is a problem in Iraq, a problem in Syria, a problem in Lebanon, a problem in Yemen,
and will be a very major problem for Saudi Arabia. Literally every day, Iran provides more and better
weapons to their puppet states.
Hezbollah in Lebanon has received sophisticated anti-ship weapons, anti-aircraft weapons, and
GPS systems on rockets. Now they're in Syria trying to establish another front against Israel from
the Syrian side of the Golan Heights."
Just last week, American Taylor Allen Force, a West Point grad who served in Iraq and Afghanistan,
was murdered in the street by a knife-wielding Palestinian. You don't reward that behavior, you confront
it!
It's not up the United Nations to impose a solution. The parties must negotiate a resolution themselves.
The United States can be useful as a facilitator of negotiations, but no one should be telling Israel
it must abide by some agreement made by others thousands of miles away that don't even really know
what's happening.
When I'm president, believe me, I will veto any attempt by the UN to impose its will on the Jewish
state.
Already, half the population of Palestine has been taken over by the Palestinian ISIS in Hamas,
and the other half refuses to confront the first half, so it's a very difficult situation but when
the United States stands with Israel, the chances of peace actually rise. That's what will happen
when I'm president.
We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem – and
we will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable ally,
the state of Israel."
Yup, it's like he and Hillary are just night and day, huh?
I mean other than the fact that Hillary actually BACKS the Iran Deal but don't let that get in the
way of a good "but Hillary" meeting.
The two candidates will be identical where it's most important – e.g. w/ Israel and the ME – just
like all of the presidential candidates.
You would think the Obama administration may have taught us something about perceiving reality oh
wait that's right, it really was Hillary and not poor Obama who's been doing all that killing over the
last 8 years and the Donald's really a renegade "outsider" billionaire who's just scaring the pants
off of the Establishment, right?
Wow. Just wow.
Obama Hope Junkies so desperate that they're shooting Trumpodil straight into their minds.
I'm confused. What does this have to do with the topic of the post? The YouTube has nothing to do
with the deplorable Beltway consensus on Israel, of which Trump is a part.
As US-driven wars plummet the Muslim world ever deeper into jihadi-ridden failed state chaos,
events seem to be careening toward a tipping point. Eventually, the region will become so profuse
a font of terrorists and refugees, that Western popular resistance to "boots on the ground" will
be overwhelmed by terror and rage. Then, the US-led empire will finally have the public mandate it
needs to thoroughly and permanently colonize the Greater Middle East.
It is easy to see how the Military Industrial Complex and crony energy industry would profit from
such an outcome. But what about America's "best friend" in the region? How does Israel stand to benefit
from being surrounded by such chaos?
Tel Aviv has long pursued a strategy of "divide and conquer": both directly, and indirectly through
the tremendous influence of the Israel lobby and neocons over US foreign policy.
A famous article from the early 1980s by Israeli diplomat and journalist Oded Yinon is most explicit
in this regard. The "Yinon Plan" calls for the "dissolution" of "the entire Arab world including
Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula." Each country was to be made to "fall apart along sectarian
and ethnic lines," after which each resulting fragment would be "hostile" to its neighbors." Yinon
incredibly claimed that:
"This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run"
According to Yinon, this Balkanization should be realized by fomenting discord and war among the
Arabs:
"Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way
to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon."
So, you can see that Trump has said the right things into the right ears – read: AIPAC – as far as
anyone of import is concerned – read: not any of us – and so now he's free to say whatever else he thinks
he needs to.
I mean, Sheldon Adelson endorsed him so he can't be THAT scary to Israel-first billionaires and their
bed-buddies, right?
Ooops, I forgot he's an outsider that everyone's scared of. My bad. Hillary will be so much worse.
Robert Parry at ConsortiumNews has written an insightful article about the damage that has been caused
by both the neocon ideologues' control of US foreign policy and the neoliberals' control of economic
policy, their powerful political and propaganda apparatus, and what we can expect from the legacy political
party candidates for the presidency, focusing on Clinton and her past positions regarding the Middle
East.
It is noteworthy that the dominance of failed neocon and neoliberal policies over the past few decades
has coincided with consolidation and concentration of ownership of corporate media in very few hands.
As with restoring the Glass-Steagall Act and breaking up the TBTFs, reinstating limits on media ownership
and control is an important and necessary measure to breaking the influence these few individuals have
had over national policy.
Being Left of Hillary is a really really really low bar. He probably is, but thats probably because
Hillary is right wing. You know, like almost all American politicians from both parties. Trumps not
left of Bernie (at least not yet or not right now: I expect hes going to swing left in the general to
scoop up Bernie voters), and Bernies just an Eisenhower Republican, which is admittedly to the left
of basically all the other politicians today.
Quoting from memory, context foreign policy: "If our Presidents had gone to the beach every day of
the year fifteen years ago, we would have been in much better shape." (Note this includes Bush.)
King of Faustian bargain of a US politician. Bernie showed his colors in the 2016 primaries. He can't be trusted...
What Bernie is doing is eliminating chances for Tulsi...
Notable quotes:
"... Thank you Jimi, for calling out even Bernie when he buys the corporate bullshit ..."
"... Seriously, if you still support this clown, you are part of the problem. ..."
"... There's nothing progressive about silence, tepidness, or even support for destructive policies abroad by the same forces -- & for the same interests -- that we claim to oppose at home. ..."
"... this is the bargain Bernie made to run as a Democrat ..."
"... Bernie lost credibility when he endorsed Hilary in 2016... Tulsi is the one for 2020... ..."
Aaron Maté tweets -- Do we need a new category for progressives whose progressive values stop at the US border?
There's nothing progressive about silence, tepidness, or even support for destructive policies abroad by the same forces --
& for the same interests -- that we claim to oppose at home.
Bernie lost credibility when he endorsed Hilary in 2016... Tulsi is the one for 2020...
pandastratton. 23 hours ago
Donate to Tulsi to get her on the debate stage!!!!
Dionysos, 19 hours ago
Jimmy I know Tulsi is the best candidate in terms of foreign policy, but Bernie is our only chance at getting a real progressive
in the White House!
People are suffering economically and that is the issue where the vast majority of support lies. If stuff like this splits
the progressive support and allows someone like Kamala to win in the primaries, things will get really bad.
Robert Rowland23 hours ago
Jimmy (God love ya), the Military Industrial Complex is the single most gut-wrenchingly ruthless, most awesome entity on the
planet. It has the ability to kill pretty much anyone they want without repercussion. No domestic political movement, even one
that holds the Whitehouse, is capable of bringing them down or even reining them in. They will eventually meet their demise through
bad management in combination with a series of misfortunes resulting in defeat in all-out global war. Until then, and while we
as a nation are still able, the best we common folks can hope for is this juggernaut (the true boss) to give us some measure of
these desperately needed social reforms. In other words, Bernie is just being realistic.
Meanwhile, Tulsi, The Real Deal Gabbard (God bless her soul), if successful, will be on a course to join the ranks of JFK,
RFK, and MLK.
Our much-vaunted democracy is a sham and our freedom isn't actually what it is represented as being. May I suggest you watch this
video and view it as a metaphor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb8Rj5xkDPk
"... Bernie Sanders said he on Wednesday, "felt compelled to address Russian interference during the US election. Sunday.... he was not aware and believes Russian bot promoting him and went as far to said WikiLeaks published Hillary's email stolen by the Russia....." ..."
"... Can you really trust that lying bastard? I'm probably one of the few MoA refused to believe and trust Bernie Sanders and the fuckup Democrats . ..."
Bernie Sanders said he on Wednesday, "felt compelled to address Russian interference
during the US election. Sunday.... he was not aware and believes Russian bot promoting
him and went as far to said WikiLeaks published Hillary's email stolen by the
Russia....."
Can you really trust that lying bastard? I'm probably one of the few MoA refused to
believe and trust Bernie Sanders and the fuckup Democrats .
While many of us disagree on ideology and values, we agree on practical things like obeying the constitution and not letting
big corporations and the wealthy run everything.
Your 35-day government shutdown was a senseless abuse of power. So too your "national emergency" to build your wall with
money Congress refused to appropriate.
When you passed your tax bill you promised our paychecks would rise by an average of $4,000 but we never got the raise.
Our employers used the tax savings to buy back their shares of stock and give themselves raises instead.
Then you fooled us into thinking we were getting a cut by lowering the amounts withheld from our 2018 paychecks. We know
that now because we're getting smaller tax refunds.
At the same time, many big corporations aren't paying a dime in taxes. Worse yet, they're getting refunds. For example, GM is paying zilch and claiming a $104m refund on $11.8bn of profits. Amazon is paying no taxes and claiming
a $129m refund on profits of $11.2bn. (This is after New York offered it $3bn to put its second headquarters there.) They aren't breaking any tax laws or regulations. That's because they made the tax laws and regulations. You gave them a
free hand.
You're supposed to be working for us, not for giant corporations. But they're doing better than ever, as are their top executives
and biggest investors. Yet nothing has trickled down. We're getting shafted.
Which is why more than 75% of us (including 45% who call ourselves Republicans) support Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's proposed
70% tax on dollars earned in excess of $10m a year.
And over 60% of us support Elizabeth Warren's proposed 2% annual tax on households with a new worth of $50m or more.
You've also shown you don't have a clue about healthcare. You promised us something better than the Affordable Care Act
but all you've done is whittle it back.
A big reason we gave Democrats control of the House last November was your threat to eliminate protection for people with
pre-existing conditions.
Are you even aware that 70% of us now favor Medicare for all?
Most of us don't pay much attention to national policy but we pay a lot of attention to home economics. You've made our
own home economics worse.
We'll give you official notice you're fired on 3 November 2020, if not before. Until then, you can keep the house and perks,
but you're toast.
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Hamlet (1.4), Marcellus to Horatio. This line
spoken by Marcellus (and not Hamlet as is commonly believed) is one of the most recognizable
lines in all of Shakespeare's works. Fully applicable to Sanders, Hillary and Trump
The context of the quote is also interesting and fully applicable: Marcellus, shaken by
the many recent disturbing events and no doubt angered (as is Hamlet) by Claudius's mismanagement
of the body politic, astutely notes that Denmark is festering with moral and political
corruption. Horatio replies "Heaven will direct it" (91), meaning heaven will guide the state of
Denmark to health and stability.
This investgation was a convenient sham to cover for the real collusion and Trump was
the Zionist 1 percenters choice and nothing was going to foil that and many of you here
fell for the entire charade hook, line and sinker believing Trump was a poor victim all
along.
I think you're mostly right but there's more to it, like:
>> Complicity of Christian Zionists and other enablers and hangers on;
>> Deep-State CYA after the lost war in Syria;
>> New Cold War as AZ Empire re-orients to respond to Russia-China challenge.
AIPAC/Israel's power in US politics is well known. And they have great influence
on BOTH Parties. Your focus on as the embodiment of this evil suggest that you think that if
he were not elected in 2016 then Zionist influence would be eliminated or greatly diminished.
That is certainly not the true.
What strikes me about the 2016 Presidential election is not that wealthy Jews donated to
Trump but that the election was manipulated in numerous ways. Highlights:
>> Trump was the only Republican populist (out of 19 contenders!);
>> Sanders and Trump were both long-time friends of the Clintons;
>> Sanders was a sheepdog that prevented progressives from breaking with the
Democratic Party;
>> Hillary didn't need to collude with DNC - that added very very little to
the money she raised for her campaign - but it did allow her to treat Sanders and his
supporters shabbily;
>> Hillary also alienated other important groups, like blacks and white
conservatives ("deplorables");
>> Trump played along by bringing on Manafort, asking Russia to find Hillary's
emails, and breaking his campaign promise to investigate Hillary within days of the
election;
>> Trump has brought allies of his supposed enemies into his Administration: VP
Pence was close to McCain (as was Lindsey Graham who was anti-Trump during the election);
Gina Haspel is Brennan's gal at CIA; Bolton and Abrams are neocons (neocons were 'Never
Trump'); Attorney General William Barr is close with Robert Mueller; etc.
Bernie only he served as a sheepdog for Hillary, he want to serve a sheep dog in elections 2020
Notable quotes:
"... Sen. John McCain was a friend and a man of great courage and integrity. We need a president who will fight for our veterans, not attack the memory of an American hero. ..."
"... "How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle?...How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets?" - Smedley Butler, "War is a Racket" ..."
While I respect Bernie, I disagree with him strongly on this. John McCain was a war hawk
who sent American youth to fight and die and never met a problem he didn't think could be
solved through invasion or intervention. The real heroes are those who fought for PEACE.
Bernie Sanders 4:17 PM - 20 Mar 2019
Sen. John McCain was a friend and a man of great courage and integrity. We need a
president who will fight for our veterans, not attack the memory of an American hero.
Mike Gravel 5:28 AM - 21 Mar 2019
"How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle?...How many of them knew what it
meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened
nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets?" - Smedley Butler, "War is a
Racket"
"... There are numerous clues that point to the 2016 US Presidential Election as having been a set-up. Few seem willing to take a close look at these facts. But it is necessary for an understanding of the world we live in today. ..."
"... Sanders as sheep-dog Black Agenda Report called Sanders a sheep-dog soon after he entered the race . ..."
"... "Enough with the emails!" ..."
"... Not pursuing Hillary's 'winning' of 6 coin tosses in Iowa ..."
"... Virtually conceding the black and female vote to Hillary ..."
"... Not calling Hillary out about her claim to have NEVER sold her vote ..."
"... Endorsing Hillary despite learning of Hillary-DNC collusion ..."
"... Continuing to help the Democratic Party reach out to Bernie supports even after the election ..."
"... As one keen observer noted: Sanders is a Company Man . ..."
There are numerous clues that point to the 2016 US Presidential Election as having been a set-up. Few seem willing to take a
close look at these facts. But it is necessary for an understanding of the world we live in today.
Trump's first 100 days has come and gone and he has proven to be every bit the faux populist that Obama was (as I explained in
a previous post). In hind-sight we can see how a new faux populist was installed.
Sanders made it clear from the start that he ruled
out the possibility of running as an independent. That was only the first of many punches that Sanders pulled as he led his 'sheep'
into the Democratic fold.
Others were:
; "Enough with the emails!"
; Not pursuing Hillary's 'winning' of 6 coin tosses in Iowa;
; Virtually conceding the black and female vote to Hillary;
; Not calling Hillary out about her claim to have NEVER sold her vote;
; Endorsing Hillary despite learning of Hillary-DNC collusion;
; Continuing to help the Democratic Party reach out to Bernie supports even after the election.
"... "Defiant leftwinger" is a bit rich. "Defiant leftwinger" only in relation to an artificially skewed spectrum represented by Fox News, Casino Trump, and a corporate funded neoliberal nominee toeing a rightwing foreign policy line. ..."
"... Bernie Sanders is a social democrat in the tradition of FDR whose policies are centrist in relation to other industrialised nations. ..."
"... He has focused on four planks he wants in the Democratic Party platform: the creation of an economy that works for all citizens, breaking up the five "too-big-to-fail" banks, a carbon tax to address climate change, and a single-payer healthcare system. ..."
"... Of course Bernie needs to stay. Hillary is under FBI investigation. If she ends up in an orange pantsuit in the big house Bernie will look very stupid and basically has thrown out over 200 mio. dollars which is the amount he has spent on his campaign so far. Given to him by his supporters. It is his duty to them to stay in. ..."
"... " the Guardian are stuck in the old, failed new Labour/Lib Dem politics and do everything to undermine him.( Corbyn )" ..."
"... The Clinton camp is attempting to pressure Sanders to force him out before the convention to make sure that doesn't happen. The Sanders camp is just following the rules and playing fairly. ..."
"... Britain began its retreat from this post WWII social democracy in 1979, 37 years ago when Thatcher took over. The essentially neo-liberal agenda has been actively pursued by every government since then - Thatcher-Major-Blair-Brown - and indeed has accelerated under Cameron. ..."
"... There is nothing to indicate that the average american will be worse off with Trump in office as opposed to Clinton. That's how far to the right her actual policies are. Not the crap she claims, but the stuff she has been doing for the past 20 years. ..."
"... People wonder why there is such animosity towards Americans. You support a woman for president whilst disregarding her most vile traits as a joke? Clinton is a real danger towards the Middle East and that is partly because of her warmongering and absolute support for Israel, wrong or right. There are girls in Sirte, Libya currently being used as sex slaves by ISIS who may think your not so funny. ..."
"... "He tapped into deeply held sentiments about a rigged economy and a broken political system, and built a mass movement of people who believe we can do better and demand solutions that match the scale of the crises." Corbyn has the same agenda in the UK and given the internecine struggle in the Tory Party has an even better chance of winning in 2020. Pity that progressive newspapers like the Guardian are stuck in the old, failed new Labour/Lib Dem politics and do everything to undermine him. ..."
"... And, who knows, elsewhere could possibly prove better - your guess is as good as mine. Clinton is neo-liberal establishment through-and-through. The darling of the global capitalist corporations. ..."
"... Yes, what is wrong with the idiots? Why don't they just lie on their backs and surrender to the neo-liberalist elite? ..."
"... Just a few years ago Americans prised themselves from an unelected monster, G. W. Bush - he and his monster crowd being the key architects/facilitators of the current economic woes and mayhem in the middle east. That's pretty well indisputable. People can try to dispute it but they are flat out wrong and they know it. So given that, why would America now want to place another monster in power? ..."
"... Funny, cancer works this way on the human organism confusing the immune system so much that the body thinks a tumour is okay, a genuine part of the body. Until it's too late. ..."
"... So the American presidential race is down to a contest between the supporter of Oligarchy (Clinton) and the Oligarch (Trump). Of course this would never lead you to believe that American politics serves only the Oligarchy and funds only their candidates. ..."
"... Dems are only about 29% of registered voters, btw, so that is 6% of 29% of voters backing her right now. Yep. Trump has a good chance of winning against that - a write-in campaign for a soggy loaf of bread has a good chance of winning against that. ..."
"... You really don't get what created Trump's opportunity do you, its the same that has seen a new options becoming a political force throughout Europe, its ever & constant growth of disenchantment with the Clinton's, Cameron's & the rest of the political establishment.......sadly the US people need Sanders far more than he needs them of so it would seem. ..."
"... It is no longer "God Bless America". It's "God Help America". With the choice of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Bill (Mr. Zippy) Clinton is already interviewing the interns and glad that he can now get Cuban cigars. From President to "First Man". Remember " I did not have sexual relations with this woman." Just a Blow Job. ..."
"... However they must take a leaf out of the Tea Party's book and start getting their candidates elected as State and congress candidates. There is no point in having a radical president and a reactionary congress. ..."
"... No, those who propped up the corrupt Hitlery, knowing full-well that the system is rigged and the super delegates are bought and paid for, are to blame. ..."
"... Republicans have more of a spine than the Hitlery voters, because they voted for who they actually wanted, not who they were told to. ..."
"... Bernie is an Independent, he should run as one. F*ck Clinton and f*ck the DNC. ..."
"... The 67-year-old Democratic front-runner has been "frequently plagued" by "blinding headaches" and a series of strokes over the course of the campaign which have left her second-guessing her chances of winning in 2016, says the upcoming book "Unlikeable - The Problem with Hillary." ..."
"... The Democrat Party is controlled by the Right and the the representatives at [almost] all levels appear untouchable. The key to the future, not just for Sanders but for the Left he has mobilised, will be in opening up the Party to democracy and accountability. ..."
"... It is truly depressing that the democrats had the chance to put a decent trustworthy person in the White House but instead opted for Clinton, who represents the interests of Wall Street and the Party of Perpetual War. By opting for her they have handed the keys to the repulsive Trump. ..."
"... For decades tens of millions of Americans who are left politically on major issues (whether they identify as "left-wing" or not) have voted for politicians who have carried water for Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the national security apparatus--often more effectively than the Republicans they depict themselves as the progressive alternative to. ..."
"... Money buys power - always has; always will. Read 'Clinton Ca$h'. Or just read something besides MSM. ..."
"... I'm not saying that there are not people who fully support her (and Obama's) IMF/World Bank/USAID/Clinton Foundation approach to international development and international trade, her center aisle approach to use of armed force, her (and Obama's) preference for private insurance based health reform, her approach to Haiti ..."
"... Remember!, it wasn't all sweetness and light under warmonger Hillary. C. ..."
"... "save America" - if Clinton or Trump gets into the White House, NOTHING will save America! ..."
"... "In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA" ..."
"... ISIS was not reversed in Syria until Russia became involved, and they were in full decline within a month. Years of Obama's war against them and they expanded to holding 80% of Syria , and beyond. ..."
There is a difference isn't it? The Clintons are career politicians who have amassed a bigger fortune than Trump (and they
are not the only ones that's become wealthy representing corporations) Bernie has amassed a few hundred thousand from a life in
politics representing the voters.
SoxmisUK -> Shelfunit 9 Jun 2016 04:50
Compared to all the vile insults, conspiracy theory wailing and holy-than-thou posts by Sanders supporters over the last
few months it's nothing
Let me amend that for you: "Compared to all the vile insults, conspiracy theory wailing and holy-than-thou posts by Clinton's
supporters over the last few months it's nothing.."
There. Fixed.
Not true in either case, as one has been as bad as the other, but good to see you sticking your British oar in where it's clearly
not wanted. You shit-stir enough for the Tories here in the UK.
WhigInterpretation 9 Jun 2016 04:50
"Defiant leftwinger" is a bit rich. "Defiant leftwinger" only in relation to an artificially skewed spectrum represented
by Fox News, Casino Trump, and a corporate funded neoliberal nominee toeing a rightwing foreign policy line.
Bernie Sanders is a social democrat in the tradition of FDR whose policies are centrist in relation to other industrialised
nations.
He has focused on four planks he wants in the Democratic Party platform: the creation of an economy that works for all
citizens, breaking up the five "too-big-to-fail" banks, a carbon tax to address climate change, and a single-payer healthcare
system.
Victorious1 -> Herr_Settembrini 9 Jun 2016 04:50
Sorry, but you cannot compare Ron Paul to Sanders and say they have little to show. One ran for many years and despite his
sincerity and common sense came nowhere being nominated at any point in time and the other started a political revolution in his
first run as nominee, drawing tens of thousands in crowds, more individual contributions than ever before and incredibly nearly
won the nomination and probably would have done if he wasn't largely ignored by the media and the superdelegates weren't a bunch
of establishment corrupt cronies.
ungruntled -> killedbydrones 9 Jun 2016 04:47
The election isnt over until the Party congress. In politics people often lie. A bunch of folk have said they will vote one
way........but they may vote another(they may have been lying, or they may just change their minds.)
When the dust settles, and a few more wobbly polls are applied, it may transpire Clinton has no chance against Trump.
In which case Clinton could easily be shown the VP's seat or...........
Seeing as there is little difference between Dems and Repubs, they might put the top heads of each party together in a room
and dream up some other staretegy to screw over the American people. Clinton might get arrested. The possibilities are pretty
endless
But the next POTUS is yet to be chosen
And Bernie is fighting on, just because he can. He isnt playing the stupid "I will bow out gracefully to keep the party together"
bollocks because the party needs to be blown apart. Democracy in the USA is a joke.
Its all about who can buy the power, and Clinton and Trump are living proof of that fact.
Sanders sees that as corrupt and unnaceptable to the American people, (so do I) and anything he can do to upset the apple cart/gravy
train, is fine with me
Ummmmm -> Suckspencil 9 Jun 2016 04:41
I agree with a fair amount of what you're saying, but with all due respect, you're missing the point, which is that what Sanders
is proposing is eminently affordable for any developed nation. The Czech Republic, Greece, Norway, Sweden and Estonia, among others,
do, I believe, provide free higher education. If Estonia, why not the US?
As things stand, most of Europe still has a healthcare system free at the point of delivery. Europe has more stringent climate
legislation than the US. That's one of the reasons that TTIP poses such a threat.
Of course Bernie needs to stay. Hillary is under FBI investigation. If she ends up in an orange pantsuit in the big house
Bernie will look very stupid and basically has thrown out over 200 mio. dollars which is the amount he has spent on his campaign
so far. Given to him by his supporters. It is his duty to them to stay in.
ID6512838 -> Herr_Settembrini 9 Jun 2016 04:35
corporations will just do business elsewhere (especially in emergent markets like India and China). The result will be a relative
decline in living standards for the lower and middle classes in the U.S. (good bye cheap kitchen appliances, cellular phones,
and big screen tvs) and a further erosion in jobs.
Corporations do business where the consumers. The USA is going to be a consumer society for many more years - they have been
trained over many years to consume more and more.
HNS1684 9 Jun 2016 04:30
As I said before: the very fact that Clinton has only "won" VERY NARROWLY in New Mexico, Nevada, South Dakota, Missouri, Iowa,
Illinois, Connecticut, Massachusetts and probably other states as well, the fact Bernie got nearly half the votes in these states,
means that there is STILL at least some hope left for Bernie Sanders.
ArchibaldLeach 9 Jun 2016 04:30
Sanders campaign did a lot to move Hilary to the left but it's not enough. He needs to start moving from his campaign to building
a grassroots liberal activist movement. (Not just supporting people who endorsed him). My hope is that the next Democratic nominee
will be more liberal. Sanders showed us that liberalism is alive and well and he brought crucial issues to the debate that were
being ignored.
snakeatzoes kirby1 9 Jun 2016 04:30
" the Guardian are stuck in the old, failed new Labour/Lib Dem politics and do everything to undermine him.( Corbyn )"
The latest, yesterday, in the middle of the Euro debate, was an astonishing attack by Blair, who clearly is about to" have
his collar felt " over Iraq .
aaronpeacock 9 Jun 2016 04:30
what a load... it's a bitter pill and no one wants to eat it.
Clinton supporters have done little to nothing in the way of policy/platform inclusion, and the general election means she
will pivot to the right shortly, where she always lived anyway.
It's going to take yet another cycle of right-wing idiocy, it seems, before the Democrats will realize that pushing a strong
left/liberal candidate is what's required for electoral success. Get ready for a President Trump.
Lagasse 9 Jun 2016 04:29
Right now the delegate count stands at 2,178 to 1,810. Neither can get enough in the final primary to clinch the nomination.
It has to go to the convention for a decision, therefore. Either candidate could be given the nomination at the convention, per
DNC rules.
The Clinton camp is attempting to pressure Sanders to force him out before the convention to make sure that doesn't happen.
The Sanders camp is just following the rules and playing fairly.
SoxmisUK -> Deborah Holloway 9 Jun 2016 04:27
That's twice you've posted that. Trolling for some reason? The only reason Bernie lost was that Clinton got a massive head
start from the DLC as part of the institution and she was married to a former president.
If Sanders had another 3 months (Possibly much less..) he'd have wiped the floor with her and re-written politics in the USA.
You can crow all you wish now, but the truth is come the next time around there will be a popular vote that stands firmly on the
foundations Sanders has (Quite remarkably..) built.
Suckspencil Ummmmm 9 Jun 2016 04:26
what Sanders proposes is no more than bog-standard, post WWII social democracy - the sort of infrastructure that most
of the rest of the developed world has enjoyed for the past seven decades
Britain began its retreat from this post WWII social democracy in 1979, 37 years ago when Thatcher took over. The essentially
neo-liberal agenda has been actively pursued by every government since then - Thatcher-Major-Blair-Brown - and indeed has accelerated
under Cameron.
These are the issues which Sanders has campaigned on:
getting big money out of politics, his plan to make public colleges and universities tuition-free, combating climate
change and ensuring universal healthcare,"
I wonder if Ummmmm could remind me which of those we still have in the UK. The struggle must continue here as well, I think.
I wouldn't mind a bit of Sanders' "crazed pipe dream".
Ziontrain -> anemag 9 Jun 2016 04:24
There is nothing to indicate that the average american will be worse off with Trump in office as opposed to Clinton. That's
how far to the right her actual policies are. Not the crap she claims, but the stuff she has been doing for the past 20 years.
Spare us the scaremongering. If you wanted to vote for a republican, why would you do so under the "Democratic party" banner?
p0winc -> Ummmmm 9 Jun 2016 04:22
Completely agree. What he wants to implement is what the rest of us take as ordinary and for granted. 643,000 People in the
states went bankrupt from Medical bills last year. He has however started something unique in the states, showing it's possible
to fund and at times out fund the political establishment from individual small donations and not have to compromise on policies.
Bookseeker -> snakeatzoes 9 Jun 2016 04:22
'La Lucha Continua' was also a slogan used by the CNT on its 100th anniversary.
JayJ66 -> R. Ben Madison 9 Jun 2016 04:21
People wonder why there is such animosity towards Americans. You support a woman for president whilst disregarding her
most vile traits as a joke? Clinton is a real danger towards the Middle East and that is partly because of her warmongering and
absolute support for Israel, wrong or right. There are girls in Sirte, Libya currently being used as sex slaves by ISIS who may
think your not so funny.
kirby1 9 Jun 2016 04:20
"He tapped into deeply held sentiments about a rigged economy and a broken political system, and built a mass movement
of people who believe we can do better and demand solutions that match the scale of the crises." Corbyn has the same agenda in
the UK and given the internecine struggle in the Tory Party has an even better chance of winning in 2020. Pity that progressive
newspapers like the Guardian are stuck in the old, failed new Labour/Lib Dem politics and do everything to undermine him.
chrisdix15 9 Jun 2016 04:18
Trump and Clinton are a double headed coin. I would hope Sanders keeps himself away from either but ensures his supporters
vote for neither - don't join the Corrupters Bernie, but stay where you are and keep the struggle going within Congress to show
that both Trump and Clinton mean and do the same things. Only doing this will ensure people see a real alternative to the strait-jacket
the Democrat/Republican parties stand for. The struggle has only just begun.
ryanpatrick9192 -> fedback 9 Jun 2016 04:39
If Hillary is indicted then that does not make Bernie the nominee by default. The superdelegates can still back Clinton and
let her pick a replacement they approve of. Why would they choose Bernie? He doesnt have enouh support to win a general election.
