Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better

Bernie Sanders: A turncoat socialist who endorsed neocon warmonger Hillary without fight for nomination on the 2016 Dems convention

Bernie Sander has no moral right to participate in 2020 elections because he betrayed his voters in 2016 elections

Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs -- Donald Trump

Before

After

News US Presidential Elections of 2016 Recommended Links FBI Mayberry Machiavellians James Comey role in preventing Sanders from leading the Democratic ticket Venezuella: another "bombs for oil" scenario after Libya? Andrew McCabe role
Understanding Hillary Clinton email scandal Questions about Huma Abedin email forwarding Clinton Cash: Hillary Clinton links to foreign donors and financial industry Brennan elections machinations Steele dossier Hillary as a pathological liar Do the US intelligence agencies influence the US Presidential elections?
DNC emails leak: switfboating Bernie Sanders and blaming Vladimir Putin Is Hillary Clinton a toxic manager? Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak Hillary role in Libya disaster Hillary role in Syria bloodbath Hillary the warmonger Russiagate -- a color revolution against Trump
Hillary "Warmonger" Clinton Female Sociopaths NIST Guidelines on Electronic Mail Security (dated February 2007) Beyond your cable modem - How not to do DOCSIS networks NIST Guidelines on Securing Public Web Servers Skeptic Quotations Humor

Introduction

As much as I want to vote for HRC, the stench of neocon corporatism is too much, the thin layer of accumulated grime from years of ethical expediency too toxic, the opaque lack of transparency too dangerous, and the shifting sands of her amorphous policy too treacherous.

Lester Smithson, Guardian, Jul 11, 2016

Trump has spoken against globalism. Trump has spoken against neocon wars. Trump wants to uphold our laws. Hillary is a globalist shill. Hillary is a warmongerer. Hillary thinks laws are for little people. The choice is simple.

Bernie just lost all the respect he has built over the last 12 months. Endorsing the warmongering neocon. What was he talking about in his campaign. Apparently nothing.

Anjeska , Guardian comment, Jul 12, 2016

You fooled me once, but now after what you have just done, feel my afterbern - Trump for President!

Puro, Guardian comment

First the neoliberal press tried to demolished his candidacy. With NYT and WaPo as two the most rabid pro-Hillary dogs. Despite neoliberal presstitutes efforts to sink his candidacy, Sanders managed to stay competitive almost all the way to the California primary in June. Then he folded and blatantly betrayed his voters, his principles and himself.

In December 2017 we leaned than it was FBI who actually pushed Bernie under the bus by swiping under the carpet changes against Hilary connected with her abuse of private email server. See Strzok-gate. This is like Praetorian Guard selection a new emperor.

But in retrospect this old fogey (he will be 80 in 2021) turned out to be a sellout. People who want to tame Wall street and restore some parts of the New Deal Capitalism regulations destroyed by neoliberals have no leader to represent their interests. I can now imagine a feelings of Bernie's supporters who will feel duped (M of A , Jun 13, 2016)

Bernie Sanders folded. This without gaining any significant concession from Hillary Clinton on programmatic or personal grounds. (At least as far as we know.) He endorsed Clinton as presidential candidate even as she gave no ground for his voters' opinions. This disenfranchises the people who supported him.

... ... ...

I expect the "Not Hillary" protest vote to be very strong in the November election. There is still more significant dirt to be dug up about her and her family foundation. Trumps current lows in the polls will recover when the media return to the "close race" mantra that makes them money. He still has a decent chance to win.

Betrayal of his own principles

June 12, 2016 was a very sad day when Bernie finds himself endorsing someone who is the complete opposite to the politics he claims to champion. What was his BS campaign and all that rhetoric for? A disgusting spectacle ( Democracy And The Future Of The United States - ICH):

Bernie is a fake. He was and I guess, still is a test case for the system. Lucifer wants to see how far he can go – and what is it that the people want to hear. Accordingly, will be adjusted the discourse of the two candidates. Sanders has a (Senate) voting record which does not portray what he pledges to stand for.

... ... ...