Trunp got more votes in the primary than Bernie for crying out loud.
Suckspencil -> Shotcricket 9 Jun 2016 04:35
How could you, even in jest, suggest such a thing possible? We in the West, are blessed to be led by fearless god-fearing moderates
who believe in justice, peace, equality and the rule of law. Shame on you!
Suckspencil -> Cleggatemyhamster 9 Jun 2016 04:31
And, who knows, elsewhere could possibly prove better - your guess is as good as mine. Clinton is neo-liberal establishment
through-and-through. The darling of the global capitalist corporations.
Suckspencil -> twiglette 9 Jun 2016 04:30
Yes, what is wrong with the idiots? Why don't they just lie on their backs and surrender to the neo-liberalist elite?
BruceRobbie 9 Jun 2016 04:15
Despite this dreadful situation one thing remains, Sanders and Trump supporters simply do not TRUST Clinton to deliver on her
promises and she needs them to trust her if she is to get people go out and to vote for her. Voting requires effort for many people,
and if they don't believe, they will simply stay at home on Election Day. In which case Clinton will lose, because a majority
of Americans actually don't like her.
She is also perceived by a large numbers of Americans as little more than a Manager of the American nation; the leaders, the
CEOs of America, sit in board rooms of corporate America waiting for their "manager" to deliver on their investment in her campaign.
Due to her untrustworthiness and serpentine character, Sanders has wisely shifted his efforts to Congress and the Senate, so
that Clinton if elected, is held to account for electoral promises, Clinton is adept at avoiding difficult situation, emails and
Goldman Speeches, and will try to wriggle out of any commitment if her leaders deem it necessary. She and the DNC have fought
a disgraceful, campaign of deceit, corrupt electoral practise and voter suppression. So when she spouts her Democratic rhetoric
in the coming months, her words will ring hollow as a drum. Good luck America, I fear you're going to need it as your choice of
leader this time around truly is the lesser of two evils.
LouisianaAlba 9 Jun 2016 04:13
The story foisted upon us so far in this electoral cycle is a reasonably but not very complicated narrative - a few players
strutting, ranting and pouting about the country in a predictable plot. In keeping with this predictability let's keep any analysis
simple - fairytale level. Let's talk about monsters.
Just a few years ago Americans prised themselves from an unelected monster, G. W. Bush - he and his monster crowd being
the key architects/facilitators of the current economic woes and mayhem in the middle east. That's pretty well indisputable. People
can try to dispute it but they are flat out wrong and they know it.
So given that, why would America now want to place another monster in power?
Another age of the political monster is looming. Two loom over the world in the coming battle, with a third in the wings by
marriage who wants another shot at power as well, the man who signed away the last threads of Glass Steagall's legal powers.
What is it with Americans and their love affair with these political monsters? Can't Americans choose a good and decent human
being who cares for the people and the country. A person who doesn't treat the country and the world as fools.
Even on the money front, it can be so simple, as economists often say - a confident happy people can lead to economic prosperity.
It won't guarantee it I concede and I won't trade arguments on government or no government intervention, but a happy people is
a better bet for a good economy than the opposite. Keeping it all at the fairytale level of course. Treating people well leads
them to be disposed, motivated towards treating others well. Most times. Okay then there is psychopathology and the narrative
gets complicated.
But the simple truth is - the simple story has been hijacked because a simple story is too easily managed and a country easily
managed is not so easily fooled. And if you can't fool a country and the world, it is not so easy to get away with complicated
crimes. Which is the usual way a monster gets away with them or gets to be rich, complicating things so much we aren't aware fast
enough to stop any of it. Then after we know we are so beaten down and weakened we're simply not strong or ready enough to fix
blame where it belongs.
Funny, cancer works this way on the human organism confusing the immune system so much that the body thinks a tumour is
okay, a genuine part of the body. Until it's too late.
NickDaGeek 9 Jun 2016 04:13
So the American presidential race is down to a contest between the supporter of Oligarchy (Clinton) and the Oligarch (Trump).
Of course this would never lead you to believe that American politics serves only the Oligarchy and funds only their candidates.
God help us if Trump wins and the idiots in Whitehall sign up to TTIP. If that happens Brexit will swap Brussels for Washington
and we will still be a vassal state of a huge power block run by tax avoiding globalist monopoly capitalists.
Lagasse -> MrBrownley 9 Jun 2016 04:13
the large majority who didn't vote for him
Where did that happen? Democratic primary turnout has been around 11%. So far she's got about 6% of Dem voters, meaning that
around 94% of registered Dems that could have voted for her, didn't.
Dems are only about 29% of registered voters, btw, so that is 6% of 29% of voters backing her right now. Yep. Trump has
a good chance of winning against that - a write-in campaign for a soggy loaf of bread has a good chance of winning against that.
She polls terribly with the largest group of registered voters: Independent (however Sanders does quite well).
Meanwhile, the GOP has had higher primary turnouts. More votes were cast in their primaries even though there are fewer registered
Rep voters.
GOP voters are fired up while Dem voters aren't fired up to vote for an unpopular, DNC-annointed candidate - that's a recipe
for losing, ask Martha Coakley.
Clinton and her supporters better up their games and quick.
Shotcricket -> pucksfriend 9 Jun 2016 04:10
You really don't get what created Trump's opportunity do you, its the same that has seen a new options becoming a political
force throughout Europe, its ever & constant growth of disenchantment with the Clinton's, Cameron's & the rest of the political
establishment.......sadly the US people need Sanders far more than he needs them of so it would seem.
Clinton is the old way, Sanders is the new way...the irony of that should not be lost on anyone.
SonOfFredTheBadman 9 Jun 2016 04:10
It is no longer "God Bless America". It's "God Help America". With the choice of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Bill
(Mr. Zippy) Clinton is already interviewing the interns and glad that he can now get Cuban cigars. From President to "First Man".
Remember " I did not have sexual relations with this woman." Just a Blow Job.
ga gamba 9 Jun 2016 04:09
Shrewd move by Sanders, I think. Many believe that Clinton will veer sharply to the right when she nominated and campaigns
for the general election. Withholding an endorsement until late October keeps her honest; if she backtracks on her "progressive"
promises made during the primaries Sanders can endorse Jill Stein. In a sense, Sanders is the conscience Clinton doesn't possess.
He said it was a revolution, so Clinton and her supporters shouldn't be surprised that he's using revolutionary tactics.
Oudeis1 -> fahkingobserving 9 Jun 2016 04:09
I thank you -primarily for you actually typing-out your rationale. Mere 'carping' is the more common response to my posts,
thanks again - for processing and expounding. And yes, I know enough of American Football to appreciate your analogy.
On the Green invitation to Sanders: I have been aware of this for some time. I'm sure that it is sincere, I'm also certain
that it was a little too soon. Sanders does indeed know much about US Politics, and his conduct throughout this contest
has been consistent enough for most observers to discern a clear pattern:
-His ideas are more important to him that his personal success.
-His 'read' on the electoral niceties, possibilities, probabilities and 'desirabilities' is sagacious.
-His initiation of his campaign by way of the Democrat Party is entirely logical.
-A firm commitment from the DNC & HRC on some of his more important policy-planks would allow him to conclude that his job
was (well) done. And to then advise his supporters to get behind the renewed and revitalized HRC ticket.
Personally, inline with my own take on these things, Senator Sanders will not concede without (firm & meaningful) concessions.
Should no such concessions be forthcoming...
He may then - if this is how things pan out, turn to his supporters for their opinion, or 'knowing' full well there likely
response, turn directly to the Greens and add Jill Stein to his then Independent ticket, and run as a third option.
These last two options represent at least as much chance of the defeat of Trump, and very likely more chance of doing that, than
his caving-in (selling his soul) to the DNC.
-Yes, I am aware that Sanders has firmly denied that he has any wish at all to run as a third option - this stance is both inline
with his desire to see the Democrat Party turn away from the neoliberal/Republican-lite present and his overall objective of getting
his policies promoted in November.
However: Nobody can promote the fundamentals of US Democracy and then deny them.
MajorRoadRage -> abdul maulud 9 Jun 2016 04:05
I would rather see Trump in office and see Hillary's supporters endure the same punishment as if we had all voted for her to
begin with. Hillary is in it for herself and her corporate sponsors. So if I'm gonna be screwed, so will Hillary supporters, even
with mountains of evidence available that she is NOT the candidate to run for presidency people still smile and nod their heads
with complacency. Wake up and smell the corruption.
Bitty31985 -> powellscribe 9 Jun 2016 04:08
As I said; if you want some one to blame , blame the media and the DNC. I am never wasting my vote on the lesser of two evils
ever again. You WILL never ever convince me to do otherwise. I vote for who I BELIEVE IN. Good luck trying to guilt people into
supporting that sociopath.
wiseowler 9 Jun 2016 04:06
If Sanders can get people who support his core radical progressive changes onto key Democratic committees and positions of
power, plus get support at the convention for these policies then he may be bale to set in train a transformation of the Democratic
Party and the possibility of a real change candidate winning the next election.
However they must take a leaf out of the Tea Party's book and start getting their candidates elected as State and congress
candidates. There is no point in having a radical president and a reactionary congress.
If he can achieve this then maybe his momentum can help transform the Clinton campaign - which is in sore need of some radical
and youthful energy if she is to defeat Trump
artvandalay316 -> abdul maulud 9 Jun 2016 04:01
No, those who propped up the corrupt Hitlery, knowing full-well that the system is rigged and the super delegates are bought
and paid for, are to blame. Spineless cowards who would rather tow the establishment line and never see any real change than
vote for something a bit different for once. The most amusing thing is, the Republicans have more of a spine than the Hitlery
voters, because they voted for who they actually wanted, not who they were told to.
Shotcricket 9 Jun 2016 03:57
"Sanders will discuss a wide range of issues, including getting big money out of politics, his plan to make public colleges
and universities tuition-free, combating climate change and ensuring universal healthcare"
Almost The Guardian mantra of many a year
And yet The Guardian has been pro Clinton throughout the nomination campaign.....& very negative toward Sanders, just what
does The Guardian believe in, other than the longevity of the political establishment ?
SilverTui 9 Jun 2016 03:45
L.A. County Supervisors Demand Answers Day After CBS2 Investigation Uncovers Deceased Voters Casting Ballots
How can people believe their vote counts when it is opposed by endless money, lies and manipulation ? For example, how could
the media make free tuition, last signed into law, by Abe Lincoln and existing in California until a couple of decades ago, seem
strange ? And it's normal in all other countries as a matter of course. I cannot believe you can have that debt at such a young
age and manage. It seems the last economic conflict exploited by capitalism is conflict--which should not be--is between old people
and young people. Young people more and more are excluded from that American economic leveler, education.
blackerdog -> StephenChin 9 Jun 2016 03:20
The super delegates are all full paid up members of the establishment that's why Clinton get their vote.
She won't win against Tump, she has blood on her hands legal problems and can't control her own house never mind the lives of
hundreds of millions.
Trump is a buffoon but he hasn't been bought. Middle America won't vote for her.
Flugler -> Virginia Fast 9 Jun 2016 03:18
Bill Clinton stripped the social security fund dry and used it to balance the budgets. Americans retiring in the near future
are screwed. Cheers bill.
Virginia Fast -> Flugler 9 Jun 2016 03:14
With Clinton putting Hubby in charge of financial affairs, better get ready to bail out the banks and lose whatever you managed
to keep last time. If only the fools who voted for them suffered --
It's a nightmare of endless war and homeless filling th streets. More of the same forever and ever.......the future as igtmare
Mynameistoocommon -> turn1eft 9 Jun 2016 02:50
If this were true the FBI should get the hell on with it and not play political games. It is certainly not any of their concern
whether Clinton could be pardoned by Obama (which would surely kill her campaign in any event). Since she is innocent until proven
guilty, the suspicion that the investigation places over her is itself damaging. If it could ever be proven that the FBI had deliberately
taken their time in order to prolong the doubt, before clearing her, that would be a very serious allegation. I can't really see
why they would bother though.
JK1875 9 Jun 2016 02:50
Bernie is an Independent, he should run as one. F*ck Clinton and f*ck the DNC.
robinvp11 -> Highgatecemetry 9 Jun 2016 02:47
I lived in the US for twelve years. Bernie Sanders is not a 'socialist;' in the UK, he'd be a Tory - not entirely sure where.
Maybe liberal Tory but on a lot of things, he'd be to the right ie his views on guns (yes, he's pro-limited control but he buys
into the NRA idea that it's 'mental health' issue).
trow 9 Jun 2016 02:46
Clinton was not elected she was appointed by so called super delegates .The election process was exposed as a farce .
turn1eft 9 Jun 2016 02:44
Sanders is only hanging on because the FBI have said they will prosecute Hillary on treason and racketeering.
Which sound strange to our ears. But racketeering was revived during the 1920s and treason during the Cold War.
Clintons email server didnt just include top secret documents illegally it also included information about illegal donations
from foreign backers.
I think the FBI are undecided whether to press charges now - with a high chance Obama will pardon her - or press charges after
the election in November when she will be spending the rest of her life dealing with this case.
ShaneFromMelbourne saddam 9 Jun 2016 02:43
Under Obama's watch:
Too big to fail banks....they're even BIGGER
1.5 Quadrillion dollar derivatives market that scares the shit out of even the hedge funds.
Dodd-Frank Act that has loopholes you could drive a truck through.
Unemployment still out of the park (as if anyone believes the BS statistic of 4.9%)
The US economy is still so shit the the Fed can't increase interest rates (that's right, there will be no interest rate hike this
year or the next)
8 years hasn't improved much.....
qelt17 -> Aquarius9 9 Jun 2016 02:38
The 67-year-old Democratic front-runner has been "frequently plagued" by "blinding headaches" and a series of strokes over
the course of the campaign which have left her second-guessing her chances of winning in 2016, says the upcoming book "Unlikeable
- The Problem with Hillary." http://nypost.com/2015/09/22/hillary-is-dealing-with-mounting-health-issues-new-book-claims/
FrankLeeSpeaking -> Mea Mea 9 Jun 2016 02:26
You must be a Killkary feminist. Sanders has deep rooted integrity and a fire to make the US a better place, unlike Killary
ready to make the next killing, physically and financially speaking.
SilverTui 9 Jun 2016 02:15
A well funded and organised exit poll, which included mail in ballots, had a deficit of 16 percent from the reported results
in California.
A deficit of 2 percent is sufficient to trigger an official investigation in Denmark.
Also millions of California independents were given "placebo" affidavit ballots, that are not counted.
passtherockplease -> davidlen 9 Jun 2016 02:14
I believe we are already there. I think it will be very close but Trump will win -- republican tend to vote for their 'side'
no matter whom it is. Those of us on the left seem to like purity, more than getting power to get things done. It is why These
people only come out at Presidential elections forgetting there are three branches to governing in the US, Check out off year
voting patterns GOP vote numbers stay firm. Democrats less so it is why there is no Democratic control senate and house and the
house, well that is lost at least until the next census.
Go look at things like Young Turks and the like. They really think Clinton is worse than Trump.
gwynnechris -> Dennis25 9 Jun 2016 02:13
Lessor 'evilism' argument don't work. Trump may have different style, but politically/economically he's similar to Clinton.
(Technically he's not a Fascist. He does not have bullyboys physically attacking left-wing/Trade Union meetings. eg Germany 1930's).
I guess many people in USA want something different to Corporate dominance; which I believe will require a Labour Party formed
from the Trade Unions. So Trump gets elected. Big deal. People will soon see their mistake and change. Politics has moved beyond
the illusionary middle-ground as the election of Jeremy Corbyn indicates.
queequeg7 9 Jun 2016 01:52
The Democrat Party is controlled by the Right and the the representatives at [almost] all levels appear untouchable. The
key to the future, not just for Sanders but for the Left he has mobilised, will be in opening up the Party to democracy and accountability.
In much the same way as Corbyn's election must make Labour MPs and Councillors more accountable to the Party membership, so
Sanders' campaign must now find a way of challenging both the individuals and the process.
eastbayradical 9 Jun 2016 01:51
Here some wondrous policies and initiative enacted or supported by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama during their presidencies,
almost all of which Hillary Clinton supports:
--Deregulation of telecom and finance
--The Omnibus Crime Bill
--The sanctions regime against Iraq (which killed 500,000 Iraqi children)
--NAFTA
--CAFTA
--TPP
--Fracking
--The objectively-racist death penalty
--Don't Ask, Don't Tell
--The Defense of Marriage Act
--Historic levels of repression against whistle-blowers
--Preservation of Bush-era tax cuts on the rich
--Expansion of NSA spying
--Years of foot-dragging on climate change
--Support for Israeli atrocities
--Support for the right-wing coup in Honduras
--Support for fraudulent election in Haiti
--Support for the Saudi dictatorship
--Support for a 31 cents/hour minimum wage (and against attempts to raise it)
--Arctic Drilling
--$1 trillion 20 year modernization of nuclear weapons arsenal
--Historically high numbers of deportations
--Drone missile strikes that kill large numbers of civilian an inflame anti-US hatred
--Health care reform that fortifies the power of the insurance cartel
--The bail-out of Wall Street
eastbayradical -> MikaelRogers 9 Jun 2016 01:48
Mikael supports the candidate that has backed the destruction of welfare, the private prison industry, the objectively-racist
death penalty, fortification of the police state, deregulation of investment banks, NAFTA, the Iraq War, the bombing of Libya,
the right-wing coup in Honduras, Israel's starvation blockade and blitzkrieg of Gaza, and the fight against raising the minimum
wage in Haiti from 30 cents/hour to 60 cents/hour--all policies from which non-white people hav disproportionately suffered--yet
every chance she gets, Mikael accuses the Sanders' campaign and supporters of being the racists.
Nietzschestache 9 Jun 2016 01:37
It is truly depressing that the democrats had the chance to put a decent trustworthy person in the White House but instead
opted for Clinton, who represents the interests of Wall Street and the Party of Perpetual War. By opting for her they have handed
the keys to the repulsive Trump.
Guest Oo -> saddam 9 Jun 2016 01:30
If Bernie took in all the BIG MONEY like the corrupt politicians, he would accomplished a lot more for the oligarchy and corporations
and forget the people. He would also be a multi-millionaire by now.
Bernie chose the route to have a government for the PEOPLE and that does not work anymore. Majority of the corrupt Democrat
voters chose a GOVERNMENT FOR THE CORPORATIONS by voting for Hillary.
For decades tens of millions of Americans who are left politically on major issues (whether they identify as "left-wing"
or not) have voted for politicians who have carried water for Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the national security apparatus--often
more effectively than the Republicans they depict themselves as the progressive alternative to.
Every four years we're told "yes, X Democrat is a corporate-backed, warmongering stooge, but look at how horrible Y Republican
is! If you don't vote for the Democrat you're voting for the Republican!" It's the same scare tactics year after year after year--and
year after year the political center of gravity shifts further to the right. This is the anatomy of our demise.
Finally, millions that have for years dutifully voted for the corporate, warmongering pseudo-progressive stooge with the (D)
next to his name are waking up and saying to the Democrats: Try to win without out us you corporate scum!
joeblow9999 -> saddam 9 Jun 2016 01:16
Hilly's accomplishments?
Iraq War
Setting the stage for ISIS
Kicking off the next Cold War
She is a sham.
Jill McLean 9 Jun 2016 01:15
What I don't get is everyone's surprise. Just one example: A $29 billion deal with Saudi Arabia goes down, and the Clinton
Foundation gets a $10 mil contribution. What kind of payback could Bernie get for petitioning for 'equal rights'? Come one, people.
Money buys power - always has; always will. Read 'Clinton Ca$h'. Or just read something besides MSM.
duncandunnit 9 Jun 2016 01:03
Hillary Clinton is a warmongering she devil, that will only ever work with problems rather than solutions. She will be very
happy for the usa to continue selling billions of dollars of weapons to wasabi jihadists at saudi instruction (which caused the
European refugee crisis), she will continue the usa track record of the usa sticking in puppet presidentas into countries denying
them democracy. She will continue the usa using propaganda as a weapon.
sammy3110 9 Jun 2016 00:48
After Hillary's coronation, I'll change my registration from D to I, and I hope others will consider doing the same. I'm not
leaving the D Party, the D Party has left me.
ynnej1964 -> garth25 9 Jun 2016 00:42
I have to wonder. Among my pro-Clinton friends the dominant arguments were a) her 'qualification' b) it's time for a woman
c) Bernie is less qualified, and so to chose him over hillary might indicate unconscious sexism.
I'm not saying that there are not people who fully support her (and Obama's) IMF/World Bank/USAID/Clinton Foundation approach
to international development and international trade, her center aisle approach to use of armed force, her (and Obama's) preference
for private insurance based health reform, her approach to Haiti , but I don't think that is why my clinton friends supported
her. I can't speak for all. But i'd say these are more things they would forgive her for, rather than their first choice on policy.
daWOID -> eastbayradical 9 Jun 2016 00:36
Sorry, friend, I happen to know a good deal about voter fraud in New York State, where I worked for a few decades as Inspector
of Elections. Don't know much about California. So here's what I can contribute:
a) In New York State at least, provisional ballots are exactly the joke you describe. All it takes is a poll worker who doesn't
like your looks and they'll pretend they can't find you on the rolls and why don't you simply fill out a provisional ballot?
b) And of course the provisional ballots never get counted, because to have your ballot counted you would have to go before
a judge to determine whether or not you were rightly denied your vote.
c) The amount of voter fraud and voter suppression perpetrated in the Democratic Primary this year has surpassed anything I've
ever seen in my lifetime, excepting my work during the Civil Rights Era, where it was just as bad but considerably less sophisticated.
So is it likely that the same applied in California? Well, duh...
macktan894 9 Jun 2016 00:32
These are crucial issues that most people have repeatedly bitched about over the years in these forums. It makes no sense to
plunge kids into bankruptcy and lifelong debt with outrageous fees and interest rates who are tying to get an education. We have
seniors whose social security checks are being garnished because they still owe on college loans. We have people who are afraid
to see a doctor or go to an emergency room, even though they pay yearly escalating premiums, because they fear the debt it will
trigger. Yet Elected Officials seem only able to act when it comes to Endless Wars and surveillance; no problem spending trillions
on defense, just don't ask them to spend it on the American people lest they feel entitled.
I'm hardly surprised that the Status Quo wants Bernie to just shut up and disappear. Who's lauding him for running a campaign
financed by people who voted for him, not by corporations and billionaires? And I'll continue to donate to him because he is the
people's lobbyist. Go, Bernie!
GigabitG 9 Jun 2016 00:31
So is the Guardian arguing that Clinton fought a fair campaign? Really? Try a little harder please, you know full well that
Clinton hobbled Sanders at every step. Throughout this campaign the Guardian has chosen to ignore all the reports of widespread
disenfranchisement and polling irregularities that prevented millions of Sanders supporters from voting and instead lazily point
to the inevitability of Clinton. Depressing news from a complicit Guardian.
RogersRoy ChrisD58 9 Jun 2016 00:29
Sad to see Sanders ego and self delusion providing even more opportunity for the monster that is Trump
Remember!, it wasn't all sweetness and light under warmonger Hillary. C.
The Republican & Democrat DNA is within 1% of each other. These parties have loads of Corporate corrupt White House monsters.
When our governments; the White House and their British Parliamentary lackeys use our taxes to pay their terrorists to overthrow
legitimate sovereign countries and their elected leaders and organise assassinations then I say; it's high time this incompetent
maverick nonsense stopped!!.
I Refuse To Pay These Illegal Bills.
eastbayradical 9 Jun 2016 00:07
Both my wife and I registered as Democrats in California in the last month.
My wife received a ballot in the mail but she was still listed as a Green. When she went to the precinct to vote she was given
a provisional ballot that allowed her to vote in the Democratic primary. I just asked her if her name was on the voter rolls and
she said she doesn't know, that the precinct workers "didn't know what they were doing, they just gave me a provisional ballot."
Unlike my wife I did receive confirmation that I had been registered as a Democrat and I received a ballot with the Democratic
primary choices on it. Despite getting the ballot in the mail I wanted to vote at the precinct. I found when I got to the precinct
that my name wasn't listed on voter rolls. The precinct worker recommended that I vote by provisional ballot, which I didn't like
the idea of. I decided to fill out my ballot at the precinct and I was told to put it into a blue bag with a slot on the top.
The precinct worker assured me that my ballot would be counted.
Journalist Greg Palast reports that provisional ballots, like the one my wife voted with, are essentially "placebo ballots"--that
a very large percentage of them are never counted. He additionally reports that there are hundreds of thousands of provisional
ballots in California that have yet to be counted. There is every reason to believe that provisional ballots, since they're given
to newly-registered voters, were disproportionately given to Sanders' voters like my wife. Palast also reports that very large
numbers of voters found that there names were not on voting rolls when they went to vote. It would seem that this would also disproportionately
affect newly-registered voters.
On top of all this, there are many thousands of ballots that were sent on Monday and Tuesday that have yet to be counted.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this matter? Is Greg Palast wrong about provisional ballots? Are all the votes going to be
counted? I'm happy to hear the thoughts of people who think that Palast is full of shit, so long as they're actually engaging
in thinking.
Janosik53 -> sandi78 8 Jun 2016 23:55
Published May 11, 2016
Hillary Clinton for months has downplayed the FBI investigation into her private email server and practices as a mere "security
inquiry."
But when asked Wednesday about Clinton's characterization of the bureau's probe, FBI Director James Comey said he doesn't know
what "security inquiry" means -- adding, "We're conducting an investigation. That's what we do."
Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar.
iammaynard -> drpage1 8 Jun 2016 23:38
Your leaders, Clinton and Obama created ISIS
I wish I had the middle east figured out as well as you got it. If you understand the causes so clearly, when will you be bringing
your solutions? Those must obviously as clear to you, yes?
Carenshare -> Annie Rainier 8 Jun 2016 23:31
Re: Your points.....
"bags" - Both Clintons drag around more baggage than American Airlines
"old man" - Sanders isn't much older than Clinton
"God" - There is no God "save America" - if Clinton or Trump gets into the White House, NOTHING will save America!
But 'Good Luck' anyways!
Girl 8 Jun 2016 23:27
Super delegates don't count until the convention... The Guardian has aided the fruad and been a champion for the DNC...Hillary
is goin' down, either the e mails, the clinton foundation, or Trump, she is done...
drpage1 -> nevesone 8 Jun 2016 23:19
Your leaders, Clinton and Obama created ISIS. Here is a clue:
"In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA"
"...a string of embarrassing setbacks which included recruits being ambushed and handing over much of their U.S.-issued ammunition
and trucks to an Al Qaeda affiliate."
ISIS was not reversed in Syria until Russia became involved, and they were in full decline within a month. Years of Obama's
war against them and they expanded to holding 80% of Syria , and beyond.
DesertPear -> Jared Hall 8 Jun 2016 23:06
The US Military-Industrial Complex is possibly the largest user of fossil fuels in the world and the information is not transparent
nor available. We absolutely must turn away from war as a solution if we are to slow climate change! And the only way to change
the military is to get money out of politics.
mbidding -> notmurdoch 8 Jun 2016 21:34
Student financial aid is not extremely generous in the US and generally does not cover the full cost of tuition at modestly
priced state schools, let alone books. Loans, of course, are available, but financial aid is nothing like it was before Reagan
gutted federal financial aid in the eighties and the states started divesting from their public universities at the same time.
Wow. The same people blaming "bernie bros" for Trump are gonna teach us a lesson by giving
us more of what they are mad about. Now, that's some "unity" for ya! #Bernie2020
Someone should send this clip to Sanders/Gabbard. Just have them play this on repeat
during their campaign so people will wake up to how awful America is if the people don't vote
correctly in 2020
"Of course it has to be reformed" yes, and how many times do we reform capitalism before
we realise that there's something intrinsically wrong with it?
I want to say this is the Zabinski Point (apparently the lowest dry point in the
geographic US) in the D party's recent history, but I fear it could get lower still.
The actual lowest point in the state might be at the bottom of the artificially created
lake-the Salton Sea, as at the surface it's -236 feet, and the claim is the bottom is 5 feet
higher than Badwater, but who knows.
It was created in 1905, when a diversion of the Colorado River went out of control for 2
years, until they were able to stop the flow.
"Zabriskie Point." A truly apt metaphor for the modern political landscape.
My favourite foreign movie metaphor for the Democrat Party would be Bertolucci's "The
Conformist."
Jimmy Dore show is pretty educational... Why hasn't Schultz been charged for election fraud yet (she rigged the 2016 primary
and then rigged her own race in Florida against Tim Canova.)? Just when you thought crooked Hillary and corrupt Debbie
Wasserman-Schultz were finally silent and out of the picture, they keep coming back again and again and again...like a case of
herpes.
Nothing that Bernie will do can satisfy the Democrats. Said the other day he was
wishy-washy over Venezuela but it was still not enough. Seems that Debbie Wasserman Schultz
has threatened to have him kicked out of the party unless he calls out Madura as a dictator.
Well then, Sanders better be carrying a polished shield at all times never know when
Debbie the medusa will lurch forward throwing that gazy DNC stink-eye in his direction !
Seenator Bernie Sanders came to the defense of Representative Ilhan Omar as the Minnesota
congresswoman faced backlash over remarks that some perceived as anti-Semitic. Sanders said
there was a key difference between anti-Semitism and legitimate criticism of the Israeli
government.
The Vermont senator criticized House Democrats' reaction to Omar after she was heavily
condemned for her tweet that said: "I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support
to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee." Omar was
referring to Israel.
The comment, which has been rebuked
by members of her own party , was seen as exploiting anti-Semitic tropes and attacking U.S.
support of Israel.
In a statement, Sanders, who is a 2020 presidential candidate, said that while
anti-Semitism is a "hateful and dangerous ideology which must be vigorously opposed we must not
equate anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of the right-wing, Netanyahu government in
Israel.
"Rather, we must develop an even-handed Middle East policy which brings Israelis and
Palestinians together for a lasting peace," Sanders said, reported HuffPost. "What I fear is
going on in the House now is an effort to target congresswoman Omar as a way of stifling that
debate. That's wrong."
Sander's statement came after senior Democrats had planned to vote on a resolution
condemning anti-Semitism, which was seen as a direct response to
Omar's comments . The vote was delayed as the House Foreign Affairs Committee rewrites the
resolution to include condemnation of all hate.
Kamala Harris, also a 2020 presidential candidate, also issued a statement defending Omar,
suggesting that the spotlight currently on the congresswoman "may put her at risk.
"We should be having a sound, respectful discussion about policy," Harris said, as reported
by HuffPost. "You can both support Israel and be loyal to our country. I also believe there is
a difference between criticism of policy or political leaders, and anti-Semitism."
Elizabeth Warren, another Democratic presidential candidate, expressed similar views in her statement defending Omar.
"We have a moral duty to combat hateful ideologies in our own country and around the world, and that includes both anti-Semitism
and Islamophobia. In a democracy, we can and should have an open, respectful debate about the Middle East that focuses on
policy," Warren said.
"Branding criticism of Israel as automatically anti-Semitic has a chilling effect on our public discourse and makes it harder to
achieve a peaceful solution between Israelis and Palestinians. Threats of violence-like those made against Omar-are never
acceptable."
Omar, who was forced to apologize for previous remarks in which she suggested that the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) was paying politicians for their support of Israel, has defended her latest remarks.
"Being opposed to Netanyahu and the occupation is not the same as being anti-Semitic. I am grateful to the many Jewish allies
who have spoken out and said the same," she tweeted on March 2.
Bernie wouldn't attack Hillary on character issues. He pulled many punches - like not
rebutting Hillary's claim to have "never changed her vote for money" with the well-known
example of when she did so (for the credit card industry: she changed her vote on the
bankruptcy bill). And he continued to support Hillary after Hillary brought Debra
Wasserman-Shultz into her campaign - a clear slap in the face to Bernie and Bernie's
supporters.
And why did Bernie refuse to release tax returns before 2015? The only tax returns he
released were for 2015. When reporters asked him to release earlier tax returns (because
his 2015 tax returns were delayed), Bernie said that his returns were "boring" - but he
wouldn't release them.
Bernie is close with the leaders of the Democratic Party. Obama campaigned for him.
Hillary is "a friend of 25 years". Chuck Schumer refused to provide Democratic Party
funding for any Democrat that ran against Bernie.
You want government to be accountable? A good start would be to start holding
politicians accountable. And recognizing that the fundamental problem is the duopoly.
IMO the similarities in politics among the "Western democracies" is important to note. One
example is the fakeness of Obama, Macron, and Trudeau.
The difficulties faced by US and UK progressives are likely to not be an accident. We now
know via the Integrity Initiative hack that a British operative (likely to be MI-6) was
working in the Sanders campaign.
@Jen A third-party doesn't help if it can be compromised too. We need a new kind of
politics.
Not so quick. He proved to be Bush III. But illusions after his election were abundant.
Notable quotes:
"... I see Trump's success as proof that "the people who run [the GOP] and the institutions surrounding it failed." They not only failed in their immediate task of preventing the nomination of a candidate that party leaders loathed, but failed repeatedly over at least the last fifteen years to govern well or even to represent the interests and concerns of most Republican voters. ..."
"... Party leaders spent decades conning Republican voters with promises they knew they wouldn't or couldn't fulfill, and then were shocked when most of those voters turned against them. ..."
"... Trump is millions of Republican voters' judgment against a party that failed them, and the fact that Trump is thoroughly unqualified for the office he seeks makes that judgment all the more damning. ..."
Trump officially
secured the Republican nomination last night:
Mr. Trump tallied 1,725 delegates, easily surpassing the 1,237 delegate threshold
needed to clinch the nomination. The delegate tally from his home state of New York,
announced by Mr. Trump's son Donald Jr., put him over the top.
Like
Rod Dreher, I see Trump's success as proof that "the people who run [the GOP] and
the institutions surrounding it failed." They not only failed in their immediate task of
preventing the nomination of a candidate that party leaders loathed, but failed
repeatedly over at least the last fifteen years to govern well or even to represent the
interests and concerns of most Republican voters.
Had the Bush administration not presided over multiple disasters, most of them of
their own making, there would have been no opening or occasion for the repudiation of
the party's leaders that we have seen this year. Had the party served the interests of
most of its voters instead of catering to the preferences of their donors and
corporations, there would have been much less support for someone like Trump.
Party
leaders spent decades conning Republican voters with promises they knew they wouldn't or
couldn't fulfill, and then were shocked when most of those voters turned against them.
Trump is millions of Republican voters' judgment against a party that failed
them, and the fact that Trump is thoroughly unqualified for the office he seeks makes
that judgment all the more damning.
They bought in 2016 was Trump was selling not realizing that this was Obama-style bait and switch
Notable quotes:
"... With paychecks remaining disappointingly small and layoffs reaching a seven-year high , many have subscribed to Trump's narrative instead the one presented by Obama's administration. It's a horror story about an American economy in terminal decline, its workers sold down the river to China and Mexico. ..."
"... "It's a horror story about an American economy in terminal decline, its workers sold down the river to China and Mexico." You forgot India. ..."
"... Mr Obama has the distinction of running the biggest soup kitchen in living memory - 46 million on food stamps. Quite an economic accomplishment ..."
"... In the US the Democratic party has lost touch with the working class. The media in the US are even worse. The Democrats are now the party of cosmopolitan elites, college students, and identify politics adherents. ..."
"... Blue collar workers have long know they didn't have a voice in the beltway. That their "champions" viewed them as lower beings, children that needed to be taken care of. The fact that Trump annoys these very people is viewed as a great positive. So these former Demcrats crashed the Republican party. ..."
"... So now we have a populist vs a establishment Democrat. Standard Republicans are now left scratching their heads wondering "what the hell just happened?" ..."
"... Trump proposes to get rid of the National Debt in eight years. Since that money resides in the pockets of the private sector the net outcome in getting rid of the "debt" (government money injection into the private sector) will be to substantially reduce the amount of money in active circulation and could result in excessive private borrowing to compensate for that loss resulting in an unsustainable debt build-up and a re-run of the 2008 financial crash. ..."
"... Consecutive Bushes did too much damage economically and socially to be fixed ..."
"... Unfortunately, they cannot return what they bought from President Dubya and President Hope and Change.... the same thing that Hillary is peddling, but with a nice girly twist this time. ..."
"... There has been much talk about Donald Trump being the "elephant in the room" that cannot be ignored when discussing the presidential election. The Donald is a wizard at dispensing outrageous but irrelevant comments which the news media are drawn to like cats to catnip. For example "Elizabeth Warren is NOT 1/32 Cherokee!" As far as I know, Elizabeth Warren is not running for President. If Donald Trump said that "Micky Mouse is NOT 1/32 gerbil", it would make many headlines. He's brilliant at manipulating the media. Or, is he simply colluding with the news media? ..."
"... What journalists are not reporting is who is doing the dirty work in Congress and in the Obama Administration to skew the economy toward benefitting the wealthy. Big campaign contributors, lobbyists, and conniving legislators have worked hard to "stack the deck against the average American" as Elizabeth Warren has rightly said. ..."
"... Why aren't Washington journalists unpacking and describing the many, many financial deals being made in the halls of Congress to benefit the politically connected few? The reason is simple. They are afraid to. They have to provide food, clothing, and shelter for themselves and their families. The big media corporations they work for would not be pleased by any discomforting of their political allies, and the corporations themselves may be involved. Many are conglomerates made up of many businesses with their fingers in many pies. ..."
With paychecks remaining disappointingly small and
layoffs reaching a seven-year high , many have subscribed to Trump's narrative instead the one presented by Obama's administration.
It's a horror story about an American economy in terminal decline, its workers sold down the river to China and Mexico.
"People don't really want to hear that it could have been worse. Sometimes such statements anger people and make the president
seem out of touch. It doesn't resonate because they can't observe that alternative outcome," explained Lawrence Mishel, president
at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. "It's progress in their weekly paychecks that resonates."
"Wages are the unfinished business of the recovery," the US labor department has noted repeatedly over the last few months
as jobs report after jobs report have shown wage growth to be in the vicinity of just 2%. In addition to jobs, wages are one of
the most important parts of this recovery.
In order for working class Americans to feel its effects, wage growth would have to be closer to 3% to 4%. When the US census
last released its data about median household incomes in the US, it found that the average American was bringing home the same
paycheck as Americans in 1997.
With rents and food costs going back, wages from 20 years ago are no longer cutting it. As a result, working Americans are
tired of what they think of as "status quo" politics.
"People are feeling ornery and that's the result of stagnant wages for the vast majority for at least the last dozen years,"
said Mishel. "That may explain why among conservative GOP voters Trump has made headway. This is the first election I ever heard
any GOP candidates talk about wages."
AmyInNH, 7 May 2016 09:39
Nailed it, Ms. Kasperkevic. Bravo.
"It's a horror story about an American economy in terminal decline, its workers sold down the river to China and Mexico."
You forgot India.
salfraser, 7 May 2016 08:54
Mr Obama has the distinction of running the biggest soup kitchen in living memory - 46 million on food stamps. Quite
an economic accomplishment
DJROM 7 May 2016 08:39
Good article. Seemed like an honest effort to explain the appeal of Trump without lazily using racism, misogyny, or stupidity
as a half baked rationalization.
In the US the Democratic party has lost touch with the working class. The media in the US are even worse. The Democrats
are now the party of cosmopolitan elites, college students, and identify politics adherents.
Blue collar workers have long know they didn't have a voice in the beltway. That their "champions" viewed them as lower
beings, children that needed to be taken care of. The fact that Trump annoys these very people is viewed as a great positive.
So these former Demcrats crashed the Republican party.
So now we have a populist vs a establishment Democrat. Standard Republicans are now left scratching their heads wondering
"what the hell just happened?"
The Guardian had an article about how Labor should not dismiss the grey haired blue collar workers that were joining UKIP.
It was in 2014,long before the Trump phenomenon, but when i recently read it i thought " that is Trump.
Trump's ultimately selling recession, despite his opposition to unfair global trading tactics, but hardly anybody understands
this because they're clueless about how their money system works. Trump proposes to get rid of the National Debt in eight years.
Since that money resides in the pockets of the private sector the net outcome in getting rid of the "debt" (government money
injection into the private sector) will be to substantially reduce the amount of money in active circulation and could result
in excessive private borrowing to compensate for that loss resulting in an unsustainable debt build-up and a re-run of the
2008 financial crash.
As for Clinton and Sanders, you can't trust the former and the latter sends a mixed message in regard to how well he understands
how the country's money system works. Like the UK the US is in a pickle with politicians who should rightly say "I'm not an
idiot but I've got a few parts missing!"
TheBBG -> Hendrik Bruwer 7 May 2016 08:08
You obviously are oblivious to the concepts of and necessity for tact and diplomacy, two basics for foreign policy as well
as cajoling congress. Be careful what you wish for, and even more so what you vote for - you might get what you want - the
US going down the toilet.
Madranon 7 May 2016 08:03
Consecutive Bushes did too much damage economically and socially to be fixed by either Clinton or Obama administrations.
It is like running down someone's immune system that it is unable to fight off aggressive and opportunistic germs.
bcarey 7 May 2016 07:58
Unfortunately, they cannot return what they bought from President Dubya and President Hope and Change.... the same thing
that Hillary is peddling, but with a nice girly twist this time.
dallasdunlap -> Solomon Black 7 May 2016 07:56
The dislike of Trump stems from his remarks re illegal immigration. That triggered an organized effort by left wing groups,
abetted by media organizations, to depict him as a racist and, by extension a fascist, fascist being the designation for any
moderate of conservative politician who is obviously popular.
GeorgeFrederick 7 May 2016 07:43
There has been much talk about Donald Trump being the "elephant in the room" that cannot be ignored when discussing
the presidential election. The Donald is a wizard at dispensing outrageous but irrelevant comments which the news media are
drawn to like cats to catnip. For example "Elizabeth Warren is NOT 1/32 Cherokee!" As far as I know, Elizabeth Warren is not
running for President. If Donald Trump said that "Micky Mouse is NOT 1/32 gerbil", it would make many headlines. He's brilliant
at manipulating the media. Or, is he simply colluding with the news media?
What journalists are not reporting is who is doing the dirty work in Congress and in the Obama Administration to skew
the economy toward benefitting the wealthy. Big campaign contributors, lobbyists, and conniving legislators have worked hard
to "stack the deck against the average American" as Elizabeth Warren has rightly said.
Why aren't Washington journalists unpacking and describing the many, many financial deals being made in the halls of
Congress to benefit the politically connected few? The reason is simple. They are afraid to. They have to provide food, clothing,
and shelter for themselves and their families. The big media corporations they work for would not be pleased by any discomforting
of their political allies, and the corporations themselves may be involved. Many are conglomerates made up of many businesses
with their fingers in many pies. Yes, the average American may not be doing well, but the gravy train in Washington is
running on schedule and doing very well, thank you. (I'll let someone else comment on all this nonsense about how many jobs
have been created by Obama.)
"... None of this will matter to Trump, however. He is no conservative and Trump_vs_deep_state requires no party. Even if some new institutional alternative to conventional liberalism eventually emerges, the two-party system that has long defined the landscape of American politics will be gone for good. ..."
"... Should Trump or a Trump mini-me ultimately succeed in capturing the presidency, a possibility that can no longer be dismissed out of hand, the effects will be even more profound. In all but name, the United States will cease to be a constitutional republic. Once President Trump inevitably declares that he alone expresses the popular will, Americans will find that they have traded the rule of law for a version of caudillismo ..."
Whether or not Donald Trump ultimately succeeds in winning the White House, historians are likely to rank him as the most consequential
presidential candidate of at least the past half-century. He has already transformed the tone and temper of American political life.
If he becomes the Republican nominee, he will demolish its structural underpinnings as well. Should he prevail in November, his election
will alter its very fabric in ways likely to prove irreversible. Whether Trump ever delivers on his promise to "Make America Great
Again," he is already transforming American democratic practice.
Trump takes obvious delight in thumbing his nose at the political establishment and flouting its norms. Yet to classify him as
an anti-establishment figure is to miss his true significance. He is to American politics what
Martin Shkreli
is to Big Pharma. Each represents in exaggerated form the distilled essence of a much larger and more disturbing reality. Each
embodies the smirking cynicism that has become one of the defining characteristics of our age. Each in his own way is a sign of the
times.
In contrast to the universally reviled Shkreli, however, Trump has cultivated a mass following that appears
impervious to his missteps, miscues, and misstatements. What Trump actually believes-whether he believes in anything apart from
big, splashy self-display-is largely unknown and probably beside the point. Trump_vs_deep_state is not a program or an ideology.
It is an attitude or pose that feeds off, and then reinforces, widespread anger and alienation.
The pose works because the anger-always present in certain quarters of the American electorate but especially acute today-is genuine.
By acting the part of impish bad boy and consciously trampling on the canons of political correctness, Trump validates that anger.
The more outrageous his behavior, the more secure his position at the very center of the political circus. Wondering what he will
do next, we can't take our eyes off him. And to quote Marco Rubio in a
different context
, Trump "knows exactly what he is doing."
♦♦♦
There is a form of genius at work here. To an extent unmatched by any other figure in American public life, Trump understands
that previous distinctions between the ostensibly serious and the self-evidently frivolous have collapsed. Back in 1968, then running
for president, Richard Nixon, of all people, got things rolling when he
appeared on
Laugh-In and uttered the immortal words, "Sock it to me?" But no one has come close to Trump in grasping the implications
of all this: in contemporary America, celebrity confers authority. Mere credentials or qualifications have become an afterthought.
How else to explain the host of a "reality" TV show instantly qualifying as a serious contender for high office?
For further evidence of Trump's genius, consider the skill with which he plays the media, especially celebrity journalists who
themselves specialize in smirking cynicism. Rather than pretending to take them seriously, he unmasks their preening narcissism,
which mirrors his own. He refuses to acknowledge their self-assigned role as gatekeepers empowered to police the boundaries of permissible
discourse. As the embodiment of "breaking news," he continues to stretch those boundaries beyond recognition.
In that regard, the spectacle of televised "debates" has offered Trump an ideal platform for promoting his cult of personality.
Once a solemn, almost soporific forum for civic education-remember Kennedy and Nixon in
presidential debates now provide
occasions for trading insults, provoking gaffes, engaging in verbal food fights, and marketing magical solutions to problems ranging
from war to border security that are immune to magic. For all of that we have Trump chiefly to thank.
Trump's success as a campaigner schools his opponents, of course. In a shrinking Republican field, survival requires mimicking
his antics. In that regard, Ted Cruz rates as Trump's star pupil. Cruz is to Trump what Lady Gaga was to Amy Winehouse-a less freewheeling,
more scripted, and arguably more calculating version of the original.
Yet if not a clone, Cruz taps into the same vein of pissed-off, give-me-my-country-back rage that Trump himself has so adeptly
exploited. Like the master himself, Cruz has demonstrated a notable aptitude for expressing disagreement through denigration and
for extravagant,
crackpot promises . For his part, Marco Rubio, the only other Republican still seriously in the running, lags not far behind.
When it comes to swagger and grandiosity, nothing beats a vow to create a "
New American Century
," thereby resurrecting a mythic past when all was ostensibly right with the world.
On two points alone do these several Republicans see eye-to-eye. The first relates to domestic policy, the second to America's
role in the world.
On point one: with absolute unanimity, Trump, Cruz, and Rubio ascribe to Barack Obama any and all problems besetting the nation.
To take their critique at face value, the country was doing swimmingly well back in 2009 when Obama took office. Today, it's FUBAR,
due entirely to Obama's malign actions.
Wielding comparable authority, however, a Republican president can, they claim, dismantle Obama's poisonous legacy and restore
all that he has destroyed. From "day one," on issues ranging from health care to immigration to the environment, the Republican candidates
vow to do exactly this. With the stroke of a pen and the wave of a hand, it will be a breeze.
On point two: ditto. Aided and abetted by Hillary Clinton, Obama has made a complete hash of things abroad. Here the list of Republican
grievances is especially long. Thanks to Obama, Russia threatens Europe; North Korea is misbehaving; China is flexing its military
muscles; ISIS is on the march; Iran has a clear path to acquiring nuclear weapons; and perhaps most distressingly of all, Benjamin
Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, is unhappy with U.S. policy.
Here, too, the Republican candidates see eye-to-eye and have solutions readily at hand. In one way or another, all of those solutions
relate to military power. Trump, Cruz, and Rubio are unabashed militarists. (So, too, is Hillary Clinton, but that's an issue deserving
an essay of its own). Their gripe with Obama is that he never put American military might fully to work, a defect they vow to amend.
A Republican commander-in-chief, be it Trump, Cruz, or Rubio, won't take any guff from Moscow or Pyongyang or Beijing or Tehran.
He will eradicate "radical Islamic terrorism," put the mullahs back in their box, torture a bunch of terrorists in the bargain, and
give Bibi whatever he wants.
In addition to offering Obama a sort of backhanded tribute-so much damage wrought by just one man in so little time-the Republican
critique reinforces reigning theories of presidential omnipotence. Just as an incompetent or ill-motivated chief executive can screw
everything up, so, too, can a bold and skillful one set things right.
♦♦♦
The ratio between promises made and promises fulfilled by every president in recent memory-Obama included-should have demolished
such theories long ago. But no such luck. Fantasies of a great president saving the day still persist, something that Trump, Cruz,
and Rubio have all made the centerpiece of their campaigns. Elect me, each asserts. I alone can save the Republic.
Here, however, Trump may enjoy an edge over his competitors, including Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. With Americans assigning
to their presidents the attributes of demigods-each and every one
memorialized before death with a
library-shrine -who better to fill the role than an egomaniacal tycoon who already acts the part? The times call for strong leadership.
Who better to provide it than a wheeler-dealer unbothered by the rules that constrain mere mortals?
What then lies ahead?
If Trump secures the Republican nomination, now an increasingly imaginable prospect, the party is likely to implode. Whatever
rump organization survives will have forfeited any remaining claim to represent principled conservatism.
None of this will matter to Trump, however. He is no conservative and Trump_vs_deep_state requires no party. Even if some new
institutional alternative to conventional liberalism eventually emerges, the two-party system that has long defined the landscape
of American politics will be gone for good.
Should Trump or a Trump mini-me ultimately succeed in capturing the presidency, a possibility that can no longer be dismissed
out of hand, the effects will be even more profound. In all but name, the United States will cease to be a constitutional republic.
Once President Trump inevitably declares that he alone expresses the popular will, Americans will find that they have traded the
rule of law for a version of caudillismo . Trump's Washington could come to resemble Buenos Aires in the days of Juan Perón,
with Melania a suitably glamorous stand-in for Evita, and plebiscites suitably glamorous stand-ins for elections.
That a considerable number of Americans appear to welcome this prospect may seem inexplicable. Yet reason enough exists for their
disenchantment. American democracy has been decaying for decades. The people know that they are no longer truly sovereign. They know
that the apparatus of power, both public and private, does not promote the common good, itself a concept that has become obsolete.
They have had their fill of irresponsibility, lack of accountability, incompetence, and the bad times that increasingly seem to go
with them.
So in disturbingly large numbers they have turned to Trump to strip bare the body politic, willing to take a chance that he will
come up with something that, if not better, will at least be more entertaining. As Argentines and others who have trusted their fate
to demagogues have discovered, such expectations are doomed to disappointment.
In the meantime, just imagine how the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library, no doubt taller than all the others put together,
might one day glitter and glisten - perhaps with a casino attached.
by Tyler Durden
Thu, 02/28/2019 - 13:25 762 SHARES
CNN has been accused of ambushing Bernie Sanders and tricking viewers by passing off
Democratic political operatives as everyday people during a Monday evening town hall as part of
his campaign for the 2020 election. Internet sleuths looked into the backgrounds of those
asking Sanders various questions - most of which could be considered fair game to ask a
presidential candidate, only to find that there was more than meets the eye as noted by
Paste Magazine .
For example, Sanders was asked a tough question about allegations of sexual harassment on
his 2016 campaign by "American University Student" Shadi Nasab. What CNN didn't mention is that
she's also an intern for a large D.C. lobbying firm, Cassidy & Associates.
Another question came from Tara Ebersole, a humble " Former Biology Professor " according to
CNN. She's also the chair of the Baltimore County Democratic Party according to her LinkedIn page . What's
more, Ebersole's husband is a Maryland state delegate, and was on Hillary Clinton's
leadership council in 2016.
Abena McAllister was labeled by CNN as a " Mother of Two ," but failed to mention that she's
also the Charles County Democratic Central Committee Chair .
" Maryland Voter " Michelle Gregory is yet another 'everyday person' who turns out to be
politically active as the chair of the Lower Shore Progressive Caucus .
There are several more examples - as nearly everyone who asked Bernie a question is linked
to some type of Democratic activism.
One explanation for why so many political operatives asked Bernie question might be that
political activists are more likely to choose to participate in a Bernie Sanders town hall.
That said, CNN made it appear as though these were 'everyday voters' - not people people
involved in politics themselves .
As Paste 's Jacob Weindling reports, most of the questions weren't unfair.
I watched the entire town hall last night, and none of the questions asked by these people
resonated as unfair to me. There were a couple asked by other people that were based on wrong
assumptions (like the myth that Bernie's only support comes from young white dudes), but it's
hard to blame individuals for coming to wrong conclusions like that when the Democratic
Party's infrastructure has invested so much time and energy gaslighting the public into
thinking that way.
...
But back to my main point: really the only problem in all this is that because CNN did not
disclose many of these questioners' ties to politics, one cannot help wonder why. The famed
Bobby Knight quote of "stupid loses more games than smart wins" is Occam's Razor here, as
Wolf Blitzer isn't exactly universally respected and
we have documented CNN's struggles with the truth before , but the nefarious angle is the
elephant in that Washington D.C. room. -
Paste Magazine
As Weindling notes - "being politically-involved doesn't disqualify these folks from asking
questions, and it doesn't automatically make their motivations disingenuous," however " had CNN
been more accurate in describing the questioners, I wouldn't be writing this column ."
The best CNN sandbagging ever was GHW Bush having Larry King give him a call from a
'concerned listener in the audience' who turned out to be George Stephanopoulis right out of
Clinton's war room.What a sham!
He would have won, which is why they sandbagged him.
The Money Power Monopolists wanted Trump.
THEY DO NOT WANT SANDERS.
Can you figure out why?
THEY HAVE ZERO INTENTION OF GIVING FREE CHIT TO THE FREE CHIT ARMY, OTHER THAN THE HOPE OF
FREE CHIT THAT NEVER, EVER, EVER COMES.
Hellary, on the other hand, is EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT.
Why? She can get almost all the black vote after using al Qaeda to overthrow an African
country and set up public primarily black slave auctions that even sell black children!
Care enough to look it up!
If you don't care, well, WHEN THEY DO IT TO YOU AND YOURS, YOU WILL HAVE A BIG LESSON TO
LEARN FROM THE EXPERIENCE.
No, Democratic party is composed primarily of mindless, programmed nitwits.
The Money Power Monopolist financiers of DNC, inc DON'T WANT BERNIE.
THEY HAVE NO INTENTION OF DEPLOYING FREE CHIT TO THE MASSES.
NONE.
Your next President almost certain has a first letter of "H."
Who else can use al Qaeda to overthrow an African country, set up a debt-based money
central bank to enslave the Libyans, set up a milieu where black people are sold as slaves in
public auctions, AND STILL GET THE MAJORITY SUPPORT OF THE AVERAGE DEMOCRATIC PARTY MINDLESS
MUPPET?
Bernie must be going senile; he's forgotten he was not only bought off, but sodomized in
the process by his fellow Dems, while betraying all those young people who were thinking he'd
bring them solid golden unicorn turds to pay off their school loans with, and now he thinks
he's his own man, again. Few things worse than a whore with dementia.
"... Socialism is government by the working-class. There is not the slightest hint of the working-class ruling over society anywhere in the world, certainly not in a dictatorship such as America. Capitalists own all the means of production, all levers of government, and all the major media. ..."
"... I've given up the illusion that we'll ever vote our way out of this madness, look at Narco Rubio's tweet yesterday using snuff photos of Gaddafi after the gangsters in DC murdered him and destroyed his country ..."
"... There are limits, after all, to people's gullibility. It's not like you can just run the same con, with the same fake message and the same fake messiah, over and over, and expect folks to fall for it. ..."
Bernie is no socialist, neither are any Democrats, just controlled puppets to keep the
American people docile, keep up the illusion that things will actually get better one day. He
may be an FDR capitalist, giving you just enough socialism to keep the capitalist system
afloat, keeping the pitchforks and torches at bay.
Bernie is a pro-war imperialist, just look at his tweets about Maduro recently, or his
views on Palestine-Israel. He may be the best "candidate" in 2020, but he is far from a
socialist. Same deal with Tulsi, if you are pro-Israel, you are a pro-war imperialist
period.
Notice she always makes a point to say "regime change wars" but what about drones? What
about covert CIA-mercenary assassinations? What about the war OF terror? She has no problem
with these types of war apparently. Colonialism and imperialism (theft of other people's and
nation's resources) are not true socialist policies. Capitalism by definition is stealing the
surplus value of the labor of other people – it cannot lead anywhere but to where we
are today.
Socialism is government by the working-class. There is not the slightest hint of the
working-class ruling over society anywhere in the world, certainly not in a dictatorship such
as America. Capitalists own all the means of production, all levers of government, and all
the major media.
There is now no Left left in America, although plenty people here now think "left" means
identity stuff. It does not. Left is giving priority to the welfare if the working class
majority and protecting them from predatory capitalists. Race, gender and deviancies did not
define the authentic socialist agenda.