Sanders, early on has said that if he should not succeed, he would support Killary. Hello! what message does that convey? – That he would support a warmonger par excellence? – Europeans like many Americans have been fooled by Bernie's charm and rebellious appearance. All fake!

But signs of this were visible during Berne Sanders campaign. One that alerted many people is he carefully avoided to emphasize the weak spots in Hillary candidacy: her role in launching Libya war and serious of highly paid speeches (read bribes) from major Wall Street firms.

thebuzzinsider

Tuesday morning Bernie Sanders united the Democrat party by announcing his endorsement of Hillary Clinton, but not everyone is happy, with some of his supporters calling him a sell-out.

Beginning his speech by giving thanks to the 13 million Americans who voted for him during the primaries, Sanders announced that he would be endorsing Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nominee and intends to do everything he can to ensure that she will become the "next president of the United States."

"[T]his campaign is not really about Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders or any other candidate who sought the presidency," Sanders said in the rally. "This campaign is about the needs of the American people and addressing the very serious crises that we face."

Sanders began to compare Clinton with Republican nominee, Donald Trump, explaining the differences between the two and using these differences as his reasons for endorsing her. Sanders admitted during the rally that he and Clinton do disagree on a number of issues but he also claimed that on Sunday, July 10, during the Democratic Platform Committee the two campaigns were able to come together significantly.

"Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her here today," Sanders said at the end of the rally.

This proclamation is a far cry from how his stance was a couple months ago, when he claimed that Clinton wasn't qualified for the presidency.

"I don't believe that she is qualified," Sanders said in a Philadelphia rally back in April, as reported by thinkprogress.org. "[I]f she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds. I don't think that you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC."

Trump was one of the first to call Sanders a sell-out on Twitter, comparing his endorsement of "Crooked Hillary Clinton" to Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs.

"I am somewhat surprised that Bernie Sanders was not true to himself and his supporters," Trump tweeted. "They are not happy that he is selling out!"

While some Democrats are happy that the party has seemed to have finally united, like the Communications Workers of America who have now changed their endorsement from Sanders to Clinton, other supporters share Trumps sentiments, feeling outraged and disappointed at Bernie's sudden change of heart.

"A Sanders endorsement of Clinton would be the ultimate betrayal of his supporters, especially those of us that poured money into his campaign."

"Bernie, if you endorse Hillary Clinton, after is NOW A PROVEN FACT she lied to the American people, then you sir are a FRAUD."

"Bernie, endorsing Clinton destroys every point you made and everything you stood for in the race. You are letting the people who supported you down. You made a promise to fight in the end, but instead you are conceding. You are not the elected leader you lead us to believe in. Shame on you."

These are just some of the comments people have been leaving on Sander's Facebook page, as reported on the Forward Progressives website.

Other supporters have asked him to wait for the Democrats Party convention, to run in a third-party or to join Jill Stein in the Green Party ticket.

Now that Sanders has endorsed Clinton, Clinton's campaign will most likely focus on convincing his supporters to join them in their fight for the presidency.

Some prominent left wing thinkers such as Chris Hedges viewed US Senator Sanders as a corporate sellout from the very beginning (Chris Hedges on Bernie Sanders and the Corporate Democrats)

Some prominent left wing thinkers such as Chris Hedges viewed US Senator Sanders as a corporate sellout from the very beginning (Chris Hedges on Bernie Sanders and the Corporate Democrats):

Nader: "Bernie Sanders wants to break up the New York banks, he wants to impose a Wall Street transaction tax, he wants to regulate drug prices, he's for full Medicare for all - everybody in, nobody out, free choice of doctor and hospital - he wants to get rid of these corporate tax havens, he's pushing for a $15 dollar an hour minimum wage, he wants to stronger labor unions. What's not to like?"

Hedges: "Because he [Bernie Sanders] did it within the Democratic establishment. . . .He's lending credibility to a party that is completely corporatized. He has agreed that he will endorse the candidate, which, unless there is some miracle, will probably be Hillary Clinton. So what he does is he takes all of that energy, he raises all of these legitimate issues and he funnels it back into a dead political system. . .

"That was the role of Van Jones in the last election," Hedges said. "He was running around, using the language of Occupy - Occupy the Vote - and that is what Bernie has done. I don't understand. He fought the Democratic establishment in Vermont his entire career. Now he has sold out to it."