I've given up the illusion that we'll ever vote our way out of this madness, look at Narco
Rubio's tweet yesterday using snuff photos of Gaddafi after the gangsters in DC murdered him
and destroyed his country, turning it back centuries, using them as a threat to Maduro. You
don't vote that kind of Mob out, we have the mafia now in charge of our country, the most
powerful military in the world is run by satanic mobsters, and we're foolish enough to think
voting is going to make this go away? Criminals and gangsters don't stop until they're either
in prison or dead. They don't go away or give up power because you ask them to, which is all
voting is, asking them nicely. Good luck with that!
I wish it wasn't true. I wish we could vote Bernie or Tulsi in and things change for the
better, but from what I've seen the past 30 years, it ain't happening. Their silence on 9-11
truth, knowing full well they know better is pretty telling.
It doesn't take an Einstein to
see those buildings were blown up with explosives, if they're not willing to call that out,
what makes you think they're willing to do what needs to be done once in office? Sadly I'm
afraid either collapse, armed revolt, or China or Russia invading and/or nuking us is the
only way out of this evil system.
There are limits, after all, to people's gullibility. It's not like you can just run the
same con, with the same fake message and the same fake messiah, over and over, and expect
folks to fall for it.
This is a great
article which effectively exposes Sanders as being fatally compromised by his role as
Clinton lackey after the evidence emerged that the party engaged in fraud securing the
predicted result. I also fully endorse Hooch's response to the commentary. Great job on both
counts.
"... This is where Sanders will come to help: he will help US citizens, by helping corporations to be able to sell their stuff to US citizens. Sanders calls that socialism, but it is, as Chomsky explained, new dealism. ..."
"... As of 3 min ago, https://berniesanders.com/ was just a splash screen. He had 4 yrs to update his website. He should not run. Tulsi Gabbard went to the mat for him in 2016, he should have sat this one out and endorsed her. Bernie is a typical narcissistic baby boomer who believes only he can save the world he has spent his life F-ing up. ..."
@Bern I think that
Sanders is able to change half of the USA. He is likely to do something about inequality,
unemployment, health care, but he will not touch the MIC.
The US is a rich country, and if the US wants stay rich it has to do something about this
third world-isation of the USA that is in play since the 1990s (outsourcing of jobs, leaving
the home population with less and less means to buy stuff US corporations produce abroad).
This is where Sanders will come to help: he will help US citizens, by helping corporations to
be able to sell their stuff to US citizens. Sanders calls that socialism, but it is, as
Chomsky explained, new dealism.
Socialism would be if Sanders promoted that workers would
take over the corporations, or would allow to re-open factories, warehouses, and farmland
where the workers were in control, not the bosses. Sanders is not promoting any of that.
Sanders may be a Roosevelt, but he is not an Upton Sinclair (who nearly became governor of
California in the 1930s by running a truly socialist platform). And, as said, he will
certainly not touch the MIC.
IMO he is the lesser evil of candidates who run for the 2020 US elections, but to consider
him a socialist, as Sanders calls himself, will lead to disappointment.
Here is Michael Parenti talking about his former compatriot:
As of 3 min ago, https://berniesanders.com/ was just a splash screen. He had 4
yrs to update his website. He should not run. Tulsi Gabbard went to the mat for him in 2016, he
should have sat this one out and endorsed her. Bernie is a typical narcissistic baby boomer who
believes only he can save the world he has spent his life F-ing up.
Oh great, Bernie -- another Sunday Socialist. The road to Hell is trodden bare by his
type, downhill all the way. Bernie's assigned role is to "suck up all the oxygen". Provide
the necessary razzle-dazzle for the war democrats, police state liberals and austerity
progressives to suck up the attention and energy of the disaffected.
That's what they get paid to do. This layer of burn-outs, has beens and traitors. The
ever-odious staffers, full-timers, consultants, aides, advisors, policy wonks, publicity
hounds. Ever advancing themselves as spokespeople for all the causes. Always ready to turn
viciously on any regular people who have the impertinence to say otherwise. Generals without
an army.
Always anything but class with the Bernie boosters. Furiously beating their drums for
feminism, gay whatever, racism, the environment. But never for mobilization of the working
class. Never for fighting against real capitalism. The Bernie Sunday Socialists live
comfortably, haven't walked a picket line in ages, buy sweat shop labour designer clothes and
are as tough as jello.
Life has a way of paying you out. And the future for the Bernie boosters and those dumb
enough to buy their bilge is -- the Ukraine.
While the Bernie crowd serve as their apologists the class elites grind on. They have no
limit and the Bernie bunch will swallow anything so long as they keep their place and
privileges as police for the working poor. But, at some point, Ukrainization hits the
tipping point. As it is heading for in Brazil, Italy, Spain, France, Mexico. When the shit
hits the fan, the Bernie boosters will be on the wrong side of the barricades.
@redmudhooch "See how
the faithful city has become a prostitute! She once was full of justice; righteousness used
to dwell in her -- but now murderers!"
(Isaiah 1:21-23)
Bernie is not a magic socialist. He is a fraud: he was cheated out of nomination, and then
supported the cheater. Shame on him! He will never get my vote, period.
I honestly think that had the media and the deep state treated Trump fairly, they would have still have some credibility
now. But the blatant attempt to derail his candidacy only egged on his supporters. Then, the concerted attempts to nullify the
election results convinced people all over the political spectrum that our "democracy" is only a "simulation of democracy" as
Hopkins points out.
Don't the people pulling the strings behind the media understand what they have done? They have convinced a large part of the
nation that everything that they were taught from childhood is a fraud.
Civilizations are only held together by the "glue" of shared beliefs. The deep-state-media-complex has just applied a solvent
to the very glue that holds the entire culture together.
This is going to make the next couple of years very interesting.
The DNC takes Deep State to a whole new level. They have this thing called "Superdelegates",
which has veto power over the little people.
The SJWs and Bernie bots may be too dumb to know who their real daddies are, but the
Superdelegates know exactly whose ring they need to kiss to regain power: the same globalist
capitalist Davos scums who now have Trump exactly where they want him, between their legs
sucking up while busy implementing their agendas of endless wars and endless immigration.
The Superdelegates will never let things get too far with the socialists, they're good for
entertainment, to give off the pretense of a real race. I'm betting my money on Kirsten
Gillibrand -- Dems know if there's a woman who could beat Trump, she needs to be a blonde.
Uncle Joe has too many skeletons in his closet. It's just a matter of time before the
cockroaches come out of the woodwork and #MeToo him into the orbits.
Oh great, Bernie -- another Sunday Socialist. The road to Hell is trodden bare by his
type, downhill all the way. Bernie's assigned role is to "suck up all the oxygen". Provide
the necessary razzle-dazzle for the war democrats, police state liberals and austerity
progressives to suck up the attention and energy of the disaffected.
That's what they get paid to do. This layer of burn-outs, has beens and traitors. The
ever-odious staffers, full-timers, consultants, aides, advisors, policy wonks, publicity
hounds. Ever advancing themselves as spokespeople for all the causes. Always ready to turn
viciously on any regular people who have the impertinence to say otherwise. Generals without
an army.
Always anything but class with the Bernie boosters. Furiously beating their drums for
feminism, gay whatever, racism, the environment. But never for mobilization of the working
class. Never for fighting against real capitalism. The Bernie Sunday Socialists live
comfortably, haven't walked a picket line in ages, buy sweat shop labour designer clothes and
are as tough as jello.
Life has a way of paying you out. And the future for the Bernie boosters and those dumb
enough to buy their bilge is -- the Ukraine.
While the Bernie crowd serve as their apologists the class elites grind on. They have no
limit and the Bernie bunch will swallow anything so long as they keep their place and
privileges as police for the working poor. But, at some point, Ukrainization hits the
tipping point. As it is heading for in Brazil, Italy, Spain, France, Mexico. When the shit
hits the fan, the Bernie boosters will be on the wrong side of the barricades.
Bernie is no socialist, neither are any Democrats, just controlled puppets to keep the
American people docile, keep up the illusion that things will actually get better one day. He
may be an FDR capitalist, giving you just enough socialism to keep the capitalist system
afloat, keeping the pitchforks and torches at bay.
Bernie is a pro-war imperialist, just look at his tweets about Maduro recently, or his
views on Palestine-Israel. He may be the best "candidate" in 2020, but he is far from a
socialist. Same deal with Tulsi, if you are pro-Israel, you are a pro-war imperialist
period.
Notice she always makes a point to say "regime change wars" but what about drones? What
about covert CIA-mercenary assassinations? What about the war OF terror? She has no problem
with these types of war apparently. Colonialism and imperialism (theft of other people's and
nation's resources) are not true socialist policies. Capitalism by definition is stealing the
surplus value of the labor of other people – it cannot lead anywhere but to where we
are today.
Socialism is government by the working-class. There is not the slightest hint of the
working-class ruling over society anywhere in the world, certainly not in a dictatorship such
as America. Capitalists own all the means of production, all levers of government, and all
the major media.
There is now no Left left in America, although plenty people here now think "left" means
identity stuff. It does not. Left is giving priority to the welfare if the working class
majority and protecting them from predatory capitalists. Race, gender and deviancies did not
define the authentic socialist agenda.
I've given up the illusion that we'll ever vote our way out of this madness, look at Narco
Rubio's tweet yesterday using snuff photos of Gaddafi after the gangsters in DC murdered him
and destroyed his country, turning it back centuries, using them as a threat to Maduro. You
don't vote that kind of Mob out, we have the mafia now in charge of our country, the most
powerful military in the world is run by satanic mobsters, and we're foolish enough to think
voting is going to make this go away? Criminals and gangsters don't stop until they're either
in prison or dead. They don't go away or give up power because you ask them to, which is all
voting is, asking them nicely. Good luck with that!
I wish it wasn't true. I wish we could vote Bernie or Tulsi in and things change for the
better, but from what I've seen the past 30 years, it ain't happening. Their silence on 9-11
truth, knowing full well they know better is pretty telling.It doesn't take an Einstein to
see those buildings were blown up with explosives, if they're not willing to call that out,
what makes you think they're willing to do what needs to be done once in office? Sadly I'm
afraid either collapse, armed revolt, or China or Russia invading and/or nuking us is the
only way out of this evil system.
There are limits, after all, to people's gullibility. It's not like you can just run the
same con, with the same fake message and the same fake messiah, over and over, and expect
folks to fall for it.
So here it is, the announcement we've been waiting for all aboard for another cruise on the
new and improved U.S.S. Magic Socialist with your captain Bernie Sanders at the helm! If you're
not familiar with this extraordinary vessel, it's like the luxury liner in The Magic Christian , except
catering to credulous American socialists instead of the British filthy rich. Tickets start at
just $27 dollars so hurry, because they're going fast!
That's right, folks, Bernie is back, and this time it's not just a sadistic prank where he
gets you all fired up about his fake "revolution" for fifteen months, gets cheated out of the
nomination, then backs whichever corporate-bought candidate the Democratic Party orders you to
vote for.
No, this time the Bernster really means it! This time, when the DNC rigs the primaries to
hand the nomination to Harris, or Biden, or some billionaire android like Michael Bloomberg,
Bernie is not going to break your heart by refusing to run as an independent candidate,
unbeholden to the corporations and oligarchs that own both political parties, or otherwise make
you feel like a sucker for buying his "revolution" schtick. He's not going to fold like a fifty
dollar suit and start parroting whatever propaganda the corporate media will be prodigiously
spewing to convince you the Russians and Nazis are coming unless you vote for the empire's
pre-anointed puppet!
Bernie would never dream of doing that or at least he'd never dream of doing that twice.
Bernie Sanders @SenSanders
The people of Venezuela are enduring a serious humanitarian crisis. The Maduro
government must put the needs of its people first, allow humanitarian aid into the
country, and refrain from violence against protesters.
12:45 PM - 23 Feb 2019
Good speeches on Venezuela on the following link:
The World Today With Tariq Ali - No War on Venezuela
Tariq spoke at a public meeting in London, where many attended to express their solidarity
with the people of Venezuela, and to reject the coup attempt by the United States and their
allies.
what connects libya. Syria, Iran, N.korea and Venezuela, it is not oil. It is the fact that
they did not or do not owe the IMF a penny, or a cent or even a thin dime. Economic slavery
Bernie, are you f-ing kidding me! if you buy the Trump, Bolton, Abrams, Rubio line,
"humanitarian intervention" and collude in the destruction of Venezuela, you cannot be
credible candidate for President of the USA. Or, maybe you can, maybe you're the perfect
stooge for the 1 %.
What does Bernie's tweet say about who he is? What does Bernie's tweet say about his
participation in the 2016 election? and the 2020 election?
Early in the race (April 2015), Black Agenda Report called Bernie a 'sheepdog' for
Hillary:
Vermont senator and ostensible socialist Bernie Sanders is playing the sheepdog
candidate for Hillary Clinton this year. Bernie's job is to warm up the crowd for Hillary,
herding activist energies and the disaffected left back into the Democratic fold one more
time. Bernie aims to tie up activist energies and resources till the summer of 2016 when
the only remaining choice will be the usual lesser of two evils.
During the election, Bernie told us that he was a friend of Hillary's for twenty-five
years. He claimed to be an independent but he was close to most of the Democratic leadership:
Schumer, Hillary, Obama. Obama campaigned for him. Schumer refused to allow funding of
Democratic candidates that might oppose him.
Bernie refused to attack his friend Hillary on character issues. He pulled punches like
not refuting her claim to have never changed her vote for money by citing the
well-known and irrefutable example of Hillary's having done so on the bankruptcy bill
(Elizabeth Warren proved that Hillary had changed her position for money from the Credit
Card industry) . And he refused offers to lead a progressive Movement that was separate
from the Democratic Party after the DNC colluded with Hillary and Hillary brought Debra
Wasserman Shultz into her election and picked Kaine for VP over Bernie.
Bernie has entered the 2020 race knowing that he can't win given that many progressives
were disillusion by his failings in 2016. He's just a spoiler now to ensure that a Centrist
or another progressive stooge gets the Democratic nomination.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
It seems clear at this point that there was far more 'meddling' in the 2016 Presidential
race by CIA/MI6, the Israel lobby, and the three stooges that participated (Bernie, Hillary,
Trump) than by Russia.
On February 18th, Gallup bannered "Record High Name Government as Most Important
Problem" ... More than a third of Americans think that "The government/Poor leadership" is
the "Top Problem" in America. That's almost twice the percentage who listed the
second-from-top option, "Immigration," ...
The term the academics actually used was "inverted totalitarianism" .
The plutocracy has great influence (via money) but not control. They exert that influence
via political donations, lobbyists, cut-outs, etc. However, when a small group of political
and intel agency leaders recognize a danger to USA/plutocrat interests - like the
Russia-China alliance - they can collectively act like a dictator. This is what I contend has
actually occurred, and why a nationalist (Trump) was selected as nominal leader and
spokesperson.
At the 20 - 26 second mark, the Venezuelan or south american version of the white helmets
can be seen.
Coalition Aid and Freedom. Also a number of white teeshirts with black writing appear to be
another unit.
At the 35 second mark, one of the injured from the Columbian side of the
barricade is filmed. Lots of people with cameras filming her, but not one helps her.
I guess she is just one of the suckers destined to become US cannon fodder.
Peter AU 1 , Feb 23, 2019 10:12:15 PM |
linkben , Feb 23, 2019 10:27:48 PM |
link
"Home> Newsroom> Press Releases> Press Release
Sanders Statement on Venezuela
Thursday, January 24, 2019
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement
Thursday on the political situation in Venezuela:
"The Maduro government in Venezuela has been waging a violent crackdown on Venezuelan
civil society, violated the constitution by dissolving the National Assembly and was
re-elected last year in an election that many observers said was fraudulent. Further, the
economy is a disaster and millions are migrating.
"The United States should support the rule of law, fair elections and self-determination
for the Venezuelan people. We must condemn the use of violence against unarmed protesters and
the suppression of dissent. However, we must learn the lessons of the past and not be in the
business of regime change or supporting coups – as we have in Chile, Guatemala, Brazil,
and the Dominican Republic. The United States has a long history of inappropriately
intervening in Latin American countries; we must not go down that road again."
Earlier, I was wondering if the current bullshit was just the opening ceremony
for the beginning of Syria style unconventional warfare, or Iraq shock and awe
style conventional war.
Judging by what is coming out in the last few hours, conventional war it is.
Conventional as in open in your face US military attack.
Marco Rubio
Verified account
@marcorubio
47m47 minutes ago
More Marco Rubio Retweeted Juan Guaidó
After discussions tonight with several regional leaders it is now clear that the grave
crimes
committed today by the Maduro regime have opened the door to various potential
multilateral
actions not on the table just 24 hours ago
Secretary Pompeo
Verified account
@SecPompeo
2h2 hours ago
More
The U.S. will take action against those who oppose the peaceful restoration
of democracy in #Venezuela. Now is the time to act in support of the needs of
the desperate Venezuelan people. We stand in solidarity with those continuing
their struggle for freedom.
CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido said on Saturday that
President Nicolas Maduro's use of troops to violently block the entry of humanitarian
aid meant he would propose to the international community that all options remain
open to oust Maduro.
Sounds like the screech of the harpies more than actual war plans.
I have a different take. This was all they could do. It was just a propaganda move. And
the bolt is now shot.
They will follow with the only weapons they have: (a) sanctions of course and (b)
exhausting every color-revolution ploy in the playbook with the affluent and the oligarchs,
combined with limited paramilitary actions, very limited because it involves the invasion of
a country with closed borders that expects incursions and where foreign nationals arrested
and killed - be they Colombians, Brazilians or foreign mercenaries - will be very
embarrassing for the source nation or nations. Both actions could drag on for years,
ultimately wearing out the US far more than the Venezuelans.
I'm no military expert but cruise missiles or air bombing seem impractical to me.
Venezuela has Russian defense systems. The Pentagon will rattle sabers but it will not risk
something like a plane or a ship, because this would escalate the military imperatives for
the US beyond where the US actually wants to go. The US only wants to win. It absolutely
doesn't want to fight to do it.
The risk-aversion of the US (to put it politely) is huge, much, much greater - in my
estimation - than is commonly perceived. Remember, these are totally corrupt institutions
that we're talking about here. No backbone.
So they made a bit of theater, enough to fill the Wurlitzer for weeks, and preach to their
propagandized populace. But then there's the real situation on the ground. What exactly are
they going to do with that situation? They have zero legitimacy, and the UN is watching. Does
the Pentagon really want to risk a hardware or personnel loss sufficient for even the US
population to agree to sending real boots on the ground? Without air cover? A real act of
war, until the first ship is sunk? And then no moral high ground whatsoever, and the UN
nations one by one turning away, just like the EU members not applauding Pence? Does Trump
really want to go into an election with a new Vietnam on his hands? Do they really think they
can convince the people of the US to put up with that?
Perhaps they can. But either way, those are the stakes. There are no smaller stakes.
There's no easy win here. Either they go all-in, as if they had gumption, and stay in, as if
they had will, or they screech and screech and stay out. Because they know they can't win.
Not easy, not hard. No win here for the US. And they will throw away their entire presence in
Latin America, while accelerating the rotting of the political corpse back home.
Hard to tell but at least for now I agree with Grieved Feb 23, 2019 11:21:37 PM | 86 although
Peter AU 1 | Feb 23, 2019 10:40:41 PM | 83 and others make valid points: this could actually
be all the US is able to do (and essentially nothing but misdirection) or otherwise it will
require "everything" and spell the end of the US. Another possibility mentioned at the end of
this post.
Karlof1 wrote yet another interesting post in the "Trump Likes Beautiful Border Walls"
thread about (at the very least previous or recent) US access to Colombian air bases and also
a link to Google maps of seven such. According to Wikipedia it looks like the Colombian air
force has more bases but the US might not be present at all (or any, it might only be
temporary access/assured use) and so far I've only looked at one particular one (where they
most likely aren't, but Russia and China would know for sure). This is only meant as
reference, it is not necessarily factual or up to date.
I think Karof1 linked to the Google maps in this thread as well, I hate Google but it is
worth a look at that base (I could zoom all the way down to 5 meters scale indicator but I
doubt that's actual resolution, it got very grainy) if only to see a place on Earth with an
incredible amount of rivers ...everywhere! And laugh a little about it if you can :D
(and I might be wrong but if anything the satellite picture looks like it was taken during
the dry season since it's only verdant along the river edges lol).
There's no shortage of things to think about. Most here are sure to know this but I will
hastily mention all the trouble Colombia has had and link to a Wikipedia summary, it might be
an okay summary or maybe not but it ought to be okay as a reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombian_conflict
the US might be pushing their luck attempting to stay relevant or to have any influence,
everything might actually be about Colombia (and Brazil or even Latin America in general)
rather than Venezuela.
Bernie was a sheepdog. He has no real intention to fight for the presidency in 2016, and he gave up very despicably to Hillary
during the National convention.
At his age he is not a presidential candidate in 2020 (he was born in 1941). He just again play the role of sheep dog,
possibly helping to defeat Tulsi Gabbard. As The Atlantic
pointed out:" Sanders will hurt contenders whose support overlaps with his, reducing the pool of voters available for those who
are targeting the same groups most drawn to him, particularly young people, the most liberal activists, and independents who
participate in Democratic primaries. "
Sanders's entry could also influence his competitors' assessment of the earliest primary states, by causing other candidates
to view the New Hampshire contest as a regional showdown between him and Warren
Notable quotes:
"... "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders." – Hillary Clinton to investors in a paid speech given to Brazilian Banco Itau in 2013 ..."
"... Had primary voters known everything that was going on, including rigging of the primaries and laundering of money from state and local committees, and Bernie had actually hammered Clinton for those things like any normal candidate would, he'd have won the primary and might very well be President today. Her compromising of national security via email would've been the cherry on top. ..."
Bernie Sanders's quest for the Democratic presidential nomination was one of the biggest
surprises of the 2016 campaign, surpassed only by the election's
ultimate winner . The rumpled septuagenarian socialist senator from the tiny state of
Vermont, who had never even run for office as a Democrat before, went from decades of laboring
in obscurity to competing with Hillary Clinton on something approaching even terms. On Tuesday
he announced he wants to try again, this time in a race with no obvious frontrunner.
The closest parallel to Sanders's success was probably Ron Paul: elderly, ideological
veteran lawmakers who were beloved by younger voters inside the major political party to which
they were intermittently attached (Paul was the 1988 Libertarian Party nominee for president,
Sanders technically won all his elections as an independent or third-party candidate) when they
sought its presidential nomination late in their careers. Despite their vast differences on
economics, both men also wanted an end to perpetual war in the Middle East.
Yet Sanders thrived in a two-way race and came closer than Paul to the nomination, even if
he never quite threatened to pull off a Barack Obama-style upset against Clinton. With the
GOP's small government wing in
decline , Sanders also appears for now to have had more of a transformative effect on the
Democratic Party.
"Socialism" is no longer an epithet in American politics and Sanders proved there was
valuable ground to the left of Obama.
Can Sanders do it again? To get a sense of how the Bernie revolution might eat its own,
let's reflect on why he fell short the first time. Sanders is an old-school leftist who
believes in the centrality of class, not race.
Hailing from one of the whitest states in the country, he never made inroads in the
communities of color that have become such a large part of the Democratic primary electorate --
and the crucial reason Obama prevailed where Sanders' fellow Vermonter Howard Dean did not.
Sanders was pilloried for his refusal to support
open borders in a 2015 interview with liberal pundit Ezra Klein. "No, that's a Koch brothers
proposal," Sanders replied, later calling it "right-wing." He added, "It would make everybody
in America poorer -- you're doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don't think
there's any country in the world that believes in that." Klein's website then ran a piece with
a headline claiming "Bernie
Sanders's fear of immigrant labor is ugly -- and wrongheaded."
This left-wing economic nationalism might make Sanders attractive to the white working-class
voters who cast the decisive ballots for Donald Trump in 2016. So too would the fact that while
Sanders is reliably liberal on social issues, including the obligatory support for abortion on
demand, he is clearly not animated by them. The key swing voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and
Wisconsin are economically liberal but socially conservative.
What might be assets in the general election against Trump are huge liabilities in the
Democratic primaries, however. In an American progressivism increasingly defined by
intersectionality and identity politics, even a socialist who
honeymooned in the Soviet Union is something of a relic. Centrists and liberals alike
lobbed accusations of sexism against the "Bernie bros" supporting Sanders.
Now these Sanders critics will have liberal women -- in some cases, women of color -- to
choose from in the primaries. Even outside presidential politics, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
offers the same democratic socialism in a more attractive, internet-savvy, diverse, and woke
package. In the primaries, Sanders will have to share the left lane with others. Elizabeth
Warren can compete with him on economics, Tulsi Gabbard for antiwar street cred. Nearly all the
contenders now support "Medicare for All," with many signing up for the $42 trillion Green New
Deal.
If Democrats decide they want an aging white male for old times sake, Joe Biden could do the
trick. His eight years as vice president under Obama revived his political fortunes, as Trump
says in less flattering
terms . A crowded group of progressives could give an establishment icon who starts with
high name recognition a path to the nomination. And Biden could also vie with Trump for
blue-collar white voters.
Of course, Biden would be making much of that appeal on the basis of personality. Trump and
Sanders rail against bad trade deals and the Iraq war. Biden has an even longer record of
supporting such policies than Clinton did. Some of the other Sanders alternatives'
progressivism is of more recent vintage (Kamala Harris) and perhaps of questionable sincerity
(Cory Booker). Bernie is a true believer.
But the modern Democratic Party is like a parade marching leftward so rapidly that it is
hard for anyone, even Bernie Sanders, to keep up for long.
Interesting take on Bernie here,
yet, at the same time, I'm thinkin': The bad jokes continue on the American people, which is, for example, the two names toward
the end of this article.
Booker and Harris? These two intellectually hollow politicians are quite different from
Bernie.
They are opportunists using the labels 'liberal' or simply 'Democrats' to run for office.
And, cynically using the label of being a 'minority.' Come on now!
The joke I refer to is that these two, unlike Bernie don't give a rat's butt about anyone,
ii's all self serving bull.
The difference with Bernie? He, Bernie, is sincere and really cares for people, he has heart.
Now, would some of you care to read old articles, some in the San Francisco newspapers from
the bad old days when mayor Willie Brown was there and how he, married, was having ah,
regular 'get togethers' with Kamala Harris and how he got her high paid positions with
commissions and then helped her become Att. General. And, so they used the exact opposite of
what I and my generation (teens) in the mid-late 60's were told, which was: judge everyone by
THEIR character (as MLK also said). It doesn't matter whether you are of this or that, you
know, race, national origin and so on.
So Kamala Harris was using her ah, whatever to get ego
positions and money. These are facts and I'm being kind here. There's more, Brown himself
said, in recent interviews that he had the ah, affair(we know what that means and it's not
for discussions on Plato and Calvin, ha) with her. So, this clown Booker is running cause
he's black and that's it and Harris is using that too and that she's a female??
More jokes
from jokers on the American people. Again, a betrayal of myself and my fellow liberals from
the 60's and 70's. Run, brother Bernie run! At least you're real and not sleazy, can you all
dig what I'm sayin'?
If memory serves, significant numbers of black and Hispanic voters do not support open
borders either. Bernie should learn from his 2016 mistakes, and go for the jugular against
ex-prosecutor Harris and longtime foe of teachers and water carrier for the charter school
industry Booker. He might also note Gillibrand's flip flop on guns, if he hasn't done the
same.
He also needs to call out the Democratic establishment for supporting Medicare for All
in words, while undercutting it in deed.
And he must learn not to be so solicitous of
corporate Democrats, be they corrupt war criminals like Clinton (he should have kept his
mouth shut about the e-mails) or bait-and-switch types like Andrew Cuomo, who is pulling on a
state level with "free college" and an "increased" minimum wage exactly what Pelosi is doing
at the federal level with Medicare for All. Oh, and talk more about jobs for all, a shortened
workweek, restoring voting rights and the Voting Rights Act, and breaking up and controlling
the banks and near monopolies instead of wonking out about Big Money in politics (nowhere
near as visceral as closing down polling places and purging voter rolls, although
gerrymandering might be turning into a rare winning "wonk" issue).
Respect the voters, Bernie, lay out your records vs. your opponents in targeted
advertising, but treat your opponents as most of them deserve.
Nah. Ideology is meaningless. It's all about GANG POWER. Bernie is not authorized by the
Clinton Mob, so he can't win. Kamala is employed by the Clinton Mob, so she will win.
Re: Sanders was pilloried for his refusal to support open borders in a 2015 interview with
liberal pundit Ezra Klein.
This is lazy writing. Words have meaning and there's no support for "open borders" among
the Democrats either– which would mean tearing down all our border controls so that
travel into the US from either Mexico or Canada would be as unhindered, on our side, as
travel between Michigan and Ohio.
Re: The key swing voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are economically liberal
but socially conservative.
It would be better stated that they are socially moderate: generally in favor of abortion
rights (with limitations) and at peace with SSM, but not on board with the more extreme forms
of feminism or gay rights advocacy. The days of true social conservatism as the default
working class position are long gone. Mostly these people just want to be left alone–
by both SJWs of the Left and Bible thumping preachers of the Right. In that regard Donald
Trump seemed like a safe vote for them.
As someone who voted for Ron Paul 2008-12, , Bernie in the primaries and then for Trump
(reluctantly) in the general election, I will share what I see in Bernie: Honesty. Unbought.
Unbossed. No taint of scandal, lifelong devotion to his beliefs, went to jail over housing
desegregation, itinerate ne'er-d0-well supporting himself with home-made educational films
for schools and carpentry gigs, a gadfly who won his first election by 10 votes in a four-way
race, etc. , in other words, he's real. I don't share his views on social issues, but Trump's
judicial picks make it a lot easier to contemplate a Bernie Presidency, as the Senate and
courts would check and balance his more lefty impulses.
He's about as un-bought as any
politician in America, and having not been one of the cool kids means he's not beholden to
them.
Teamed with another outsider like Tulsi, Bernie would have a very good chance of
winning, and he's quite possibly do as much good, on balance, as anyone could hope for.
"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders." –
Hillary Clinton to investors in a paid speech given to Brazilian Banco Itau in 2013
Rep. Jackie Speier: "I have said publically before that if what we're doing is build a
useless wall for a couple of years that we can then tear down, I'm willing to pay that price
to make sure these DACA kids can stay in the country."
zagonostra: "Wow, not one word on the corruption and collusion between HRC and DNC as
evidenced in Podesta emails and Donna Brazile's book."
Had primary voters known everything that was going on, including rigging of the primaries
and laundering of money from state and local committees, and Bernie had actually hammered
Clinton for those things like any normal candidate would, he'd have won the primary and might
very well be President today. Her compromising of national security via email would've been
the cherry on top.
Sorry, that was a very cheap shot to snidely refer to Socialist Bernie's Honeymoon in the
Soviet Union. He was mayor of Burlington, Vermont at the time and he officially visited the
town's sister city in Russia with his new bride. Did he have fun while he was there, God
forbid? Probably, as the video link clearly shows. Was he there to report to his Kremlin
masters?
Obviously not, since he has never been suspected of spying or of being a Russian stooge.
TAC in general -- but Pat Buchannan and Rod Dreher in particular -- continues to exaggerate
the portion of Democrats who are on the extreme far-left, and thus more "radical" than
Bernie. Clinton hangers-on and hardcore DNC insiders aside, most Democrats can easily square
their ideals and beliefs with Bernie's and have stronger incentives to do so than they did in
2016. Beyond the Democrats, those who saw him as too extreme in 2016 must re-calibrate and
consider him as a viable alternative to the fiasco of Trump. However, it's difficult to
imagine the extreme MAGA club defecting to Sanders, given how deeply they've entrenched
themselves in Trump's fakery and lies.
Re: Kent, "Then we will have a great national debate over what's more important: a wall to
keep out the Mexicans, or affordable healthcare."
Related to "affordable" healthcare, the Democrat Medicare for All proposal is a naive and
stupid illusion. The U.S. health care system based on the current fee-for-service model
cannot be reformed by moving the "who pays" food around the plate.
U.S. health care per capita costs of over $10,000 a year are 45% higher than German per
capita costs. The ONLY genuine reform would provide a significant reduction in the per cost
of health care to approach than of other advanced nations with some universal health care
model.
The ONLY way Medicare for All could work would be for the government to force massive fee
cram-downs on the health care Crony Cartels. Big Doctor, Big Hospital, Big Pharma, Big
Insurance would all have to be lined up for Big Haircuts.
Only nobody in Washington has the guts to do that. Or has the guts to propose a truly
transformational change in the health care model paradigm, e.g., a variation of the German
model.
The sad thing is that so many Americans are played for chumps by politicians spouting
their simplistic solutions that make no more sense than the obviously wired-for-failure
Obamacare.
Stick a fork in America with Dems running the show too – Because it's still
cooked.
All this concern-trolling from the Right and Center is really amusing.
Polls indicate that the actual voters want what Bernie is selling. Given the chance, he
will crush Trump, defeating ugly and vulgar cruelty with love and kindness.
"the crucial reason Obama prevailed where Sanders' fellow Vermonter Howard Dean did not"
Beyond all the bad faith toothless crushing of sour grapes in the article, this is an
interesting line.
Dean ran on an anti-war platform – against the Bush Doctrine – at a time when
no other Democratic "leader" dared, and Barbara Lee's resolution to disavow the doctrine of
preventive war got cobwebbed in the biparty Congress. His position – which contrasts
well with his pitiful shilling for MEK these days – challenged the blobbed US biparty
foreign policy "consensus" in much the same manner Primary Trump did, and the media and party
backstablishment rallied to derail Dean ASAP.
Obama had the foresight to speak out against the Iraq war without having to deliver a
Senate vote, and he postured as comprehensively dishonest as an anti-war candidate as Trump
did, and then implemented US impunitivism just as Trump does.
The difference was 4 years, from 2004 to 2008. The People, in their finite wisdom, saw fit
to elect a Supreme Court-selected GWB with popular majority, approving of illegal aggressive
war (as well as Congress' unconstitutional authorizations for that crime).
Incidentally, Barbara Lee refrained from re-introducing the disavowal of preventive war
during the Obama years. Presumably the party might have not actually voted for it as long as
they had that uncomfortable majority.
Since 2008, the anti-war "movement" has veritably sublimated, and Obama's continuation of
expansion of Bush's illegal wars has not been challenged and is – Syria, Yemen –
rarely mentioned by those who criticize Trump for delivering Bush 5th term. In this respect,
2012 and 2016 were as different from 2008 as 2008 was from 2004 – and frankly, Obama's
re-election in 2012 had the same "follow the leader" partisan stain that Bush's election in
2004 had: letters of indulgence to Presidents who had proven themselves liars and
criminals.
If there is one valid criticism of Sanders, it is that he has not committed in 2016 or
since to a full, open break with the blob and the foreign policy consensus, and he has not
taken a clear stand against illegal war, wasteful debt-backed military spending, and US
impunitivism.
No candidate for 2020 has committed to repealing the AUMF:
Nice guy, Bernie, though wooly-headed. I would like to think, however, that he truly believes
in what he is saying. Sometimes, however, I wonder if what he says is for public consumption
only and not reflective of what he really believes in–namely, garden variety Old School
Liberalism. If he had been a True Believer and given the way they cooked the books, he would
have flipped the bird to Madame and her DNC flunkies and run third-party (wouldn't THAT have
been fun!). In the end, however he copped out, which makes one wonder where he really stands.
If Sanders is denied the nomination of his party again–a distinct possibility as
suggested by Mr. Antle–let's see if he"bolts" and mounts a third-party candidacy. If he
does, he would be demonstrating the courage of his convictions–a rare commodity among
politicians.
If he doesn't and cops out yet again, falling meekly in lockstep behind the Democrat
nominee, then it says here that Bernie Sanders is just another phony politician.
"When we talk about the word 'socialism,' I think what it really means is just democratic
participation in our economic dignity and our economic, social, and racial dignity. It is
about direct representation and people actually having power and stake over their economic
and social wellness, at the end of the day."
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
"They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."
Before the George Soros clones start the Revolution, they need to understand who owns most of
the guns and ammunition in this country and knows how to use them. If you ass wipes want to
dance, then start the music or shut the Hell up.
"Nah. Ideology is meaningless. It's all about GANG POWER. Bernie is not authorized by the
Clinton Mob, so he can't win. Kamala is employed by the Clinton Mob, so she will win."
Little known political trivia: in the 2008 primaries, there was a challenger to Clinton,
named Barrack Obama. He was stomped out of the race so fast that most people don't even
remember him.
I am not a fan of Trump, and believe the country would be better off with new leadership. But
the liberal-left wing of the Democratic Party -- well, is it a wing or the party proper,
that's the question -- is seriously delusional to think Bernie, Harris, Warren, Booker and
the rest could carry more than 5 states. My guess is that only Sherrod Brown of Ohio could
pull off a victory, if he has the chops to handle whatever slurs and nicknames Trump will
have for him. Maybe the Democrats should draft Michael Dukakis. He crushed Biden.
The problem for the Republicans is that we can't deny that the economy favors the wealthy,
not because they are creative, or because they are building factories, and providing jobs but
because they are able to borrow money at zero percent interest in order to keep the Wall
Street casinos going. Trillions of dollars have been transferred from savings and pension
plans to the wealthy in the form of bailouts and quantitative easing. And now the Fed has
decided to not unload its balance sheet which means the debt has been monetized. Soon there
will be lowering of interest rates and more quantitative easing. In short, we have a managed
economy that favors the wealthy. Capitalism is dead. Transferring money to the wealthy while
everyone else must bear the burden of austerity cannot, and should not last. The people will
not continue to accept it. The wealthy brought it upon themselves.
"The people will not continue to accept it. The wealthy brought it upon themselves."
Great! So what can the people do? Those wealthy have the ability to send unemployment
skyrocketing. They have the backing of both parties. Those people were progressive before
anything we have today. Those wealthy do not play by the same rules others do. You can blame
Republicans all you want, but many Dems are just as guilty and many Dem voters will feel the
pain. too.
Sanders was pilloried for his refusal to
support open borders in a 2015 interview with liberal pundit Ezra Klein. "No, that's a
Koch brothers proposal," Sanders replied, later calling it "right-wing." He added, "It
would make everybody in America poorer -- you're doing away with the concept of a nation
state, and I don't think there's any country in the world that believes in that." Klein's
website then ran a piece with a headline claiming "Bernie
Sanders's fear of immigrant labor is ugly -- and wrongheaded."
"I think there are serious questions about the recent election. There are many people who
feel it was a fraudulent election, and I think the United States has got to work with the
international community to make sure that there is a free and fair election in
Venezuela,"
which we know is yet another BigLie. So, as with Syria, he's really no different on
Venezuela. What a weak, disappointing old turd. No one should be surprised.
What a weak, disappointing old turd. No one should be surprised.
________________________________________________
As the saying goes, "should" is a bold word. You're probably aware that the Sandernistas,
true to the "battered partner syndrome" nature of progressive-liberals, are ecstatic at
Bernie's announcement that he's "running" again in 2020. I probably don't need to explain
that I put "running" in quotes because Team Sanders' 2016 campaign was either an outright
fraud, or an effective fraud steeped in political duplicity and doublethink.
Here's the end of a comment I posted in 2017 to an article touting Sanders as the obvious
choice to head a new "People's Party"; it's become relevant again:
________________________________________________
In all this, those who wish, hope, or expect Bernie to get a second wind of sorts remind
me of the legend of "El Cid": per Wikipedia,
... After his demise, but still during the siege of Valencia, legend holds that
Jimena ordered that the corpse of El Cid be fitted with his armor and set atop his horse
Babieca, to bolster the morale of his troops. In several variations of the story, the dead
Rodrigo [El Cid] and his knights win a thundering charge against Valencia's besiegers,
resulting in a war-is-lost-but-battle-is-won catharsis for generations of Christian
Spaniards to follow.
karlof1@29, indeed I agree with you on Sanders. I was very hopeful reading the headline at
rt.com that Sanders had refused to acknowledge Guiado - well, that was a disingenuous
headline to say the least - I didn't see any refusal in that first question which was whether
Maduro was the legitimate president. Bernie hummed and hawed on that one for sure. The
'international community', whatever that is, has no business deciding anything!
I was earlier grateful to NZ for at least saying they would not sponsor any claimant to
power when asked about the pretender, as that sort of thing wasn't their way. But Bernie is
in our government and what he said there stinks.
Sanders on Venezuela: "I think there are serious questions about the recent election. There
are many people who feel it was a fraudulent election, and I think the United States has got
to work with the international community to make sure that there is a free and fair election
in Venezuela". Sad to see him telling half truths again and coming in on the wrong side of
history. I wish he, or any of these regime change propagandists would mention some actual
details about what "the serious questions about the recent election " are. The opposition
boycotted and the US declared it a fraud before it even happened. Venezuela's election system
is among the safest in the world, utilizing a finger print and ID technology. The election
was observed by election monitoring groups and no serious problems were reported, so please
Bernie what are the serious questions?
Bernie needs to partner with Tulsi and have her craft
his foreign policy statements to reflect a move towards peace.
re Bernie
I saved this zerohedge comment from a while back because it was so through.
Enjoy.
Tomsk on July 26, 2018 · at 12:08 pm EST/EDT
It is amazing how many people actually believe that Bernie Saunders is some kind of decent
guy posing an "alternative" to the other 2 contenders when his sole purpose was to round up
"dissenters" and funnel them into the Hillary camp.
As Alexander Azadgan points out –
1. He voted in favor of use of force (euphemism for bombing) 12 sovereign nations that never
represented a threat to the U.S.:
1) Afghanistan.
2) Lebanon.
3) Libya.
4) Palestine.
5) Somalia
6) Syria.
7) Yemen.
8) Yugoslavia
9) Haiti
10) Liberia
11) Zaire (Congo)
12) Sudan
2. He has accepted campaign money from Defense contractor Raytheon, a defense contractor, he
continues his undying support of the $1.5 trillion F-35 industry and said that predator
drones "have done some very good things". Sanders has always voted in favor of awarding more
corporate welfare for the military industrial complex – and even if he says he's
against a particular war he ends up voting in favor of funding it.
3. He routinely backs appropriations for imperial wars, the corporate scam of Obamacare,
wholesale surveillance and bloated defense budgets. He loves to bluster about corporate
welfare and big banks but he voted for funding the Commodity Futures "Modernization" Act
which deregulated commercial banks and created an "unregulated market in derivatives and
swaps" which was the major contributor to the 2007 economic crisis.
4. Regardless of calling himself an "independent", Sanders is a member of the Democratic
caucus and votes 98% of the time with the Democrats and votes in the exact same way as war
criminal Hillary Clinton 93% of the time. Sanders campaigned for Bill Clinton in the 1992
presidential race and again in 1996 -- after Clinton had rammed through the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), vastly expanded the system of mass incarceration and destroyed
welfare.
5. The sheepdog is a card the Democratic Party plays when there's no White House Democrat
running for re-election. The sheepdog is a presidential candidate running ostensibly to the
left of the establishment Democrat to whom the billionaires will award the nomination.
Sheepdogs are herders, . charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic
fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic Party, either staying
home. In 2004 he called on Ralph Nader to abandon his presidential campaign.
The Democratic Party has played this "sheep dog" card at least 7-8 times in the past
utilizing collaborators such as Eugene McCarthy in 1968, Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988,
Jerry Brown in 1992, Al Sharpton in 2000, Howard Dean in 2004, Dennis Kucinich in 2008 and in
2016 was Bernie Sanders' turn.
6. Regardless of calling himself a "socialist" he labeled the late Hugo Chávez,
architect of the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela responsible for lifting millions of lives
out of poverty "a dead communist dictator." Then he saddled up for a photo op with Evo
Morales at the Vatican and also voted to extradite former Black Panther member, Assata
Shakur.
7. He refers to ISIS' godfather and warmonger extraordinaire John McCain as "my friend and a
very, very decent person."
8. He routinely parrots the DNC lines: "the Russians hacked our elections" despite there is
no evidence of such hacking, but lowered his head and tucked tail when the DNC actually
rigged the primary elections against him, proving he is more loyal to the Democratic (war)
Party than to the millions of people who supported him and donated to his fraudulent
campaign.
9. He expressed staunch support for the aid of violently right-wing separatist forces such as
the self-styled Kosovo Liberation Army, whose members were trained as Mujahideen, during
Clinton's 100-day bombing of Yugoslavia and Kosovo in 1999. He has an extensive record of
supporting jihadist proxies for the overthrow of sovereign governments in Yugoslavia,
Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.
10. He supported Bill Clinton's sanctions against Iraq, sanctions that prohibited medicines
for infants and children more than 500,000 innocents killed for no other reason than that
they were Iraqi.
11. He said yes in a voice vote to the Clinton-era crime Bill, the Violent Crime Control
& Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which expanded the death penalty to cover 60 offenses. So
he is obviously pro-death penalty.
12. In the 2016 elections, he betrayed millions of people that believed in him when after
making the central point of his campaign the fight against Wall Street he instructed his
followers to vote for Wall Street's candidate, war criminal/corporate criminal Hillary
Clinton.
https://imperianews.com/usa-news-analysis/liberalisms-hypocrisy-a-case-study-of-the-american-senator-bernie-sanders-and-the-ones-to-follow/
Reply
Good quote selection of Sanders quote: '....United States has got to work with the
international community to make sure that there is a free and fair election in
Venezuela,"
Exemplary sample of meaningless weasel words. What 'international community' has the US
engaged with which it hasn't dominated or hand-picked to serve as it's privately-owned posse?
His position offers no vision or cause other than a calibrated stunt to serve private
objectives. He's hugging the middle ground as a hedge.
Venezuela already has anti-aircraft and anti-ship systems that can reach well outside its
borders...
In my opinion any such Venezuelan systems would be smoking rubble immediately after a US
attack.
Billionaire Bernie is just another fake...
My search indicated Bernie Sanders has a net worth of $2 million dollars at the
most. It's true the guy is far too old to be in the White House. I think he would have to
pledge "1 Term" AND have a Vice President who was acceptable to most of the nation. Somebody
like Tulsi Gabbard. Sanders is at least as bad as Obama, Hillary, and Trump on matters
concerning the American Empire and the apartheid Jewish state. There is reason to believe he
would be at least a "B-" on domestic issues.
Washington Post has no journalists at all...
Instinctively I want to agree, but most likely they have some fine people there.
Only that small group doesn't dare do anything except to toe the Bezos/apartheid Jewish state
line.
There's no hyperinflation when it comes to oil and gold which are the de facto
international currencies of Venezuela...
Again, my own lookup suggests the current price of gasoline in Venezuela is
about 15 cents per gallon. But as a medium of exchange that's useless, for everybody can buy
it at the same price. If I'm hungry I want food, not gasoline. Gold? Anybody who has any in a
hyperinflation is probably holding it very close. Regarding Venezuela's money problems, it
wouldn't surprise me at all if some of those US military airplanes aren't carrying a few
extra tons of Venezuelan currency each trip - to help that hyperinflation along.
I think that Bernie Sanders was the best hope that US had in the last 50 years. And they
killed that hope by stealing his nomination and highly probable presidency from him. I don't
care what the orange clown says about "US will never be a socialist country". One other
individual of his ethnic background once prognosticated a 1000 year Reich – and we all
know how that turned out.
I don't know what Bernie views on immigration are, but on social and economic issues
– he is bang on. And I just heard on the news that Bernie new campaign for 2020, has
broken all previous records – raising 6 million $ in the first 24 hours.
All that nonsensical talk about empire is just a product of idle (and deranged) minds of
individuals who have achieved personal wealth and success based on rules of questionable
fairness, and now have nothing better to do than play some retarded game of world domination
– which doesn't benefit the average American at all. It's just a way for the
degenerates to achieve "immortality" and get into the history books – where they don't
belong – certainly not based on their abilities.
"Yeah right. Sanders is just another scammer, like Trump and all the rest of them:"
Yes of course they're all scammers, but there's a reason they picked the orange clown
scammer rather than the Sanders scammer or the Clinton scammer. And I think that reason is
because orange clown is actually the most evil of the three; evil enough to risk planetary
extinction in pursuit of world domination and control, whereas Sanders probably isn't.
So in a sense Sanders probably is "the best hope that the U.S. had in the last 50
years."
Weren't
superdelegates people who, in the era before cars, would represent groups who are unable to travel to the voting stations
(long distances).
The superdelegates have the "right" to change the vote because their candidate could die while the
superdelegate is traveling. or any major development.
When they return to cast the vote they have a choice.
In the 21st
century it is unacceptable to keep such traditions and policies.
"... "The absence of effective state, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power," he explained. "The prime need to is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which it is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise." ..."
"... Roosevelt was, however, conscious of the threats posed to the American experiment by the rapid consolidation wealth and power. And he knew that progressive taxation could be used to address those threats. ..."
"... The Democrats who seek to dislodge Donald Trump in 2020 will all need to make tax policy a priority. Republicans have for so long practiced reverse Robin Hood politics -- take from the poor and give to the rich -- that the promised Democrats make will be unobtainable without the infusion of revenues that comes from taxing the wealthy. Changing tax policy also infuses governing with democracy, as it dials down the influence of specially interested billionaires (such as the Koch brothers) and their corporations. ..."
"... Horsemen of the Trumpocalypse: A Field Guide to the Most Dangerous People in America ..."
"... People Get Ready: The Fight Against a Jobless Economy and a Citizenless Democracy ..."
What a Midwestern Presidential Candidate Learned From Marxist Intellectuals | The Nation
The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well
as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes."
That's what Teddy Roosevelt proposed in his agenda-setting
"New Nationalism" speech from
1910 , when he prodded the United States toward a fuller embrace of progressive reform. As a former president who was preparing
to again bid for the position, Roosevelt opened a conversation about tax policy in order to frame a broader debate about at least
some of the values that should guide American progress.
At the heart of Roosevelt's agenda was a specific form of taxation. While progressive taxation in a general sense was desirable
and necessary, Roosevelt was particularly enthusiastic about "another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective
-- a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size
of the estate."
Teddy Roosevelt, it should be noted, was a Republican who possessed considerable wealth of his own. He was a flawed figure who
let down the progressive cause at many turns and never matched the courageous domestic and foreign policy vision advanced by his
rival for leadership of the progressive movement, Wisconsin Senator Robert M. La Follette. But Roosevelt recognized that taxing inherited
wealth not merely to collect revenues but to preserve and extend democracy.
"One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege." -- Teddy Roosevelt, 1910
"The absence of effective state, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small
class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power," he explained.
"The prime need to is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which it is not for the general welfare
that they should hold or exercise."
Roosevelt's critics may have characterized him as a radical, but he was never as radical (or as right) as La Follette. Roosevelt
was, however, conscious of the threats posed to the American experiment by the rapid consolidation wealth and power. And he knew
that progressive taxation could be used to address those threats.
Bernie Sanders knows this, as well. That's why Sanders is proposing a progressive estate tax on the fortunes of the top 0.2 percent
of Americans. The senator from Vermont's newly introduced "For the 99.8% Act" would collect $2.2 trillion from 588 billionaires.
"At a time of massive wealth and income inequality, when the three richest Americans own more wealth than 160 million Americans,
it is literally beyond belief that the Republican leadership wants to provide hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to
the top 0.2 percent," argues Sanders. "Our bill does what the American people want by substantially increasing the estate tax
on the wealthiest families in this country and dramatically reducing wealth inequality. From a moral, economic, and political
perspective our nation will not thrive when so few have so much and so many have so little."
Sanders is widely expected to bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. If he does so, Sanders will not be the only
contender with a bold plan to tax the rich.
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren , for instance, has a plan to levy a 2 percent tax on the assets of wealthy Americans
with more than $50 million. From those with over $1 billion, she'd demand an additional 1 percent.
The Democrats who seek to dislodge Donald Trump in 2020 will all need to make tax policy a priority. Republicans have for so long
practiced reverse Robin Hood politics -- take from the poor and give to the rich -- that the promised Democrats make will be unobtainable
without the infusion of revenues that comes from taxing the wealthy. Changing tax policy also infuses governing with democracy, as
it dials down the influence of specially interested billionaires (such as the Koch brothers) and their corporations.
What is notable about the Sanders plan is that, with his proposal to establish a 77 percent tax on the value of an estate above
$1 billion, the senator is merely seeking "a return to the top rate from 1941 through 1976."
Sanders is proposing an approach that renews American values, as notes University of California–Berkeley economics professor Emmanuel
Saez. "The estate tax was a key pillar of the progressive tax revolution that the United States ushered one century ago. It prevented
self-made wealth from turning into inherited wealth and helped make America more equal," explains Saez. "However, the estate tax
is dying of neglect, as tax avoidance schemes are multiplying and left unchallenged. As wealth concentration is surging in the United
States, it is high time to revive the estate tax, plug the loopholes, and make it more progressive. Senator Sanders' bill is a bold
and welcome leap forward in this direction."
Teddy Roosevelt understood this economic calculus, and this democratic imperative.
"In every wise struggle for human betterment one of the main objects, and often the only object, has been to achieve in large
measure equality of opportunity. In the struggle for this great end, nations rise from barbarism to civilization, and through it
people press forward from one stage of enlightenment to the next," the Republican president
explained in 1910. "One
of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege. The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always
been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity,
which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows. That is what you fought for in the Civil War, and that is what we strive
for now."
The inimitable CN commenting system just ate my detailed reply to your question of who
else besides Gabbard has spoken up, and won't let me repost it. But the short version is that
Rep. Ilhan Omar came out with a decent statement, like
Tulsi.
Rep. Ro Khanna hedged his bets by insulting Maduro while criticizing the coup attempt.
Saint Bernie came out with something that was two-thirds State Department talking points
followed by limp disapproval of U.S. sponsored coups in general. Classic Sanders.
Saint Alexandria doesn't want to talk about it.
As far as I know, everybody else is on board the regime-change express, enjoying the bar
car.
Summary: Tulsi rocks.
KiwiAntz, February 12, 2019 at 7:04 am
Trump & his corrupt Administration with the Troika of morons such as Pompeo, Bolton & Abrams, are the most dangerous bunch
of idiots ever to be in power?
Hopelessly inept & out of his depth, Trump doesn't have a clue about Foreign Policy & his stupid Regime change
antics are going to blow up in his & his meddling Nations face!
This buffoonish Clown is really accelerating America's downfall & declining Hegemonic power & turning the World away from
the corrupt US Dollar, Petrodollar system with other Countries, actively moving away from this tyranny?
"... Much the same could have been said about the last days of the USSR, or for that matter the last phase of the 30 Years War or the Napoleonic Wars. As back then, so now: The old elite and new authoritarians actively crushing the new group, well, they are are actively crushing _themselves_ at an even greater rate than they are crushing the new group. ..."
"... Example: Decay of Democratic leadership -- which is now, apparently, two old crazy people, one of which has active dementia. Waiting in the wings we see various groups that hate each other and propose what is pretty clearly a loot and burn approach to governing the US. They vary only in whom they will loot and what they will burn. ..."
"... Example: Decay of the media, which now knows it is as ineffective as Russian propaganda towards the USSR's end, and apparently either doesn't care or is unable to change. ..."
"... If resource scarcity prompts armed response, well, humanity has enough shiny new weapons _and untried weapons technologies_ to produce destruction as surprising in its extent as WW I and WW II were for their times [1] (or as the self supporting tercio was during the 30 Years War). ..."
The third trend is the only place where hope can reside. This trend – what I have
previously ascribed to a group I call the "dissenters" – understands that radical new
thinking is required. But given that this group is being actively crushed by the old
liberal elite and the new authoritarians, it has little public and political space to
explore its ideas, to experiment, to collaborate, as it urgently needs to.
Much the same could have been said about the last days of the USSR, or for that matter
the last phase of the 30 Years War or the Napoleonic Wars. As back then, so now: The old
elite and new authoritarians actively crushing the new group, well, they are are actively
crushing _themselves_ at an even greater rate than they are crushing the new group.
Example: Decay of Democratic leadership -- which is now, apparently, two old crazy
people, one of which has active dementia. Waiting in the wings we see various groups that
hate each other and propose what is pretty clearly a loot and burn approach to governing the
US. They vary only in whom they will loot and what they will burn.
Example: Decay of the media, which now knows it is as ineffective as Russian
propaganda towards the USSR's end, and apparently either doesn't care or is unable to
change.
Example: Reaction to yellow vests in France, which drew the reactions described in Cook's
article (at the root of this comment thread). "Back to your kennels, curs!" isn't effective
in situations like this, but it seems to be the only reply the EU has.
New groups take over when the old group has rotted away. At some point, Cook's third
alternative will be all that is left. The real question is what will be happening world wide
at that point. If resource scarcity prompts armed response, well, humanity has enough
shiny new weapons _and untried weapons technologies_ to produce destruction as surprising in
its extent as WW I and WW II were for their times [1] (or as the self supporting tercio was
during the 30 Years War).
Counterinsurgency
1] To understand contemporary effect of WW I on survivors, think of a the survivors of a
group playing paintball who accidentally got hold of grenade launchers but somehow didn't
realize that until the game was over. WW II was actually worse -- people worldwide really
expected another industrialized war within 20 years (by AD 1965), this one fought with
nuclear weapons.
"An aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reportedly told insurance executives in
private not to worry about Democrats' push for "Medicare for All." (The Intercept)"
Ryan Grim...February 5 2019...6:00 a.m.
"Less than a month after Democrats -- many of them running on "Medicare for All" -- won
back control of the House of Representatives in November, the top health policy aide to
then-prospective House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with Blue Cross Blue Shield executives and
assured them that party leadership had strong reservations about single-payer health care and
was more focused on lowering drug prices, according to sources familiar with the meeting.
Pelosi adviser Wendell Primus detailed five objections to Medicare for All and said that
Democrats would be allies to the insurance industry in the fight against single-payer health
care. Primus pitched the insurers on supporting Democrats on efforts to shrink drug prices,
specifically by backing a number of measures that the pharmaceutical lobby is opposing.
Primus, in a slide presentation obtained by The Intercept, criticized single payer on the
basis of cost ("Monies are needed for other priorities"), opposition ("Stakeholders are
against; Creates winners and losers"), and "implementation challenges." We have recreated the
slides for source protection purposes.