"Bernie has also not confronted the military industrial complex at all," Hedges said. "On a personal level, having spent seven years in the Middle East, I'm just not willing to forgive him for abandoning the Palestinians and giving carte blanche to Israel. He was one of 100 Senators who stood up like AIPAC wind up dolls and approved Israel's 51-day slaughter last summer of Palestinians in Gaza - the Palestinians who have no army, no navy, artillery, mechanized units, command and control."

Some biographic details

Adapted from Wikipedia

Bernard "Bernie" Sanders (born September 8, 1941) is an American politician. He is the junior United States Senator from Vermont and has announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination in the 2016 presidential election. As a presidential candidate he is the candidate without a party, as Democratic Party established is controlled by financial oligarchy after Bill Clinton sold his party to Wall street ("Third Way betrayal", similar to the trick Tony Blair performed in the UK).

An independent politician since 1979, Sanders described himself as a democratic socialist (and probably with his political views might fit Social Democratic Party of Germany). He favors the creation of employee-owned cooperative enterprises and has praised Scandinavian-style social democracy. He caucuses with the Democratic Party and is counted as a Democrat for purposes of committee assignments. Since January 2015, Sanders has been the ranking Democratic member on the Senate Budget Committee. He is also associated with the Vermont Progressive Party and was a member of the Liberty Union Party from 1971 to 1979.

After several unsuccessful runs for office, Sanders was elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont's largest city, in 1981. He was reelected to three more two-year mayoral terms before being elected to represent Vermont's at-large congressional district in the United States House of Representatives in 1990. He served as a congressman for 16 years before being elected to succeed the retiring Republican-turned-independent Jim Jeffords in the U.S. Senate in 2006. In 2012 he was reelected by a landslide. Sanders was the only independent member of the House during most of his service and is the longest-serving independent in U.S. congressional history.

Since his election to the Senate, Sanders has emerged as a leading progressive voice on the issues of income inequality, climate change, and campaign finance reform. He rose to national prominence on the heels of his 2010 filibuster of the proposed extension of the Bush-era tax rates for the wealthy. In response to the speech, hundreds of people signed online petitions urging Sanders to run in the 2012 presidential election and pollsters began measuring his support in key primary states. As a supporter of President Obama, Sanders declined to run in 2012, but began expressing an interest in a 2016 presidential run in December of 2013.

Sanders announced his intentions to seek the Democratic Party's nomination for President on April 30, 2015, in an address on the Capitol lawn. His campaign was officially launched on May 26 with an event in Burlington, Vermont.

Dirty MSM games and tricks with election polls

It is well known that the key idea of polls is to influence electorate. Not to inform but influence. So int he USA they are a very dirty game. Desirable result that conditions those who did not yet decided to vote "for the winner" can be achieved in a very subtle way. For example if electorate of one candidate is younger, you can run poll using landline phones. How subgroup is selected is also important:

3.14e-9

Yes, how they ask the questions is important, and it's also important to note which subgroups were asked the questions. Some questions were limited to respondents who had voted in a previous Democratic primary. That means the results don't include Independents and Republicans who might cross party lines. Also, those who voted in a past primary are far more likely to be familiar with HRC than Sanders.

Lastly, confidence in Bernie rose for some questions. Interestingly enough, there was an increase in the number of people who thought he could competently handle a foreign crisis. Sargent's bias is pretty clear. Entire poll here:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/12/us/politics/document-poll.html

Of course this election cycle much depends on how angry people really are with the establishment. I think many viscerally dislike Clinton and Jeb! for that reason. I think not many understand that Dem and Repug are actually one neoliberal party representing its soft and hard wings, correspondingly. And both intend to harm or even destroy the country with their neoliberal policies to serve interests on top 0.01%. And that the case with Dems since Bill Clinton sold the part to Wall Street. The vast body of american people wants change (and not Obama's fake "change we can believe in") but they don't have a place at the table…

Gaius Publius provide a good analysis of now MSM sell establishment candidate to lemmings in his July 10, 2015 post in Naked capitalism blog (The Clinton Campaign Notices the Sanders Campaign, or How to Read the Media)

Taking Apart the Insider Game

The most important thing to consider when thinking about the Sanders campaign is this. Everyone else who's running, on both sides, is an insider playing within - and supporting - the "insider game," the one that keeps insiders wealthy and outsiders struggling, the one where the wealthy and their retainers operate government for their benefit only. What sets Sanders apart is his determination to dismantle that game, to take it apart and send its players home (back to the private sector) or to jail.