Democrats, Primus said, are united around the concept of universal coverage, but see
strengthening the Affordable Care Act as the means to that end. He made his presentation to
the Blue Cross executives on December 4..."...
Personally, I am aghast. The Congress critters are in bed with the medical monopolies. One
example, among many:
The congressional endorsement of the ban on the importation of less expensive drugs,
claimed as a matter of safety, is a travesty. In the last several months, I have had two of
the drugs I take daily, recalled because the Chinese manufacturers shipped the drugs with a
measurable concentration of a known carcinogen in them. Safety, my aching ......
Democrats in action on health care include Max Baucus,Tom Daschle, and most infamously, Billy
Tauzin:
"Two months before resigning as chair of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce,
which oversees the drug industry, Tauzin had played a key role in shepherding through
Congress the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill. Democrats said that the bill was "a give-away
to the drugmakers" because it prohibited the government from negotiating lower drug prices
and bans the importation of identical, cheaper, drugs from Canada and elsewhere. The Veterans
Affairs agency, which can negotiate drug prices, pays much less than Medicare does. The bill
was passed in an unusual congressional session at 3 a.m. under heavy pressure from the drug
companies.[4][5]
As head of PhRMA, Tauzin was a key player in 2009 health care reform negotiations that
produced pharmaceutical industry support for White House and Senate efforts.[6]
Tauzin received $11.6 million from PhRMA in 2010, making him the highest-paid health-law
lobbyist.[7] Tauzin now is on the Board of Directors at Louisiana Healthcare Group. "
"Advocate groups attended a Senate Finance Committee meeting in May 2009 to protest their
exclusion as well as statements by Baucus that "single payer was not an option on the table."
Baucus later had eight protesters removed by police who arrested them for disrupting the
hearing. Many of the single-payer advocates said it was a "pay to play" event.[44][45][46] A
representative of the Business Roundtable, which includes 35 memberships of health
maintenance organizations, health insurance and pharmaceutical companies, admitted that other
countries, with lower health costs, and higher quality of care, such as those with
single-payer systems, have a competitive advantage over the United States with its private
system.[47]
At the next meeting on health care reform of the Senate Finance Committee, Baucus had five
more doctors and nurses removed and arrested.[48][49][50] Baucus admitted a few weeks later
in June 2009 that it was a mistake to rule out a single payer plan[51] because doing so
alienated a large, vocal constituency and left President Barack Obama's proposal of a public
health plan to compete with private insurers as the most liberal position.[51]
Baucus has used the term "uniquely American solution" to describe the end point of current
health reform and has said that he believes America is not ready yet for any form of single
payer health care. This is the same term the insurance trade association, America's Health
Insurance Plans (AHIP), is using. AHIP has launched the Campaign for an American Solution,
which argues for the use of private health insurance instead of a government backed
program"
"Daschle co-wrote the 2008 book Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis ISBN
9780312383015.[55] He and his co-authors point out that "most of the world's highest-ranking
health-care systems employ some kind of 'single-payer' strategy - that is, the government,
directly or through insurers, is responsible for paying doctors, hospitals, and other
health-care providers." They argue that a single-payer approach is simple, equitable,
provides everyone with the same benefits, and saves billions of dollars through economies of
scale and simplified administration. They concede that implementing a single-payer system in
the United States would be "politically problematic" even though some polls show more
satisfaction with the single-payer Medicare system than private insurance.[56]"
Health care giant Aetna will be the first official client for the former Democratic
leader, who's now running his own consulting shop within the law firm Baker Donelson. Daschle
will lobby for the health insurer on Obamacare implementation and Medicare and Medicaid rule
changes, according to a filing with the Senate Secretary.
"For fifteen years, Tauzin was one of the more Conservative Democrats in the United States
House of Representatives. Even though he eventually rose to become an assistant majority
whip, he felt shut out by some of his more liberal colleagues and sometimes had to ask the
Republicans for floor time. When the Democrats lost control of the House after the 1994
elections, Tauzin was one of the cofounders of the House Blue Dog Coalition, a group of
moderate-to-conservative Democrats.
.......
However, on August 8, 1995, Tauzin himself became a Republican"
"... Voters by the millions dislike our cozying up to Wall Street, our hopelessly out-of-touch elitism, our support for never-ending military entanglements, our blindness to the plight of rural communities decimated by globalization, and our failure to expand opportunities for American workers. So what are we going to do about it? Well, after taking all this into account, after taking a good hard look at ourselves and doing some serious soul-searching, I'm pleased to announce that .... Democrats will continue to run on the same set of platitudes we've been trotting out since at least the 1990s. ..."
If last year's election showed us anything, it's that anger and resentment are on the rise.
I hear it from small business owners and working-class families, from millennials and retirees.
There's a sense that we've lost our way, and that the blame rests squarely on our nation's
leadership. Simply put, Americans are sick of being patronized and sick of the same old ideas
that we, as Democrats, are going to keep offering them over and over and over again.
The frustration is palpable. People are fed up with the status quo. Citizens from all walks
of life are sitting around their dinner tables, talking about how they've had it with all the
usual proposals that, once more, we will be repackaging and spoon-feeding to them in a way
that's entirely transparent and frankly condescending.
That's something every American can count on.
It's no wonder voters are furious. Politics-as-usual has failed them, and they desperately
want change that the Democratic Party has no plan to bring about in any meaningful way. But let
me assure you, when our constituents tell us they've had enough broken promises, when they say
our actions haven't addressed their needs, we listen. We hear your concerns -- hear them loud
and clear -- then immediately discard them and revert back to the exact same ineffectual
strategies we've been rallying behind for years.
It doesn't take a genius to see what the polls are telling us. Voters by the millions
dislike our cozying up to Wall Street, our hopelessly out-of-touch elitism, our support for
never-ending military entanglements, our blindness to the plight of rural communities decimated
by globalization, and our failure to expand opportunities for American workers. So what are we
going to do about it? Well, after taking all this into account, after taking a good hard look
at ourselves and doing some serious soul-searching, I'm pleased to announce that .... Democrats
will continue to run on the same set of platitudes we've been trotting out since at least the
1990s.
If Trump runs of the defense of neoliberalism platform he will lose. But Trump proved to be a bad, superficial politician,
Republican Obama so to speak, so he may take this advice from his entourage. Trump proved to be a puppet of MIC and
Israel, his tax cuts had shown that he is a regular "trickle down" neoliberal. So he attraction to voters is down
substantially. Now
Polling is unambiguous here. If you define the "center" as a position
somewhere between those of the two parties, when it comes to economic issues the public is overwhelmingly left of center; if anything,
it's to the left of the Democrats. Tax cuts for the rich are the G.O.P.'s defining policy, but two-thirds of voters believe that taxes
on the rich are actually too low, while only 7 percent believe that they're too high. Voters support Elizabeth Warren's proposed tax
on large fortunes by a three-to-one majority. Only a small minority want to see cuts in Medicaid, even though such cuts have been central
to every G.O.P. health care proposal in recent years.
Notable quotes:
"... Insiders have suggested that Trump plans to explicitly run against socialism in 2020. In fact, in playing up the dangers of socialism, he may be positioning himself to run against Bernie Sanders in 2020. ..."
"... Sanders's rebuttal to Trump's address gave us a preview of how he plans to respond to the mounting attacks on socialism from the Right. President Trump said tonight, quote, "We are born free, and we will stay free," end of quote. Well I say to President Trump, people are not truly free when they can't afford to go to the doctor when they are sick. People are not truly free when they cannot afford to buy the prescription drugs they desperately need. People are not truly free when they are unable to retire with dignity. People are not truly free when they are exhausted because they are working longer and longer hours for lower wages. People are not truly free when they cannot afford a decent place in which to live. People certainly are not free when they cannot afford to feed their families. ..."
"... As Dr Martin Luther King Jr said in 1968, and I quote, "This country has socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism for the poor." What Dr. King said then was true, and it is true today, and it remains absolutely unacceptable. ..."
"... In essence what we're seeing here is Bernie Sanders challenging the popular equation of capitalism with democracy and freedom. This is the same point Bernie has been making for decades. "People have been brainwashed into thinking socialism automatically means slave-labor camps, dictatorship and lack of freedom of speech," he said in 1976. This Cold War dogma swept the pervasive reality of capitalist unfreedom - from the bondage of poverty to the perversions of formal democracy under the pressure of a dominant economic class - under the rug. In a 1986 interview, Bernie elaborated: ..."
"... All that socialism means to me, to be very frank with you, is democracy with a small "d." I believe in democracy, and by democracy I mean that, to as great an extent as possible, human beings have the right to control their own lives. And that means that you cannot separate the political structure from the economic structure. One has to be an idiot to believe that the average working person who's making $10,000 or $12,000 a year is equal in political power to somebody who is the head of a large bank or corporation. So, if you believe in political democracy, if you believe in equality, you have to believe in economic democracy as well. ..."
"... The rise of neoliberalism and the fall of the Soviet Union relieved the capitalist state's elite of the need to keep shoring up the equation between capitalism and freedom. Capitalists and their ideology had triumphed, hegemony was theirs, and socialism was no real threat, a foggy memory of a distant era. But forty years of stagnating wages, rising living costs, and intermittent chaos caused by capitalist economic crisis remade the world - slowly, and then all at once. When Bernie Sanders finally took socialist class politics to the national stage three years ago, people were willing to listen. ..."
Trump Is Right to Be Afraid of Socialism
BY MEAGAN DAY
... I think he's scared," said Ocasio-Cortez of Trump's socialism remarks. "He sees that everything is closing in on him. And
he knows he's losing the battle of public opinion when it comes to the actual substantive proposals that we're advancing to the
public." Given the remarkable popularity of proposals like Bernie's Medicare for All and tuition-free college and Ocasio-Cortez's
70 percent top marginal tax rate, she's probably onto something.
Insiders have suggested that Trump plans to explicitly
run against socialism in 2020. In fact, in playing up the dangers of socialism, he may be positioning himself to run against Bernie
Sanders in 2020. That would be a smart move, since Bernie is the most popular politician in America and could very well be
Trump's direct contender in the general election, if he can successfully dodge attacks from the establishment wing of the Democratic
Party in the primary.
Sanders's rebuttal to Trump's address gave us a preview of how he plans to respond to the mounting attacks on socialism
from the Right. President Trump said tonight, quote, "We are born free, and we will stay free," end of quote. Well I say to President
Trump, people are not truly free when they can't afford to go to the doctor when they are sick. People are not truly free when
they cannot afford to buy the prescription drugs they desperately need. People are not truly free when they are unable to retire
with dignity. People are not truly free when they are exhausted because they are working longer and longer hours for lower wages.
People are not truly free when they cannot afford a decent place in which to live. People certainly are not free when they cannot
afford to feed their families.
As Dr Martin Luther King Jr said in 1968, and I quote, "This country has socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism
for the poor." What Dr. King said then was true, and it is true today, and it remains absolutely unacceptable.
In essence what we're seeing here is Bernie Sanders challenging the popular equation of capitalism with democracy and freedom.
This is the same point Bernie has been making for decades. "People have been brainwashed into thinking socialism automatically
means slave-labor camps, dictatorship and lack of freedom of speech," he said in 1976. This Cold War dogma swept the pervasive
reality of capitalist unfreedom - from the bondage of poverty to the perversions of formal democracy under the pressure of a dominant
economic class - under the rug. In a 1986 interview, Bernie elaborated:
All that socialism means to me, to be very frank with you, is democracy with a small "d." I believe in democracy, and by
democracy I mean that, to as great an extent as possible, human beings have the right to control their own lives. And that means
that you cannot separate the political structure from the economic structure. One has to be an idiot to believe that the average
working person who's making $10,000 or $12,000 a year is equal in political power to somebody who is the head of a large bank
or corporation. So, if you believe in political democracy, if you believe in equality, you have to believe in economic democracy
as well.
For more than four decades, Bernie made these points to relatively small audiences. In 2016, everything changed, and he now
makes them to an audience of millions.
The rise of neoliberalism and the fall of the Soviet Union relieved the capitalist state's elite of the need to keep shoring
up the equation between capitalism and freedom. Capitalists and their ideology had triumphed, hegemony was theirs, and socialism
was no real threat, a foggy memory of a distant era. But forty years of stagnating wages, rising living costs, and intermittent
chaos caused by capitalist economic crisis remade the world - slowly, and then all at once. When Bernie Sanders finally took socialist
class politics to the national stage three years ago, people were willing to listen.
Bernie has been so successful at changing the conversation that the President now feels obligated to regurgitate Cold War nostrums
about socialism and unfreedom to a new generation.
Good, let him. Each apocalyptic admonition is an opportunity for Bernie, and the rest of us socialists, to articulate a different
perspective, one in which freedom and democracy are elusive at present but achievable through a society-wide commitment to economic
and social equality. We will only escape "coercion, domination, and control" when we structure society to prioritize the well-being
of the many over the desires of the greedy few.
Mr. Bill said in reply to anne... February 06, 2019 at 03:29 PM
A lot of the opinion part of what Paul Krugman says, in this article, maybe, doesn't ring quite true, although I don't dispute
the facts.
Poll after poll show that 75% of us agree on 80% of the issues, regardless of which political tribe we identify with.
I tend to think that the real problem is that neither the GOP, which represents the top 1% of the economically comfortable, nor the
Democrats who represent the top 10%, are representative of the majority of Americans.
Frantically trying to slice and dice the electorate into questionably accurate tranches, ignores the elephant in the room, Paul.
Is anyone else tired of the longest, least productive waste of war in American history ? What
have we achieved, where are we going with this ? More war.
We are being fed a fairy tale of war about what men, long dead, did. And the reason they did
it. America is being strangled by the burden of belief that now is like then.
By the patrician men and women administrators, posturing as soldiers like the WW2 army, lie
for self profit. Why does anyone believe them ? Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, each an economic
decision, rather than a security issue.
Capitalists need their options regulated and their markets ripped from their control by the
state. Profits must be subject to use it to a social purpose or heavily taxed. Dividends
executive comp and interest payments included
Well done! Much clearer than your usual. There are several distinct motivations for taxes. We
have been far enough from fairness to workers, for so long, that we need to use the tax
system to redistribute the accumulated wealth of the plutocrats.
So I would say high marginal rates are a priority, which matches both objectives. Wealth
tax is needed until we reverse the massive inequality supported by the policies of the last
40 years.
Carbon tax and the like are a different thing, use of the tax code to promote a particular
policy and reduce damage to the commons.
"...we need to use the tax system to redistribute the accumulated wealth of the plutocrats.
So I would say high marginal rates are a priority..."
Forgive me, but high marginal rates (which I hugely favor) don't "redistribute the
accumulated wealth" of the plutocrats. If such high marginal rates are ever enacted, they'll
apply only to the current income of such plutocrats.
You merged paragraphs, and elided the next one. The way I see it, high rates are a
prerequisite to prevent the reaccumulation of obscene wealth, and its diversion into
financial gambling.
But yes that would be a very slow way to redistribute what has already accumulated.
Didn't mean to misinterpret what you were saying, sorry. High rates are not only "a
prerequisite to prevent the reaccumulation of obscene wealth," they are also a reimposition
of fair taxation on current income (if it ever happens, of course).
Wealth tax is needed until we reverse the massive inequality supported by the policies of the
last 40 years. Carbon tax and the like are a different thing, use of the tax code to promote
a particular policy and reduce damage to the commons.
"
more wisdom as usual!
Although wealth tax will be unlikely, it could be a stopgap; could also be a guideline to
other taxes as well. for example, Elizabeth points out that billionaires pay about 3% of
their net worth into their annual tax bill whereas workers pay about 7% of their net worth
into their annual tax bill. Do you see how that works?
it doesn't? this Warren argument gives us a guideline. it shows us where other taxes
should be adjusted to even out this percentage of net worth that people are taxed for. Ceu,
during the last meltdown 10 years or so ago, We were collecting more tax from the payroll
than we were from the income tax. this phenomenon was a heavy burden on those of low net
worth. All this needs be resorted. we've got to sort this out.
and the carbon tax? may never be; but it indicates to us what needs to be done to make
this country more efficient. for example some folks, are spending half a million dollars on
the Maybach automobile, about the same amount on a Ferrari or a Alfa Romeo Julia
quadrifoglio, but the roads are built for a mere 40 miles an hour, full of potholes.
What good is it to own a fast car like that when you can't drive but 40 -- 50 miles an
hour? and full of traffic jams. something is wrong with taxation incentives. we need to get a
better grid-work of roads that will get people there faster.
Meanwhile most of those sports cars just sitting in the garage. we need a comprehensive
integrated grid-work of one way streets, roads, highways, and interstates with no traffic
lights, no stop signs; merely freeflow ramp-off overpass interchanges.
Jesus Christ said, in so many words, that a man's worth will be judged by his generosity and
his avarice.
" 24And the disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus said to them again, "Children,
how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to pass through the
eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 26They were even more
astonished and said to one another, "Who then can be saved?"
"People on the left that identify as Democratic socialist, the left that supports Sanders or
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for them, Bernie got robbed in 2016," said Michael Kazin, the
Georgetown University historian and co-editor of Dissent. "They think the
Establishment is always looking for someone to go against Bernie -- to run against progressives
in the party and stop them from being ascendant. I think they are suspicious of Beto because he
has taken oil and gas money, he's becoming the darling of big donors, and Obama likes him."
Being liked by Obama, who won two presidential elections and left office with an 90
percent favorable rating among Democrats, might not seem like a disadvantage in a
Democratic primary. But to many on the left, Obama's sins are plentiful: he bailed out Wall
Street, half-assed the stimulus package and health-care reform, deported more undocumented
immigrants than any president, and prosecuted drone warfare that left piles of civilian
casualties across the Middle East. What especially chafes Sanders-style progressives is that
Obama cloaked a centrist neoliberal agenda in a soaring, feel-good rhetoric that charmed voters
and made them forget about all the bad stuff.
Obama was cool. So is O'Rourke. The lines, then, are quickly being drawn: Beto is just a
Davos Democrat on a skateboard.
"I'm not sure we need another Obama, or another of any Democrat we've had recently,"
Elizabeth Bruenig recently
wrote in The Washington Post, urging caution before Democrats rush to O'Rourke's
corner. "I think the times both call for and allow for a left-populist candidate with
uncompromising progressive principles. I don't see that in O'Rourke." She labeled O'Rourke
"progressive-ish," pointing to his "thin" statements on energy regulation and his membership in
the New Democrat Coalition, "a centrist caucus with Clintonian views on health care, education,
and trade."
Taming of financial oligarchy and restoration of the job market at the expense of outsourcing and offshoring is required in the
USA and gradually getting support. At least a return to key elements of the New Deal should be in the cards. But Clinton wing of Dems
is beong redemption. They are Wall Street puddles. all of the them.
Issues like Medicare for All, Free College, Restoring Glass Steagall, Ending Citizen's United/Campaign finance reform, federal jobs
guarantee, criminal justice reform, all poll extremely well among the american populace
If even such a neoliberal pro globalization, corporations controlled media source as Guardian views centrist neoliberal Democrats
like Booker unelectable, the situation in the next elections might be interesting.
Notable quotes:
"... Bhaskar Sunkara is a Guardian US columnist and the founding editor of Jacobin ..."
"... 2016 has shown that the Democratic party is beyond redemption. When it comes down to the choice of either win with a platform that may impact the wealth and power of their owners, or losing, they will always choose the latter, and continue as useful (and well paid) idiots in the charade presented as US democracy. ..."
In their rhetoric and policy advocacy, this trio has been steadily moving to the left to keep pace with a leftward-moving Democratic
party. Booker ,
Harris and Gillibrand know that voters demand action and are more supportive than ever of Medicare for All and universal childcare.
Gillibrand, long considered a moderate, has even gone as far as to endorse abolishing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice)
and, along with Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders' single-payer healthcare bill. Harris has also backed universal healthcare and free college
tuition for most Americans.
But outward appearances aren't everything. Booker, Harris and Gillibrand have been making a very different pitch of late -- on
Wall Street. According to
CNBC , all three potential candidates have been reaching out to financial executives lately, including Blackstone's Jonathan
Gray, Robert Wolf from 32 Advisors and the Centerbridge Partners founder Mark Gallogly.
Wall Street, after all, played an important role getting the senators where they are today. During his 2014 Senate run, in which
just 7% of his contributions came from small donors, Booker raised $2.2m from the securities and investment industry. Harris and
Gillibrand weren't far behind in 2018, and even the progressive Democrat Sherrod Brown has solicited donations from Gallogly and
other powerful executives.
When CNBC's story about
Gillibrand personally working the phones to woo Wall Street executives came out, her team responded defensively, noting her support
for financial regulation and promising that if she did run she would take "no corporate Pac money". But what's most telling isn't
that Gillibrand and others want Wall Street's money, it's that they want the blessings of financial CEOs. Even if she doesn't take
their contributions, she's signaling that she's just playing politics with populist rhetoric. That will allow capitalists to focus
their attention on candidates such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who have shown a real willingness to abandon the traditional
coziness of the Democratic party with the finance, insurance and real estate industries.
Gillibrand and others are behaving perfectly rationally. The last presidential election cost $6.6bn -- advertising, staff and
conventions are expensive. But even more important than that, they know that while leftwing stances might help win Democratic primaries,
the path of least resistance in the general election is capitulation to the big forces of capital that run this country. Those elites
might allow some progressive tinkering on the margins, but nothing that challenges the inequities that keep them wealthy and their
victims weak.
Big business is likely to bet heavily on the Democratic party in 2020, maybe even more so than it did in 2016. In normal circumstances,
the Democratic party is the second-favorite party of capital; with an erratic Trump around, it is often the first.
The American ruling class has a nice hustle going with elections. We don't have a labor-backed social democratic party that could
create barriers to avoid capture by monied interests. It's telling that when asked about the former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper's
recent chats with Wall Street political financiers, a staff member told CNBC: "We meet with a wide range of donors with shared values
across sectors."
Plenty of Democratic leaders believe in the neoliberal growth model. Many have gotten personally wealthy off of it. Others think
there is no alternative to allying with finance and then trying to create progressive social policy on the margins. But with sentiments
like that, it doesn't take fake news to convince working-class Americans that
Democrats don't really have their interests at heart.
Of course, the Democratic party isn't a monolith. But the insurgency waged by newly elected representatives such as the democratic
socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ro Khanna and others is still in its infancy. At this stage, it isn't going to
scare capital away from the Democratic party, it's going to make Wall Street invest more heavily to maintain its stake in it.
Men like Mark Gallogly know who their real enemy is: more than anyone else, the establishment is wary of
Bernie Sanders . It seems likely that he will run
for president, but he's been dismissed as a 2020 frontrunner despite his high favorability rates, name recognition, small-donor fundraising
ability, appeal to independent voters, and his team's experience running a competitive national campaign. As 2019 goes on, that dismissal
will morph into all-out war.
Wall Street isn't afraid of corporate Democrats gaining power. It's afraid of the Democrats who will take them on -- and those,
unfortunately, are few and far between.
Bhaskar Sunkara is a Guardian US columnist and the founding editor of Jacobin
Just like universal health care, let's give up, it's too hard, we're not winners, we're not number one or problem solvers
and besides, someone at some time for some reason might get something that someone else might not get regardless if that someone
else needs it. Let's go with the Berners who seem to believe there will never be none so pure enough to become president.
The corporate state does not cast the votes. The public does.
Leaning farther to the left on issues like universal healthcare and foreign wars would be agreeing with the public. Not only
the progressive public, but the GENERAL public. The big money donors are the ONLY force against the Democrats resisting these
things.
2016 has shown that the Democratic party is beyond redemption. When it comes down to the choice of either win with a platform
that may impact the wealth and power of their owners, or losing, they will always choose the latter, and continue as useful (and
well paid) idiots in the charade presented as US democracy.
Bernie's challenge will "morph into all-out war". "Wall Street isn't afraid of corporate Democrats", blah, blah, blah. But we're
going to continue to play along? Why? Oh yeah, Bhaskar Sunkara will have us believe "There is no alternative". Remember TINA?
Give it up, man, just give it up.
One dollar, one vote.
If you want Change, keep it in your pocket.
We can't turn this sinking ship around unless we know what direction it's going. So far, that direction is just delivering money
to private islands.
Democrats have a lot of talk, but they still want to drive the nice cars and sell the same crapft that the Republicans are.
Taxing the rich only works when you worship the rich in the first place.
Election financing is the single root cause for our democracy's failure. Period.
I really don't care too much about the mouthing of progressive platitudes from any 2020 Dem Prez candidate. The only ones that
will be worth voting for are the ones that sign onto Sanders' (or similar) legislation that calls for a Constitutional amendment
that allows federal and state governments to limit campaign contributions.
And past committee votes to prevent amendment legislation from getting to a floor vote - as well as missed co-sponsorship opportunities
- should be interesting history for all the candidates to explain.
Campaign financing is what keeps scum entrenched (because primary challengers can't overcome the streams of bribes from those
wonderful people exercising their 'free speech' "rights" to keep their puppet in govt) and prevents any challenges to the corporate
establishment who serve the same rich masters.
Lol, Social Security, Medicare, unemployement protections, so many of the things you mentioned, and so much more, were from the
PROGRESSIVE New Deal, which managed to implement this slew of changes in 5 years! 5 years! You can't criticize "progressives"
in one sentence and then use their accomplishments to support your argument. Today, the New Deal would be considered too far left
by most so called "pragmatic liberals." I assume you are getting fully behind the proposed "Green New Deal" then, right?
Vintage59 pointed out lots of things people have changed. Here's an exhaustive list of the legislation passed by people
who didn't get elected but were more progressive than the people who did:
There is also a steadily growing list of Democrats who did worse in elections than a hypothetical Democratic candidate had
been projected to do.
The party can either continue being GOP-Lite or it can start winning elections. It can't do both.
Nobody is going to get elected on a far left platform. Not in the USA and not anywhere. That's just a fact. And everybody
is going to need $$$ in the campaign. Of course candidates are going to suck up to Wall street and business in general.
And we would have been a thousand percent better off with HRC in the white house than we are now with the Trumpostor.
We don't need a candidate with far-left platform, we need one that is left-leaning at all. HRC and her next generation of clones
are mild Republicans.
Those who want to push the Democrats to the left in order to win perhaps need to stop talking to each other and talk to
people who live outside of LA and NY. If you stay within your bubble it seems the whole world thinks like you.
How old will Sanders be in 2020?
The people (outside the coasts) lean to the left some big issues. Medicare for all. Foreign wars. etc.
A sane person might ask why in the hell the left-side party is leaning farther to the right than the general public.
Sanders is a dinosaur. If there is a reason for Wall Street to be wary of him then it is that the mentally challenged orange
guy may win another term if the Democrats run with Sanders.
Hopefully, Sanders will understand what many of his supporters do not want to see: At some time age becomes a problem. If
the Democrats decide to move to the left rather than pursuing a pragmatic centrist approach, Ocasio-Cortez might be an option.
If they opt for the centrist alternative, it might be Harris or Gillibrand. Or, in both cases, a surprise candidate. But Sanders'
time is over, just as Biden's Bloomberg's.
It's true, but Trump is such a clusterfuck that an 80yo president is still be a better situation. Many countries have had rulers
in their 80s at one time or another.
Trump is clearly showing early-stage dementia now. Compare footage of him 10+ years ago to anything within the last 6-12 months
and it's obvious. The stress levels of being the POTUS + blackmailed by Putin + investigations bearing down on him . . . it's
wearing him down fast.
Anti-trust would be a very good place to start with.
Universal healthcare is a lot harder than you seem to think. I'd love it, but getting there means putting so many people out
of work, it'll be a massive political challenge, even if corporations have no influence. Progressives might be better off focusing
on how to ensure the existing system works better and Medicaid can slowly expand to fill the universal roll in the future.
Where has offering candidates who actually have a chance to win gotten us? Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, the ADA, Title
9, Social Security, and more. None of these exist without constant changes. All took years to pass against heavy opposition. None
went far enough. All were improvements.
The list of wrongheaded things that were also passed is longer but thinking nothing changes because it takes time is faulty
logic.
Our capitalist predators are still alive and well. The finance, insurance, and real estate
organizations are the worst predators in the USA.
They will eat your babies if you let them.
Nancy Pelosi is worth several hundred million dollars. I don't think she's a Marxist in
the classical sense. Although she would fit the classic Soviet politburo member with their
private dachas on the Black Sea. I would argue she and her ilk across both parties have
enabled massive market concentration across many many sectors just in the past 4 decades.
They're elitists who back an oligarchy of their fellow elitists. They are the basis for the
symbiotic relationship between Big Business and Big Government. As Steve Bannon calls them,
they're the Party of Davos. IMO, the only difference between the two parties are their
rhetoric. Both of course engage in identity politics with the Democrats focused on the SJW
virtue signaling while the Republicans have for decades channeled the evangelicals.
Trump is an outsider. They consider him to be an uncouth nouveau riche. And are appalled
that his media savvy upended their Borg candidates. Nancy believes she is now the
opposition leader with the mandate from the Party of Davos to ensure the defeat of
Trump. This brouhaha over SOTU is just the first skirmish. I wouldn't underestimate
Trump in these media centered battles. While the corporate media who as Bannon calls the
opposition party creates the perception of a Trump administration in chaos, the Deplorables
are still backing him. His approval rating at this midway point in his presidency is no worse
than Obama and even GOP megagod Reagan. It's the reaction of the people from the heartland
when he served the Clemson team Big Macs and fries compared to the derisive commentary of the
urban/suburban crowd.
McConnell is also a card carrying member of the Party of Davos or else he would have
jumped to invite Trump to speak from the Senate. But Trump's shtick is the people's leader.
So he should speak from a heartland location. Your suggestion is a good one. Another could be
a cornfield in Iowa, the first primary state where all the Democrats presidential contenders
will be camping out soon.
"... Trump's recent tax cuts are a good example. Most of the actual cuts go toward the corporations and ultra-wealthy, which just increases the deficit while shifting the proportion of taxes paid onto the middle class. It's a con that many Americans are inexplicably susceptible to believing, for some reason. ..."
Didn't help that the ostensibly neutral DNC was sending emails saying that they should play
up Bernie Sanders' Jewish faith (among other attack strategies), fed debate questions to the
Clinton campaign or tried to limit opportunities for Bernie and Hillary to share a stage
together.
Bernie Sanders is widely considered by many to be one of the most popular American
politicians, more than Trump and certainly more popular than Hillary. I think an interesting
phenomenon to notice is the lengths the GOP, in particular, will go to in order to convince
the average voter that anything that cuts taxes is inherently good for the 'little guy,'
while anything that raises taxes is bad.
Trump's recent tax cuts are a good example. Most of
the actual cuts go toward the corporations and ultra-wealthy, which just increases the
deficit while shifting the proportion of taxes paid onto the middle class. It's a con that
many Americans are inexplicably susceptible to believing, for some reason.
"Mounting a campaign against [financial] plutocracy makes as much sense to the typical
Washington liberal as would circulating a petition against gravity.
What our modernized liberal leaders offer is not confrontation but a kind of therapy for
those flattened by the free-market hurricane: they counsel us to accept the inevitability of
the situation."
Yep,
The party has circled its wagons.
They insist that the Evil Vlad stole the last election.
Therefore, no need to examine Obama's centrist/neoliberal policies and the socio-economic
conditions that fueled the rejection of Hillary.
We're doomed to repeat our errors.
The farcical DNC leadership echoes the days of Brezhnev's intransigent politburo.
This is the realistic perspective we have to adopt in the US: the Democratic establishment
is part of the neoliberal machinery that has generated Bush's wars, Obama's bank bailouts,
deportations, and drone executions, and now Trump's anti-democratic populism.
"... Bernie's bid was crushed by Clinton's superdelegates. No amount of throwing money against him in the direct sense was doing any good. He took popular positions on issues and stubbornly stayed on-message. ..."
In regards to the Hillary v Bernie question, it also didn't help that the primary vote was
wildly skewed by so-called 'superdelegates,' who don't actually commit their votes until the
DNC convention, but were being counted by the media as having already voted for Hillary,
which made it appear to many of the uninformed that Bernie didn't have any chance of winning,
which may have been intended to keep Bernie supporters home on primary day under the
assumption that Hillary was unbeatable.
As sensible as your suggestions may be, what you're calling for would require at least three
constitutional amendments to be practical - including scrapping the first amendment.
Maybe we should strive towards attainable goals instead?
Didn't help that the ostensibly neutral DNC was sending emails saying that they should play
up Bernie Sanders' Jewish faith (among other attack strategies), fed debate questions to the
Clinton campaign or tried to limit opportunities for Bernie and Hillary to share a stage
together.
Bernie Sanders is widely considered by many to be one of the most popular American
politicians, more than Trump and certainly more popular than Hillary. I think an interesting
phenomenon to notice is the lengths the GOP, in particular, will go to in order to convince
the average voter that anything that cuts taxes is inherently good for the 'little guy,'
while anything that raises taxes is bad. Trump's recent tax cuts are a good example. Most of
the actual cuts go toward the corporations and ultra-wealthy, which just increases the
deficit while shifting the proportion of taxes paid onto the middle class. It's a con that
many Americans are inexplicably susceptible to believing, for some reason.
Progressive believe in inclusion and if that is "moralistic rhetoric" then so be it.
The litany goes "round and round.
Hillary Clinton:
" you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of
deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you
name it!
"Barack Obama:
"Referring to working-class voters in old industrial towns decimated by job losses, the
presidential hopeful said: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion "
Bernie's bid was crushed by Clinton's superdelegates. No amount of throwing money against him
in the direct sense was doing any good. He took popular positions on issues and stubbornly
stayed on-message.
If he can only succeed in a positive environment then there's not much hope for him, he needs to be able to fight and prove
he's got what it takes. As it is I'm not sure he's got it.
That's not what I said at all and you know it.
Last time, the only stories that the NYTimes and (mostly) the Guardian could manage to run were Bernie-negative
stories. The NYTimes has already begun the exact same campaign for the 2020 cycle. By comparison, the Guardian
has been providing balanced Bernie coverage.
Do not count on the mainstream media to support him. They're already hard at work smearing him and he hasn't even announced yet.
Half the time they dont even mention him as being a likely contender. It's Biden all day, all night. Might as well be Hillary
again.
Expect 2020 to be quite contentious, possibly even more than 2016. That just means as a supporter of Bernie you'll have to
work twice, maybe three times as hard. The corporate media is going to suppress and challenge him as much as possible. They don't
even mask it anymore.
These corporate-Dem candidates are not being forced to sell out to win elections. Quite the
opposite in fact. They are risking losing their elections for the sake of selling out.
Surely, many will comment that Democrats have no choice but to take the money in order to be
competitive. I have one truism for such folks to ponder: Why would you trust your allegiance
to those who don't care if you win?
Basic logic: rich people win the general election either way, so long as the
primary-winning Democrat is in their pocket (the GOP is always on their side). So this
monetary affection is certainly more about fixing an no-lose general than it is about ousting
Trump, or any Republican.
Voters around the world revolt against leaders who won't improve their lives.
Newly-elected Utah senator Mitt Romney kicked off 2019 with an op-ed in the Washington Post
that savaged Donald Trump's character and leadership. Romney's attack and Trump's response
Wednesday morning on Twitter are the latest salvos in a longstanding personal feud between the
two men. It's even possible that Romney is planning to challenge Trump for the Republican
nomination in 2020. We'll see.
But for now, Romney's piece is fascinating on its own terms. It's well-worth reading. It's a
window into how the people in charge, in both parties, see our country.
Romney's main complaint in the piece is that Donald Trump is a mercurial and divisive
leader. That's true, of course. But beneath the personal slights, Romney has a policy critique
of Trump. He seems genuinely angry that Trump might pull American troops out of the Syrian
civil war. Romney doesn't explain how staying in Syria would benefit America. He doesn't appear
to consider that a relevant question. More policing in the Middle East is always better. We
know that. Virtually everyone in Washington agrees.
Corporate tax cuts are also popular in Washington, and Romney is strongly on board with
those, too. His piece throws a rare compliment to Trump for cutting the corporate rate a year
ago.
That's not surprising. Romney spent the bulk of his business career at a firm called Bain
Capital. Bain Capital all but invented what is now a familiar business strategy: Take over an
existing company for a short period of time, cut costs by firing employees, run up the debt,
extract the wealth, and move on, sometimes leaving retirees without their earned pensions.
Romney became fantastically rich doing this.
Meanwhile, a remarkable number of the companies are now bankrupt or extinct. This is the
private equity model. Our ruling class sees nothing wrong with it. It's how they run the
country.
Mitt Romney refers to unwavering support for a finance-based economy and an internationalist
foreign policy as the "mainstream Republican" view. And he's right about that. For generations,
Republicans have considered it their duty to make the world safe for banking, while
simultaneously prosecuting ever more foreign wars. Modern Democrats generally support those
goals enthusiastically.
There are signs, however, that most people do not support this, and not just in America. In
countries around the world -- France, Brazil, Sweden, the Philippines, Germany, and many others
-- voters are suddenly backing candidates and ideas that would have been unimaginable just a
decade ago. These are not isolated events. What you're watching is entire populations revolting
against leaders who refuse to improve their lives.
Something like this has been in happening in our country for three years. Donald Trump rode
a surge of popular discontent all the way to the White House. Does he understand the political
revolution that he harnessed? Can he reverse the economic and cultural trends that are
destroying America? Those are open questions.
But they're less relevant than we think. At some point, Donald Trump will be gone. The rest
of us will be gone, too. The country will remain. What kind of country will be it be then? How
do we want our grandchildren to live? These are the only questions that matter.
The answer used to be obvious. The overriding goal for America is more prosperity, meaning
cheaper consumer goods. But is that still true? Does anyone still believe that cheaper iPhones,
or more Amazon deliveries of plastic garbage from China are going to make us happy? They
haven't so far. A lot of Americans are drowning in stuff. And yet drug addiction and suicide
are depopulating large parts of the country. Anyone who thinks the health of a nation can be
summed up in GDP is an idiot.
The goal for America is both simpler and more elusive than mere prosperity. It's happiness.
There are a lot of ingredients in being happy: Dignity. Purpose. Self-control. Independence.
Above all, deep relationships with other people. Those are the things that you want for your
children. They're what our leaders should want for us, and would want if they cared.
But our leaders don't care. We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to
the people they rule. They're day traders. Substitute teachers. They're just passing through.
They have no skin in this game, and it shows. They can't solve our problems. They don't even
bother to understand our problems.
One of the biggest lies our leaders tell us that you can separate economics from everything
else that matters. Economics is a topic for public debate. Family and faith and culture,
meanwhile, those are personal matters. Both parties believe this.
Members of our educated upper-middle-classes are now the backbone of the Democratic Party
who usually describe themselves as fiscally responsible and socially moderate. In other words,
functionally libertarian. They don't care how you live, as long as the bills are paid and the
markets function. Somehow, they don't see a connection between people's personal lives and the
health of our economy, or for that matter, the country's ability to pay its bills. As far as
they're concerned, these are two totally separate categories.
Social conservatives, meanwhile, come to the debate from the opposite perspective, and yet
reach a strikingly similar conclusion. The real problem, you'll hear them say, is that the
American family is collapsing. Nothing can be fixed before we fix that. Yet, like the
libertarians they claim to oppose, many social conservatives also consider markets sacrosanct.
The idea that families are being crushed by market forces seems never to occur to them. They
refuse to consider it. Questioning markets feels like apostasy.
Both sides miss the obvious point: Culture and economics are inseparably intertwined.
Certain economic systems allow families to thrive. Thriving families make market economies
possible. You can't separate the two. It used to be possible to deny this. Not anymore. The
evidence is now overwhelming. How do we know? Consider the inner cities.
Thirty years ago, conservatives looked at Detroit or Newark and many other places and were
horrified by what they saw. Conventional families had all but disappeared in poor
neighborhoods. The majority of children were born out of wedlock. Single mothers were the rule.
Crime and drugs and disorder became universal.
What caused this nightmare? Liberals didn't even want to acknowledge the question. They were
benefiting from the disaster, in the form of reliable votes. Conservatives, though, had a ready
explanation for inner-city dysfunction and it made sense: big government. Decades of
badly-designed social programs had driven fathers from the home and created what conservatives
called a "culture of poverty" that trapped people in generational decline.
There was truth in this. But it wasn't the whole story. How do we know? Because virtually
the same thing has happened decades later to an entirely different population. In many ways,
rural America now looks a lot like Detroit.
This is striking because rural Americans wouldn't seem to have much in common with anyone
from the inner city. These groups have different cultures, different traditions and political
beliefs. Usually they have different skin colors. Rural people are white conservatives,
mostly.
Yet, the pathologies of modern rural America are familiar to anyone who visited downtown
Baltimore in the 1980s: Stunning out of wedlock birthrates. High male unemployment. A
terrifying drug epidemic. Two different worlds. Similar outcomes. How did this happen? You'd
think our ruling class would be interested in knowing the answer. But mostly they're not. They
don't have to be interested. It's easier to import foreign labor to take the place of
native-born Americans who are slipping behind.
But Republicans now represent rural voters. They ought to be interested. Here's a big part
of the answer: male wages declined. Manufacturing, a male-dominated industry, all but
disappeared over the course of a generation. All that remained in many places were the schools
and the hospitals, both traditional employers of women. In many places, women suddenly made
more than men.
Now, before you applaud this as a victory for feminism, consider the effects. Study after
study has shown that when men make less than women, women generally don't want to marry them.
Maybe they should want to marry them, but they don't. Over big populations, this causes a drop
in marriage, a spike in out-of-wedlock births, and all the familiar disasters that inevitably
follow -- more drug and alcohol abuse, higher incarceration rates, fewer families formed in the
next generation.
This isn't speculation. This is not propaganda from the evangelicals. It's social science.
We know it's true. Rich people know it best of all. That's why they get married before they
have kids. That model works. But increasingly, marriage is a luxury only the affluent in
America can afford.
And yet, and here's the bewildering and infuriating part, those very same affluent married
people, the ones making virtually all the decisions in our society, are doing pretty much
nothing to help the people below them get and stay married. Rich people are happy to fight
malaria in Congo. But working to raise men's wages in Dayton or Detroit? That's crazy.
This is negligence on a massive scale. Both parties ignore the crisis in marriage. Our
mindless cultural leaders act like it's still 1961, and the biggest problem American families
face is that sexism is preventing millions of housewives from becoming investment bankers or
Facebook executives.
For our ruling class, more investment banking is always the answer. They teach us it's more
virtuous to devote your life to some soulless corporation than it is to raise your own
kids.
Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook wrote an entire book about this. Sandberg explained that our
first duty is to shareholders, above our own children. No surprise there. Sandberg herself is
one of America's biggest shareholders. Propaganda like this has made her rich.
We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule.
They're day traders. Substitute teachers. They're just passing through. They have no skin in
this game, and it shows.
What's remarkable is how the rest of us responded to it. We didn't question why Sandberg was
saying this. We didn't laugh in her face at the pure absurdity of it. Our corporate media
celebrated Sandberg as the leader of a liberation movement. Her book became a bestseller: "Lean
In." As if putting a corporation first is empowerment. It is not. It is bondage. Republicans
should say so.
They should also speak out against the ugliest parts of our financial system. Not all
commerce is good. Why is it defensible to loan people money they can't possibly repay? Or
charge them interest that impoverishes them? Payday loan outlets in poor neighborhoods collect
400 percent annual interest.
We're OK with that? We shouldn't be. Libertarians tell us that's how markets work --
consenting adults making voluntary decisions about how to live their lives. OK. But it's also
disgusting. If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation of Americans,
whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street.
And by the way, if you really loved your fellow Americans, as our leaders should, if it
would break your heart to see them high all the time. Which they are. A huge number of our
kids, especially our boys, are smoking weed constantly. You may not realize that, because new
technology has made it odorless. But it's everywhere.
And that's not an accident. Once our leaders understood they could get rich from marijuana,
marijuana became ubiquitous. In many places, tax-hungry politicians have legalized or
decriminalized it. Former Speaker of the House John Boehner now lobbies for the marijuana
industry. His fellow Republicans seem fine with that. "Oh, but it's better for you than
alcohol," they tell us.
Maybe. Who cares? Talk about missing the point. Try having dinner with a 19-year-old who's
been smoking weed. The life is gone. Passive, flat, trapped in their own heads. Do you want
that for your kids? Of course not. Then why are our leaders pushing it on us? You know the
reason. Because they don't care about us.
When you care about people, you do your best to treat them fairly. Our leaders don't even
try. They hand out jobs and contracts and scholarships and slots at prestigious universities
based purely on how we look. There's nothing less fair than that, though our tax code comes
close.
Under our current system, an American who works for a salary pays about twice the tax rate
as someone who's living off inherited money and doesn't work at all. We tax capital at half of
what we tax labor. It's a sweet deal if you work in finance, as many of our rich people do.
In 2010, for example, Mitt Romney made about $22 million dollars in investment income. He
paid an effective federal tax rate of 14 percent. For normal upper-middle-class wage earners,
the federal tax rate is nearly 40 percent. No wonder Mitt Romney supports the status quo. But
for everyone else, it's infuriating.
Our leaders rarely mention any of this. They tell us our multi-tiered tax code is based on
the principles of the free market. Please. It's based on laws that the Congress passed, laws
that companies lobbied for in order to increase their economic advantage. It worked well for
those people. They did increase their economic advantage. But for everyone else, it came at a
big cost. Unfairness is profoundly divisive. When you favor one child over another, your kids
don't hate you. They hate each other.
That happens in countries, too. It's happening in ours, probably by design. Divided
countries are easier to rule. And nothing divides us like the perception that some people are
getting special treatment. In our country, some people definitely are getting special
treatment. Republicans should oppose that with everything they have.
What kind of country do you want to live in? A fair country. A decent country. A cohesive
country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate the forces of change purely for their own
profit and amusement. A country you might recognize when you're old.
A country that listens to young people who don't live in Brooklyn. A country where you can
make a solid living outside of the big cities. A country where Lewiston, Maine seems almost as
important as the west side of Los Angeles. A country where environmentalism means getting
outside and picking up the trash. A clean, orderly, stable country that respects itself. And
above all, a country where normal people with an average education who grew up in no place
special can get married, and have happy kids, and repeat unto the generations. A country that
actually cares about families, the building block of everything.
What will it take a get a country like that? Leaders who want it. For now, those leaders will
have to be Republicans. There's no option at this point.
But first, Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a
religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster. You'd have to be a fool
to worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the benefit of human beings. We do
not exist to serve markets. Just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and destroys
families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.
Internalizing all this will not be easy for Republican leaders. They'll have to unlearn
decades of bumper sticker-talking points and corporate propaganda. They'll likely lose donors
in the process. They'll be criticized. Libertarians are sure to call any deviation from market
fundamentalism a form of socialism.
That's a lie. Socialism is a disaster. It doesn't work. It's what we should be working
desperately to avoid. But socialism is exactly what we're going to get, and very soon unless a
group of responsible people in our political system reforms the American economy in a way that
protects normal people.
If you want to put America first, you've got to put its families first.
Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on January 2,
2019.
"... America's "ruling class," Carlson says, are the "mercenaries" behind the failures of the middle class -- including sinking marriage rates -- and "the ugliest parts of our financial system." He went on: "Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society." ..."
"... He concluded with a demand for "a fair country. A decent country. A cohesive country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement." ..."
"... The monologue and its sweeping anti-elitism drove a wedge between conservative writers. The American Conservative's Rod Dreher wrote of Carlson's monologue, "A man or woman who can talk like that with conviction could become president. Voting for a conservative candidate like that would be the first affirmative vote I've ever cast for president. ..."
"... The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Growing Broke ..."
"... Carlson wanted to be clear: He's just asking questions. "I'm not an economic adviser or a politician. I'm not a think tank fellow. I'm just a talk show host," he said, telling me that all he wants is to ask "the basic questions you would ask about any policy." But he wants to ask those questions about what he calls the "religious faith" of market capitalism, one he believes elites -- "mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule" -- have put ahead of "normal people." ..."
"... "What does [free market capitalism] get us?" he said in our call. "What kind of country do you want to live in? If you put these policies into effect, what will you have in 10 years?" ..."
"... Carlson is hardly the first right-leaning figure to make a pitch for populism, even tangentially, in the third year of Donald Trump, whose populist-lite presidential candidacy and presidency Carlson told me he views as "the smoke alarm ... telling you the building is on fire, and unless you figure out how to put the flames out, it will consume it." ..."
"... Trump borrowed some of that approach for his 2016 campaign but in office has governed as a fairly orthodox economic conservative, thus demonstrating the demand for populism on the right without really providing the supply and creating conditions for further ferment. ..."
"... Ocasio-Cortez wants a 70-80% income tax on the rich. I agree! Start with the Koch Bros. -- and also make it WEALTH tax. ..."
"... "I'm just saying as a matter of fact," he told me, "a country where a shrinking percentage of the population is taking home an ever-expanding proportion of the money is not a recipe for a stable society. It's not." ..."
"... Carlson told me he wanted to be clear: He is not a populist. But he believes some version of populism is necessary to prevent a full-scale political revolt or the onset of socialism. Using Theodore Roosevelt as an example of a president who recognized that labor needs economic power, he told me, "Unless you want something really extreme to happen, you need to take this seriously and figure out how to protect average people from these remarkably powerful forces that have been unleashed." ..."
"... But Carlson's brand of populism, and the populist sentiments sweeping the American right, aren't just focused on the current state of income inequality in America. Carlson tackled a bigger idea: that market capitalism and the "elites" whom he argues are its major drivers aren't working. The free market isn't working for families, or individuals, or kids. In his monologue, Carlson railed against libertarian economics and even payday loans, saying, "If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation of Americans, whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street" -- sounding very much like Sanders or Warren on the left. ..."
"... Capitalism/liberalism destroys the extended family by requiring people to move apart for work and destroying any sense of unchosen obligations one might have towards one's kin. ..."
"... Hillbilly Elegy ..."
"... Carlson told me that beyond changing our tax code, he has no major policies in mind. "I'm not even making the case for an economic system in particular," he told me. "All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God or a function or raw nature." ..."
"All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God."
Last Wednesday, the conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson started a fire on the right after airing a prolonged
monologue on his show that was, in essence, an indictment of American capitalism.
America's "ruling class," Carlson says, are the "mercenaries" behind the failures of the middle class -- including sinking
marriage rates -- and "the ugliest parts of our financial system." He went on: "Any economic system that weakens and destroys families
is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society."
He concluded with a demand for "a fair country. A decent country. A cohesive country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate
the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement."
The monologue was stunning in itself, an incredible moment in which a Fox News host stated that for generations, "Republicans
have considered it their duty to make the world safe for banking, while simultaneously prosecuting ever more foreign wars." More
broadly, though, Carlson's position and the ensuing controversy reveals an ongoing and nearly unsolvable tension in conservative
politics about the meaning of populism, a political ideology that Trump campaigned on but Carlson argues he may not truly understand.
Moreover, in Carlson's words: "At some point, Donald Trump will be gone. The rest of us will be gone too. The country will remain.
What kind of country will be it be then?"
The monologue and its sweeping anti-elitism drove a wedge between conservative writers. The American Conservative's Rod Dreher
wrote of Carlson's monologue,
"A man or woman who can talk like that with conviction could become president. Voting for a conservative candidate like that would
be the first affirmative vote I've ever cast for president." Other conservative commentators scoffed. Ben Shapiro wrote in
National Review that Carlson's monologue sounded far more like Sens. Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren than, say, Ronald Reagan.
I spoke with Carlson by phone this week to discuss his monologue and its economic -- and cultural -- meaning. He agreed that his
monologue was reminiscent of Warren, referencing her 2003
bookThe Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Growing Broke . "There were parts of the book that I disagree
with, of course," he told me. "But there are parts of it that are really important and true. And nobody wanted to have that conversation."
Carlson wanted to be clear: He's just asking questions. "I'm not an economic adviser or a politician. I'm not a think tank
fellow. I'm just a talk show host," he said, telling me that all he wants is to ask "the basic questions you would ask about any
policy." But he wants to ask those questions about what he calls the "religious faith" of market capitalism, one he believes elites
-- "mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule" -- have put ahead of "normal people."
But whether or not he likes it, Carlson is an important voice in conservative politics. His show is among the
most-watched television programs in America. And his raising questions about market capitalism and the free market matters.
"What does [free market capitalism] get us?" he said in our call. "What kind of country do you want to live in? If you put
these policies into effect, what will you have in 10 years?"
Populism on the right is gaining, again
Carlson is hardly the first right-leaning figure to make a pitch for populism, even tangentially, in the third year of Donald
Trump, whose populist-lite
presidential candidacy and presidency Carlson told me he views as "the smoke alarm ... telling you the building is on fire, and unless
you figure out how to put the flames out, it will consume it."
Populism is a rhetorical approach that separates "the people" from elites. In the
words of Cas
Mudde, a professor at the University of Georgia, it divides the country into "two homogenous and antagonistic groups: the pure people
on the one end and the corrupt elite on the other." Populist rhetoric has a long history in American politics, serving as the focal
point of numerous presidential campaigns and powering William Jennings Bryan to the Democratic nomination for president in 1896.
Trump borrowed some of that approach for his 2016 campaign but in office has governed as a fairly orthodox economic conservative,
thus demonstrating the demand for populism on the right without really providing the supply and creating conditions for further ferment.
When right-leaning pundit Ann Coulter
spoke with Breitbart Radio about Trump's Tuesday evening Oval Office address to the nation regarding border wall funding, she
said she wanted to hear him say something like, "You know, you say a lot of wild things on the campaign trail. I'm speaking to big
rallies. But I want to talk to America about a serious problem that is affecting the least among us, the working-class blue-collar
workers":
Coulter urged Trump to bring up overdose deaths from heroin in order to speak to the "working class" and to blame the fact
that working-class wages have stalled, if not fallen, in the last 20 years on immigration. She encouraged Trump to declare, "This
is a national emergency for the people who don't have lobbyists in Washington."
Ocasio-Cortez wants a 70-80% income tax on the rich. I agree! Start with the Koch Bros. -- and also make it WEALTH tax.
These sentiments have even pitted popular Fox News hosts against each other.
Sean Hannity warned his audience that New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's economic policies would mean that "the rich people
won't be buying boats that they like recreationally, they're not going to be taking expensive vacations anymore." But Carlson agreed
when I said his monologue was somewhat reminiscent of Ocasio-Cortez's
past comments on the economy , and how even a strong economy was still leaving working-class Americans behind.
"I'm just saying as a matter of fact," he told me, "a country where a shrinking percentage of the population is taking home
an ever-expanding proportion of the money is not a recipe for a stable society. It's not."
Carlson told me he wanted to be clear: He is not a populist. But he believes some version of populism is necessary to prevent
a full-scale political revolt or the onset of socialism. Using Theodore Roosevelt as an example of a president who recognized that
labor needs economic power, he told me, "Unless you want something really extreme to happen, you need to take this seriously and
figure out how to protect average people from these remarkably powerful forces that have been unleashed."
"I think populism is potentially really disruptive. What I'm saying is that populism is a symptom of something being wrong," he
told me. "Again, populism is a smoke alarm; do not ignore it."
But Carlson's brand of populism, and the populist sentiments sweeping the American right, aren't just focused on the current
state of income inequality in America. Carlson tackled a bigger idea: that market capitalism and the "elites" whom he argues are
its major drivers aren't working. The free market isn't working for families, or individuals, or kids. In his monologue, Carlson
railed against libertarian economics and even payday loans, saying, "If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation
of Americans, whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street" -- sounding very much like Sanders or Warren on the left.
Carlson's argument that "market capitalism is not a religion" is of course old hat on the left, but it's also been bubbling on
the right for years now. When National Review writer Kevin Williamson
wrote
a 2016 op-ed about how rural whites "failed themselves," he faced a massive backlash in the Trumpier quarters of the right. And
these sentiments are becoming increasingly potent at a time when Americans can see both a booming stock market and perhaps their
own family members struggling to get by.
Capitalism/liberalism destroys the extended family by requiring people to move apart for work and destroying any sense
of unchosen obligations one might have towards one's kin.
At the Federalist, writer Kirk Jing
wrote of Carlson's
monologue, and a
response
to it by National Review columnist David French:
Our society is less French's America, the idea, and more Frantz Fanon's "Wretched of the Earth" (involving a very different
French). The lowest are stripped of even social dignity and deemed
unworthy of life . In Real America, wages are stagnant, life expectancy is crashing, people are fleeing the workforce, families
are crumbling, and trust in the institutions on top are at all-time lows. To French, holding any leaders of those institutions
responsible for their errors is "victimhood populism" ... The Right must do better if it seeks to govern a real America that exists
outside of its fantasies.
J.D. Vance, author of
Hillbilly Elegy
, wrote that the [neoliberal] economy's victories -- and praise for those wins from conservatives -- were largely meaningless
to white working-class Americans living in Ohio and Kentucky: "Yes, they live in a country with a higher GDP than a generation ago,
and they're undoubtedly able to buy cheaper consumer goods, but to paraphrase Reagan: Are they better off than they were 20 years
ago? Many would say, unequivocally, 'no.'"
Carlson's populism holds, in his view, bipartisan possibilities. In a follow-up email, I asked him why his monologue was aimed
at Republicans when many Democrats had long espoused the same criticisms of free market economics. "Fair question," he responded.
"I hope it's not just Republicans. But any response to the country's systemic problems will have to give priority to the concerns
of American citizens over the concerns of everyone else, just as you'd protect your own kids before the neighbor's kids."
Who is "they"?
And that's the point where Carlson and a host of others on the right who have begun to challenge the conservative movement's orthodoxy
on free markets -- people ranging from occasionally mendacious bomb-throwers like Coulter to writers like
Michael Brendan Dougherty -- separate
themselves from many of those making those exact same arguments on the left.
When Carlson talks about the "normal people" he wants to save from nefarious elites, he is talking, usually, about a specific
group of "normal people" -- white working-class Americans who are the "real" victims of capitalism, or marijuana legalization, or
immigration policies.