Two examples should make this clear. One is Fast Track and the "trade" agreements being forced upon us. The pressure to pass these agreements is coming equally from mainstream Democrats like Barack Obama, a "liberal," and from mainstream Republicans, supposed "conservatives." They may differ on "rights" policy, like abortion rights, but not on money matters. Trade agreements are wealth-serving policies promoted by people in both parties who serve wealth, which means most of them. People like Sanders, Warren and others, by contrast, would neuter these agreement as job-killing profit protection schemes and turn them into something else.

A second example involves Wall Street banks, in particular, a policy of breaking them up, reinstating Glass-Steagall, and prosecuting Wall Street fraud. Can you imagine any announced candidate doing any of these things, save Bernie Sanders?

In both of these cases, Sanders would aggressively challenge the insider profit-protection racket, not just give lip service to challenging it. Which tells you why he is so popular. Many of us in the bleachers have noticed the insider game - after all, it's been happening in front of us for decades- and most of us are done with it. Ask any Tea Party Republican voter, for example, what she thinks of the bank bailout of 2008-09. She'll tell you she hated it, whether she explains it in our terms or not.

And that's why Sanders, like Warren before him, draws such enthusiastic crowds. The pendulum has swung so far in the direction of wealth that the nation may well change permanently, and people know it. People are ready, just as they were in 2008, prior to eight years of betrayal. People have been discouraged about the chance for change lately, but they're ready for the real thing if they see it.

The Clinton Campaign Notices Sanders

There's been an attempt to downplay the Sanders candidacy since the beginning, to sink his campaign beneath a wave of silence. That ended a bit ago, and the press has begun to take notice, if snippily. Now the Clinton campaign is noticing, if the New York Times is to be believed. I found the following fascinating, for a number of reasons.

The piece first along with some news, then a little exegesis (my emphasis):

Hillary Clinton's Team Is Wary as Bernie Sanders Finds Footing in Iowa

The ample crowds and unexpectedly strong showing by Senator Bernie Sanders are setting off worry among advisers and allies of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who believe the Vermont senator could overtake her in Iowa polls by the fall and even defeat her in the nation's first nominating contest there.

The enthusiasm that Mr. Sanders has generated - including a rally attended by 2,500 people in Council Bluffs, Iowa, on Friday - has called into question Mrs. Clinton's early strategy of focusing on a listening tour of small group gatherings and wooing big donors in private settings. In May, Mrs. Clinton led with 60 percent support to Mr. Sanders' 15 percent in a Quinnipiac poll. Last week the same poll showed Mrs. Clinton at 52 percent to Mr. Sanders's 33 percent.

"We are worried about him, sure. He will be a serious force for the campaign, and I don't think that will diminish," Jennifer Palmieri, the Clinton campaign's communications director, said Monday in an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

Some of Mrs. Clinton's advisers acknowledged that they were surprised by Mr. Sanders' momentum and said there were enough liberal voters in Iowa, including many who supported Barack Obama or John Edwards in 2008, to create problems for her there.

"I think we underestimated that Sanders would quickly attract so many Democrats in Iowa who weren't likely to support Hillary," said one Clinton adviser, who like several others spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly share views about the race. "It's too early to change strategy because no one knows if Sanders will be able to hold on to these voters in the months ahead. We're working hard to win them over, but yeah, it's a real competition there."

I don't want to quote the whole thing (well, I do, but I can't). So I encourage you to read it. There's much there worth noticing.

What to Look at When the Times Reports on Clinton

Now, some exegesis, meta-reading of the media, especially corporate media like the Times. My three main points are bulleted below.