In this telling, white working-class Americans who once relied on a manufacturing economy that doesn't look the way it did in
1955 are the unwilling pawns of elites. It's not their fault that, in Carlson's view, marriage is inaccessible to them, or that marijuana
legalization means more teens are smoking weed (
this probably isn't true ). Someone,
or something, did this to them. In Carlson's view, it's the responsibility of politicians: Our economic situation, and the plight
of the white working class, is "the product of a series of conscious decisions that the Congress made."
The criticism of Carlson's monologue has largely focused on how he deviates from the free market capitalism that conservatives
believe is the solution to poverty, not the creator of poverty. To orthodox conservatives, poverty is the result of poor decision
making or a
lack of virtue that can't be solved by government programs or an anti-elite political platform -- and they say Carlson's argument
that elites are in some way responsible for dwindling marriage rates
doesn't make sense .
But in French's response to Carlson, he goes deeper, writing that to embrace Carlson's brand of populism is to support "victimhood
populism," one that makes white working-class Americans into the victims of an undefined "they:
Carlson is advancing a form of victim-politics populism that takes a series of tectonic cultural changes -- civil rights, women's
rights, a technological revolution as significant as the industrial revolution, the mass-scale loss of religious faith, the sexual
revolution, etc. -- and turns the negative or challenging aspects of those changes into an angry tale of what they are
doing to you .
And that was my biggest question about Carlson's monologue, and the flurry of responses to it, and support for it: When other
groups (say, black Americans) have pointed to systemic inequities within the economic system that have resulted in poverty and family
dysfunction, the response from many on the right has been, shall we say,
less than
enthusiastic .
Really, it comes down to when black people have problems, it's personal responsibility, but when white people have the same
problems, the system is messed up. Funny how that works!!
Yet white working-class poverty receives, from Carlson and others, far more sympathy. And conservatives are far more likely to
identify with a criticism of "elites" when they believe those elites are responsible for the
expansion of trans
rights or creeping secularism
than the wealthy and powerful people who are investing in
private prisons or an expansion
of the
militarization of police . Carlson's network, Fox News, and Carlson himself have frequently blasted leftist critics of market
capitalism and efforts to
fight
inequality .
I asked Carlson about this, as his show is frequently centered on the turmoils caused by "
demographic change
." He said that for decades, "conservatives just wrote [black economic struggles] off as a culture of poverty," a line he
includes in his monologue .
He added that regarding black poverty, "it's pretty easy when you've got 12 percent of the population going through something
to feel like, 'Well, there must be ... there's something wrong with that culture.' Which is actually a tricky thing to say because
it's in part true, but what you're missing, what I missed, what I think a lot of people missed, was that the economic system you're
living under affects your culture."
Carlson said that growing up in Washington, DC, and spending time in rural Maine, he didn't realize until recently that the same
poverty and decay he observed in the Washington of the 1980s was also taking place in rural (and majority-white) Maine. "I was thinking,
'Wait a second ... maybe when the jobs go away the culture changes,'" he told me, "And the reason I didn't think of it before was
because I was so blinded by this libertarian economic propaganda that I couldn't get past my own assumptions about economics." (For
the record, libertarians have
critiqued Carlson's
monologue as well.)
Carlson told me that beyond changing our tax code, he has no major policies in mind. "I'm not even making the case for an
economic system in particular," he told me. "All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God or a
function or raw nature."
And clearly, our market economy isn't driven by God or nature, as the stock market soars and unemployment dips and yet even those
on the right are noticing lengthy periods of wage stagnation and dying little towns across the country. But what to do about those
dying little towns, and which dying towns we care about and which we don't, and, most importantly, whose fault it is that those towns
are dying in the first place -- those are all questions Carlson leaves to the viewer to answer.
Did Krugman just issue a veiled warning to Pelosi, Schumer, and Clinton Democrats? Did he see
this as a teaching moment for them? Has he turned from unabashed megaphone for establishment
Democrats to an honest broker, willing to explain economics to Demcoratic Big Money
parasites? Could be... If so, this might be a turning point for Krugman from partisan hack to
honest broker!
As always, Robert Reich pulls fewer punches: "Do not ever underestimate the influence of
Wall Street Democrats, corporate Democrats, and the Democrats' biggest funders. I know. I've
been there.
In the 2018 midterms, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, big
business made more contributions to Democrats than to Republicans. The shift was particularly
noticeable on Wall Street. Not since 2008 have donors in the securities and investment
industry given a higher percentage to Democratic candidates and committees than to
Republicans.
The moneyed interests in the Democratic party are in favor of helping America's poor and
of reversing climate change – two positions that sharply distinguish them from the
moneyed interests in the Republican party.
And maybe, just maybe, Krugman, in a veiled warning to Democrats enamored with Trump's tax
cuts, has decided to trump partisan loyalty with economic reality...as any decent economist
should do.
EMichael and kurt will be disappointed, very disappointed that Krugman sided with AOC over
corrupt, sclerotic, corporate Democrats...
There is no reason to think that mainstream liberals would not just go along with whatever
direction the liberal establishment takes. OTOH, there is a major difference in the context
between the rank and file of mainstream liberals and the actual liberal establishment itself.
Mainstream liberals just want to fit in and win elections. They are concerned with
electability and the constraints of legislative process. There is nothing wrong with that. It
is the role of the rank and file.
However, AOC is correct. It is radicals that bring about all significant change.
Mainstream radical is an oxymoron. After radicals cause change then it is no longer radical,
but it becomes mainstream instead.
In contrast, the liberal establishment is also concerned with electability because that is
what they do for a living, either get elected or ride along on the coattails of the elected,
but they are elites and elitists not to be separated from the status quo economic
establishment without considerable consternation. However, the elitists' trepidation over
being separated from their wealthy elite supporters would be greatly reduced by severe limits
on private campaign financing. Still, it would be a rare elected official that would rather
eat in a soup kitchen than a five-star restaurant both for the good food and for the good
company. In both regards though that depends upon what your definition of "good" is.
"Mainstream liberals just want to fit in and win elections..." And they are precisely they
kind of "go-along to get along types" who let bad things happen...and then pretend to not
understand what went wrong...Vietnam, Iraq, GWOT, Glass-Steagall repeal, trade
liberalization/offshoring profits, banksters who go Scot free after bringing the economy
down. The list goes on.
There are leaders, followers, and radicals. One can choose to be any one or two or those they
want, but no more than two. It is not very rewarding to be a radical from the back of the
line unless there is also a radical to follow at the front of the line. Leaders that are also
followers inherit the status quo and guard it like it was their own because it is. Radical
leaders rarely succeed, but often die young.
Trump is a bad example of a leader, but he follows his nose at least rather than just the
status quo. Trump has a nose for trouble and he cannot resist its stench any more than a
jackal or hyena can resist rotting carrion. Fortunate for Trump the US has a long history of
stockpiling trouble for future consumption that reaches all the way back to colonial times.
Trump likes to think that orange is the new black, but the old black, brown, and red are
still around and neither yellow nor orange can take their place.
The majority of people are just plain old followers. If people think that there is chaos
in the world already, just imagine what it would be like if most people were not just plain
old followers. The status quo always has the advantage of the natural force of inertia.
"...banksters who go Scot free after bringing the economy down. The list goes on."
Because you believe in government as done by Putin, Maduro, Saddam, Saudi Arabia, etc:
jail, torture, kill enemies by the people in power being the law.
You reject the US Constitution where voters are allowed to elect Republicans who legalize
fraud and theft by deception based on voters wanting the free lunch of easy credit requiring
bankers have no liability for the bad loans from easy credit. You reject the US Constitution
prohibition on retroactive laws criminalizzing legal actions.
Only if you were leading protests in the 90s in opposition to laws making credit easy for
below $80,000 workers whether buying houses or trucks/SUV.
Only if you were picketing real estate agents and car dealers from 2001 to 2005 to keep
out customers, you were not doing enough to stop easy credit.
The GOP was only dellivering what voters wanted, stuff they could not afford paid for by
workers saving for their retirement.
Elections have consequences.
The elections from 1994 to 2004 were votes for free lunch economics. The GOP promised and
delivered free lunch economic policies.
In 2005, voters on the margins realized tanstaafl, and in 2006 elected Pelosi to power,
and Pelosi, representing California knows economies are zero sum, so she increased costs to
increase general welfare. One of the costs was reccognizing the costs, and benefits, of the
US Constitution.
In 2008, she did not try to criminalize past action, and when she could not get the votes
to punish the bankers who bankrupted the institutions they ran by prohibiting bonuses in the
future,, she insread delivered the best deal possible for the US Constitutional general
welfare.
I think Bernie wanted all voters who voted GOP to lose their jobs, or maybe he simply
believes in free lunch economist claims that welfare payments in Ohio and Michigan are higher
than union worker incomes.
Maybe he thinks bankruptcy court nationalize businesses, not liquidate them.
Or maybe he figured the solution was a 21st Century Great Depression which would elect a
socialist instead of a capitalist FDR, and he would get to run all the automakers, all the
food industry, and employ all the workers deciding what they can buy?
I can never figure out how the economy would work if Bernie were running it. He talks
about Europe, but never advocates the cost of EU economy that is part of EU law: the VAT. All
EU members must have a VAT that is a significant cost to every person in the EU.
Free lunch economics is when you promise increased benefits with no costs, or lower
costs.
Free lunch Trump and free lunch Bernie differ only in their winners, but their losers are
always the same.
When progressives argue for unlimited increases in debt just like Reagan, they are
rejecting the pokicies of FDR, Keynes, the US when the general welfare increased most by
increasing assets faster than debt.
"'elitists' trepidation over being separated from their wealthy elite supporters would be
greatly reduced by severe limits on private campaign financing." Which is why so many liberal
establishment politicians...per Reich...pay only lip service to real campaign finance reform.
Being parasites, they feed off of their hosts and dare not disrupt the gravy train.
"elitists' trepidation over being separated from their wealthy elite supporters would be
greatly reduced by severe limits on private campaign financing."
So, the wealthy liberal elites who pay no taxes by cleverly paying all revenue to workers
need to be punished because they pay too much to too many workers?
Warrren Buffett has never paid much in taxes even when tax rates on corporations were over
50% and individuals reached over 70%. Money paid to workers, directly or indirectly, was and
still is the number one tax dodge.
Unless you go to a sales tax aka VAT which taxes all revenue, expecially business income
paid to workers.
VAT is an income tax with zero tax dodges aka loopholes aka deductions.
""'elitists' trepidation over being separated from their wealthy elite supporters would be
greatly reduced by severe limits on private campaign financing." Which is why so many liberal
establishment politicians...per Reich...pay only lip service to real campaign finance reform.
Being parasites, they feed off of their hosts and dare not disrupt the gravy train."
In your view, its the poor who create high paying jobs?
It's wrong to listen to people who convince rich people to give their money to people
paying US workers to build factories, wind farms, solar farms battery factories,
transportation systems, vehicles, computer systems in the US?
Instead Democrats should listen to people who have never created long term paying jobs,
but only pay elites who run campaigns using mostly unpaid workers, or workers paid only a few
months every few years? Like Bernie does?
When it comes to how to run a "Green New Deal", I want the policy crafted by someone who
listens to Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and the CEOs of California energy corporations,
tech companies, who are commited to consuming more and more energy that requires no fossil
fuels. Listening to Home Depot and Walmart building managers and retail sales managers should
be a priority. All these guys both focus on paying more workers, and selling more to workers
paid more.
AOC and Bernie seem to listen to the Lamperts who are destroying the value of companies
like Sears by "taxing" both the customers, workers, and owners, by giving money to people who
don't work to produce anything.
I make going to RealClearPolicy, Politics, etc a daily practice to see how bad
progressives are at selling their policies, making it easy for find all sorts of costs,
without any benefits to anyone.
The New Deal was not about taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. The New
Deal was about paying workers more.
In 1930, half the population still lived on farms. (They might work off the farm, but they
were farmworkers first.) The problem for farmers is Europe had recovered from the war and was
no longer sending gold to the US to secure loans to buy food, but instead repaying the loans
by shipping high value food to the US, wine, cheese, etc, and that meant too much food drove
prices down, which meant farmworkers earned less and less.
One of the first laws set minimum prices for food, enforced by destroying crops, or
government overpaying for food like milk, cheese, bread, which the government gave away to
the poor who could never buy this food. It was not about giving food away, but about paying
workers, the farmers, ranchers, etc. Giving the food to the poor who could not afford to buy
food was simply to avoid the attacks on FDR for destroying good food to drive up farmer pay.
Which was the truth.
FDR talked about creating a healthy workforce to make America great, then about building a
healthy soldier. Ike in the 50s and JFK in the 60s campaigned on creating healthy soldiers.
And smart, educated soldiers and workers.
The policies of liberals was about better workers, richer workers.
Conservatives since Reagan has been about cutting the costs of workers. Sold based on
consumers benefiting from lower cost workers, because consumees are never workers, workers
never consumers, because if workers equal consumers, economics must be zero sum.
By attracting the intense ire of the GOP, AOC activates the negative polarization of lib
pundits and makes them look for ways to defend left policy items they'd attack in any other
scenario. It's very effective at pushing the discourse forward.
"But the Democrats' moneyed interests don't want more powerful labor unions. They are not in
favor of stronger antitrust enforcement against large corporations."
So, you think beef at $10 plus per pound, salad greens at $5 plus per pound, a fast food
meal at $10 plus, is a winning issue for Democrats?
Or by powerful labor unions, you mean for only white male blue collar factory workers,
long haul white truckers, white construction workers?
Making all work pay enough to reach middle class status at the low end will not happen by
unions because many parts of the US, and workers, and jobs, will oppose unions. Instead,
labor laws and enforcement to lift wages and working conditions rapidly in conservative
regions are required.
Better to get the minimum wage in Indiana and Kansas to $10 than in California to $15.
More important to get farm workers fully covered by Federal law like factory workers, with
exemptions only for farmer family members.
Raising incomes in low living cost regions will not raise prices much nationally, but
increase living standards among the most disadvantaged who feel "left behind".
Automatic increases annually of 10% for 7 years, then indexed by cpi.
Constantly emphasizing this minimum is way below what the low wage is in SF, NYC, LA, but
the goods produced will be bought and thus wages paid mostly by high income liberal elites.
Conservatives sticking it to liberals!
Wow... you need to do a lot better at shopping sales. I wait for sales and then buy burger
at $2.50, crud cuts at $3-4, and can frequently get t-bone and ribeye for under $5.
BUT, on the larger scale, what is the difference if I pay $1 a pound for burger and earn
$20K a year, or I pay $3 for burger and earn $60K a year?
Inflation punishes savers? Really? What is the difference if I earn 3% at 2% inflation or
1% at 0% inflation? The answer is, none.
"In that case, however, why do we care how hard the rich work? If a rich man works an extra
hour, adding $1000 to the economy, but gets paid $1000 for his efforts, the combined income
of everyone else doesn't change, does it? Ah, but it does – because he pays taxes on
that extra $1000. So the social benefit from getting high-income individuals to work a bit
harder is the tax revenue generated by that extra effort – and conversely the cost of
their working less is the reduction in the taxes they pay."
This is not right. Heck, it's not even wrong.
Say the $1000 is for a surgery. The social benefit is the tax they pay on it? The surgery
itself is irrelevant?
Krugman confuses the flow of money, which supports and correlates with production, with
the actual production, the real "social benefit".
If you invent a widget that everyone on earth is willing to pay $1 over cost to get,
congratulations, you just earned $7 billion.
Now, does that mean you get to consume $7 billion worth of stuff other people produce? I
think so.
Or, does it mean you get to trap the world in $7 billion of debt servitude from which it
is impossible for them to escape, because you are hoarding, and then charging interest on,
the $7 billion they need to pay back their debts.
The key is to understand that money is created via debt. Money has value because people
with debt need to get it to repay their debts.
If we all decide BitCoin is worthless, then BitCoin is worthless. It has no fundamental
usefulness.
If we all decide money is worthless, then a bunch of people with debt will gladly take it
off our hands so that they can repay their debt. Heck, they may even trade us stuff to get
the debt... which is why money is NOT worthless.
If $1 per day make everyone live better with no added climate change, PLUS paid an extra $7
billion per day to production workers, service workers, that would be good, or bad?
Say, the $7 billion in wages was to sing and dance so no matter where in the world he was,
he was entertained by song and dance?
Economies are zero sum. Every cost has an equal benefit aka income or consumption. Work
can't exist without consumption, consumption without work.
"If $1 per day make everyone live better with no added climate change, PLUS paid an extra $7
billion per day to production workers, service workers, that would be good, or bad?"
Obviously, good. Which is what I say in my post.
"Money is merely work in the past or future."
Money is other peoples' debt. They have borrowed money into existence and then spent it
into the economy, AND they have pledged to do work in the future, to get the money back so
they can repay the debt.
That "doing work in the future to get the money back" is only possible if the people with
the money actually spend it back into the economy.
The problem is that the people in debt also agreed to pay interest, and the people with
the money want to keep collecting the interest... so keep holding the money... making it
absolutely impossible for those with debt to pay it back.
I'm saying is that there is obligation on both sides. There is obligation on the part of
people with debt to produce goods and services and sell them for money to repay their debts,
AND for that to be possible, there is obligation on those with money to actually spend the
money...
Contrary to CONservative opinion, money is not created by work, it is earned by selling,
and that means for the economy to function, there has to be spending.
We need a tax code with very high top rates, but deductions for spending and capital
investing... not to take from the rich, but rather to force them to spend and invest to get
deductions.
Clinton Democrats (DemoRats) are so close to neocons that the current re-alliance is only natural and only partially caused by
Trump. Under Obama some of leading figures of his administration were undistinguishable from neocons (Samantha Power is a good
example here -- she was as crazy as Niki Haley, if not more). There is only one "war party in the USA which
continently consists of two wings: Repugs and DemoRats.
Notable quotes:
"... Both GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham , one of the country's most reliable war supporters, and Hillary Clinton , who repeatedly criticized former President Barack Obama for insufficient hawkishness, condemned Trump's decision in very similar terms, invoking standard war on terror jargon. ..."
"... That's not surprising given that Americans by a similarly large plurality agree with the proposition that "the U.S. has been engaged in too many military conflicts in places such as Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan for too long and should prioritize getting Americans out of harm's way" ..."
"... But what is remarkable about the new polling data on Syria is that the vast bulk of support for keeping troops there comes from Democratic Party voters, while Republicans and independents overwhelming favor their removal. The numbers are stark: Of people who voted for Clinton in 2016, only 26 percent support withdrawing troops from Syria, while 59 percent oppose it. Trump voters overwhelmingly support withdraw by 76 percent to 14 percent. ..."
"... This case is even more stark since Obama ran in 2008 on a pledge to end the war in Afghanistan and bring all troops home. Throughout the Obama years, polling data consistently showed that huge majorities of Democrats favored a withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan ..."
"... While Democrats were more or less evenly divided early last year on whether the U.S. should continue to intervene in Syria, all that changed once Trump announced his intention to withdraw, which provoked a huge surge in Democratic support for remaining ..."
"... At the same time, Democratic policy elites in Washington are once again formally aligning with neoconservatives , even to the point of creating joint foreign policy advocacy groups (a reunion that predated Trump ). The leading Democratic Party think tank, the Center for American Progress, donated $200,000 to the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and has multilevel alliances with warmongering institutions. ..."
"... By far the most influential [neo]liberal media outlet, MSNBC, is stuffed full of former Bush-Cheney officials, security state operatives, and agents , while even the liberal stars are notably hawkish (a decade ago, long before she went as far down the pro-war and Cold Warrior rabbit hole that she now occupies, Rachel Maddow heralded herself as a "national security liberal" who was "all about counterterrorism"). ..."
"... All of this has resulted in a new generation of Democrats, politically engaged for the first time as a result of fears over Trump, being inculcated with values of militarism and imperialism, trained to view once-discredited, war-loving neocons such as Bill Kristol, Max Boot, and David Frum, and former CIA and FBI leaders as noble experts and trusted voices of conscience. It's inevitable that all of these trends would produce a party that is increasingly pro-war and militaristic, and polling data now leaves little doubt that this transformation -- which will endure long after Trump is gone -- is well under way. ..."
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP'S December 18 announcement that he intends to withdraw all U.S.
troops from Syria produced some isolated support in the
anti-war wings of bothparties , but largely provoked
bipartisan outrage among in Washington's reflexively pro-war establishment.
Both
GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the country's most reliable war supporters, and Hillary
Clinton, who repeatedly criticized former President Barack Obama for insufficient
hawkishness, condemned Trump's decision in very similar terms, invoking standard war on terror
jargon.
But while official Washington united in opposition, new polling data from
Morning Consult/Politico shows that a large plurality of Americans support Trump's Syria
withdrawal announcement: 49 percent support to 33 percent opposition.
That's not surprising given that Americans by a similarly large plurality agree with the
proposition that "the U.S. has been engaged in too many military conflicts in places such as
Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan for too long and should prioritize getting Americans out of harm's
way" far more than they agree with the pro-war view that "the U.S. needs to keep troops in
places such as Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan to help support our allies fight terrorism and
maintain our foreign policy interests in the region."
But what is remarkable about the new polling data on Syria is that the vast bulk of support
for keeping troops there comes from Democratic Party voters, while Republicans and independents
overwhelming favor their removal. The numbers are stark: Of people who voted for Clinton in
2016, only 26 percent support withdrawing troops from Syria, while 59 percent oppose it. Trump
voters overwhelmingly support withdraw by 76 percent to 14 percent.
A similar gap is seen among those who voted Democrat in the 2018 midterm elections (28
percent support withdrawal while 54 percent oppose it), as opposed to the widespread support
for withdrawal among 2018 GOP voters: 74 percent to 18 percent.
Identical trends can be seen on the question of Trump's announced intention to withdraw half
of the U.S. troops currently in Afghanistan, where Democrats are far more supportive of keeping
troops there than Republicans and independents.
This case is even more stark since Obama ran in 2008 on a pledge to end the war in
Afghanistan and bring all troops home. Throughout the Obama years, polling data
consistently showed that huge majorities of Democrats favored a withdrawal of all
troops from Afghanistan:
With Trump rather than Obama now advocating troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, all of this
has changed. The new polling data shows far more support for troop withdrawal among Republicans
and independents, while Democrats are now split or even opposed . Among 2016 Trump voters,
there is massive support for withdrawal: 81 percent to 11 percent; Clinton voters, however,
oppose the removal of troops from Afghanistan by a margin of 37 percent in favor and 47 percent
opposed.
This latest poll is far from aberrational. As the Huffington Post's Ariel Edwards-Levy
documented early this week , separate polling shows a similar reversal by Democrats on
questions of war and militarism in the Trump era.
While Democrats were more or less evenly divided early last year on whether the U.S. should
continue to intervene in Syria, all that changed once Trump announced his intention to
withdraw, which provoked a huge surge in Democratic support for remaining. "Those who voted for
Democrat Clinton now said by a 42-point margin that the U.S. had a responsibility to do
something about the fighting in Syria involving ISIS," Edwards-Levy wrote, "while Trump voters
said by a 16-point margin that the nation had no such responsibility." (Similar trends can be
seen among GOP voters, whose support for intervention in Syria has steadily declined as Trump
has moved away from his posture of the last two years --
escalating bombings in both Syria and Iraq and killing far more civilians , as he
repeatedly vowed to do during the campaign -- to his return to his other campaign pledge to
remove troops from the region.)
This is, of course, not the first time that Democratic voters have wildly shifted their
"beliefs" based on the party affiliation of the person occupying the Oval Office. The party's
base spent the Bush-Cheney years denouncing war on terror policies, such as assassinations,
drones, and Guantánamo as moral atrocities and war crimes, only to suddenly support those
policies once they
became hallmarks of the Obama presidency .
But what's happening here is far more insidious. A core ethos of the anti-Trump #Resistance
has become militarism, jingoism, and neoconservatism. Trump is frequently attacked by Democrats
using longstanding Cold War scripts wielded for decades against them by the far right: Trump is
insufficiently belligerent with U.S. enemies; he's willing to allow the Bad Countries to take
over by bringing home U.S. soldiers; his efforts to establish less hostile relations with
adversary countries is indicative of weakness or even treason.
By far the most influential [neo]liberal media outlet,
MSNBC, is
stuffed full of former Bush-Cheney officials, security state operatives, and agents , while
even the liberal stars are notably hawkish (a decade ago, long before she went as far down the
pro-war and Cold Warrior rabbit hole that she now occupies, Rachel Maddow heralded herself as a
"national security liberal" who was "all about counterterrorism").
All of this has resulted in a new generation of Democrats, politically engaged for the first
time as a result of fears over Trump, being inculcated with values of militarism and
imperialism, trained to view once-discredited, war-loving neocons such as Bill Kristol, Max
Boot, and David Frum, and former CIA and FBI leaders as noble experts and trusted voices of
conscience. It's inevitable that all of these trends would produce a party that is increasingly
pro-war and militaristic, and polling data now leaves little doubt that this transformation --
which will endure long after Trump is gone -- is well under way.
"... Excessive financialization is the Achilles' heel of neoliberalism. It inevitably distorts everything, blows the asset bubble, which then pops. With each pop, the level of political support of neoliberalism shrinks. Hillary defeat would have been impossible without 2008 events. ..."
Barkley insists on a left-right split for his analysis of political parties and their attachment to vague policy tendencies
and that insistence makes a mess of the central issue: why the rise of right-wing populism in a "successful" economy?
Naomi Klein's book is about how and why centrist neoliberals got control of policy. The rise of right-wing populism is often
supposed (see Mark Blyth) to be about the dissatisfaction bred by the long-term shortcomings of or blowback from neoliberal policy.
Barkley Rosser treats neoliberal policy as implicitly successful and, therefore, the reaction from the populist right appears
mysterious, something to investigate. His thesis regarding neoliberal success in Poland is predicated on policy being less severe,
less "shocky".
In his left-right division of Polish politics, the centrist neoliberals -- in the 21st century, Civic Platform -- seem to disappear
into the background even though I think they are still the second largest Party in Parliament, though some seem to think they
will sink in elections this year.
Electoral participation is another factor that receives little attention in this analysis. Politics is shaped in part by the
people who do NOT show up. And, in Poland that has sometimes been a lot of people, indeed.
Finally, there's the matter of the neoliberal straitjacket -- the flip-side of the shock in the one-two punch of "there's no
alternative". What the policy options for a Party representing the interests of the angry and dissatisfied? If you make policy
impossible for a party of the left, of course that breeds parties of the right. duh.
Likbez,
Bruce,
Blowback from the neoliberal policy is coming. I would consider the current situation in the USA as the starting point of this
"slow-motion collapse of the neoliberal garbage truck against the wall." Neoliberalism like Bolshevism in 1945 has no future,
only the past. That does not mean that it will not limp forward in zombie (and pretty bloodthirsty ) stage for another 50 years.
But it is doomed, notwithstanding recently staged revenge in countries like Ukraine, Argentina, and Brazil.
Excessive financialization is the Achilles' heel of neoliberalism. It inevitably distorts everything, blows the asset bubble,
which then pops. With each pop, the level of political support of neoliberalism shrinks. Hillary defeat would have been impossible
without 2008 events.
At least half of Americans now hate soft neoliberals of Democratic Party (Clinton wing of Bought by Wall Street technocrats),
as well as hard neoliberal of Republican Party, which created the " crisis of confidence" toward governing neoliberal elite in
countries like the USA, GB, and France. And that probably why the intelligence agencies became the prominent political players
and staged the color revolution against Trump (aka Russiagate ) in the USA.
The situation with the support of neoliberalism now is very different than in 1994 when Bill Clinton came to power. Of course,
as Otto von Bismarck once quipped "God has a special providence for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America." and another
turn of the technological spiral might well save the USA. But the danger of never-ending secular stagnation is substantial and
growing. This fact was admitted even by such dyed- in-the-wool neoliberals as Summers.
This illusion that advances in statistics gave neoliberal access to such fine-grained and timely economic data, that now it
is possible to regulate economy indirectly, by strictly monetary means is pure religious hubris. Milton Friedman would now be
laughed out the room if he tried to repeat his monetarist junk science now. Actually he himself discarded his monetarist illusions
before he died.
We probably need to the return of strong direct investments in the economy by the state and nationalization of some assets,
if we want to survive and compete with China. Australian politicians are already openly discussing this, we still are lagging
because of "walking dead" neoliberals in Congress like Pelosi, Schumer, and company.
But we have another huge problem, which Australia and other countries (other than GB) do not have: neoliberalism in the USA
is the state religion which completely displaced Christianity (and is hostile to Christianity), so it might be that the lemming
will go off the cliff. I hope not.
The only thing that still keeps neoliberalism from being thrown out to the garbage bin of history is that it is unclear what
would the alternative. And that means that like in 1920th far-right nationalism and fascism have a fighting chance against decadent
neoliberal oligarchy.
Previously financial oligarchy was in many minds associated with Jewish bankers. Now people are more educated and probably
can hang from the lampposts Anglo-Saxon and bankers of other nationalities as well ;-)
I think that in some countries neoliberal oligarchs might soon feel very uncomfortable, much like Soros in Hungary.
As far as I understood the level of animosity and suppressed anger toward financial oligarchy and their stooges including some
professors in economics departments of the major universities might soon be approaching the level which existed in the Weimar
Republic. And as Lenin noted, " the ideas could become a material force if they got mass support." This is true about anger as
well.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.