Bottom Line

If you like this exercise in reading behind the media, please read the article again with the above thoughts in mind. Is this original reporting (i.e., reporters starting a conversation), or did the campaign make the first approach? Does the article carry Clinton water, subtly support the campaign? Are any opposing viewpoints featured at the top, or are they buried below the point where most people stop reading?

This Times story may be a completely honest exercise in independent journalism. There certainly is a Sanders phenomenon, and it's detailed honestly and factually, so there's value in reading it. But there's an obvious bias toward Clinton messaging in the reporters' own prose, so I'm suspicious, and you should be as well.

I'll also say that most stories about campaigns operate this way, as do many other news stories involving public figures. What will make reporting the Sanders campaign different is what I wrote above - Sanders wants to take apart the insider game. What major media outlet will help Sanders do that, will shut the door to corporate favors, media access and other prizes from a future Clinton administration, in order to be even-handed?

My guess is few or none.

An interesting discussion on Naked Capitalism about Sanders candidacy

In the post by By Les Leopold, the director of the Labor Institute in New York 10 Economic Facts that Power the Sanders Insurgency (naked capitalism, Nov 13, 2015) and subsequent readers discussion contains so far the most interesting discussion of Sanders and his (pretty lonely) current position in the presidential race. Being a an anti-establishment candidate is a difficult job as economic and political power belong to the establishment by definition. BTW that's why you should not believe blindly the US polls -- they are designed to sway electorate, not to inform it).

Here are 10 crucial economic facts that provide the glue for the Sanders message. (The charts are taken from Runaway Inequality: An Activist's Guide to Economic Justice.)

1. The Rich are Getting Richer, The Rest of Us are Not.

There always has been a significant gap between the top 1 percent and the rest of America. But that gap was kept under control largely through governmental tax, banking and labor policies.

You could make a lot of money in this country, but after the New Deal, unions made sure you paid a decent wage to your workers, and government made sure the wealthy provided ample tax revenues. This allowed working people also to enjoy a rising standard of living.

But as the chart below shows the bond has been broken. After 1980, the incomes of the top 1% exploded while the wages of the bottom 90% stagnated….and not by accident.

average_income_of_top_1_percent

2. Wall Street/CEO Greed

Most of us haven't had a real raise (after inflation) for more than a decade. Meanwhile we see our CEOs and their Wall Street partners rake in astronomical sums. The data backs up what we see and sense. As this chart shows, the gap between the pay of the top CEOs and the average worker has jumped from 45 to 1 in 1970 to an astounding 829 to one today.

The game is rigged and Sanders is calling them on it.

wage_gap-top_100_ceos_vs_average_workers

3. The Biggest Banks are Getting Bigger.

One of the most outrageous economics facts of life is the engorgement of too-big-to-fail banks. We are told that they now are under control. But nothing could be further from the truth.

The top four banks have grown even larger since the Great Recession. No wonder crowds roar when Bernie says "If a bank is too big to fail, I think it's too big to exist."

percentage_of_all_banking_assets

4. Students are Crippled with Debt.

Sanders wants to tax Wall Street speculation and use the money to fund free higher education. And for good reason. Debt peonage is hitting college students as banks load them up with onerous loans. Sanders believes it's time for us to catch up with many other developed nations that already provide free higher education.

student_loans_1

5. We lead the developed world in child poverty

Nothing more clearly reflects the values of a country than how it treats its children. And nothing is more painful and inexcusable than children living in poverty.

The countries of northern Europe – Iceland, Finland, Nether­lands, Norway, Denmark and Sweden – have nearly eradicated childhood poverty. These also are the countries that have the lowest levels of inequality. They have made a conscious choice: less inequality, less child­hood poverty.

But in a country like ours so engulfed by runaway inequal­ity, child poverty becomes the responsibility of the poor. In other words, if your kids are poor it's your fault. Don't expect society to feed them.

Bernie does indeed expect society to feed the poor. And so should we.

percentage_of_children_living_in_poverty

6. You can't live on the minimum wage

America is the only country in the developed world in which you can work full time and still live in poverty. That's because our federal minimum wage is a disgrace. As the chart below shows, the real buying power of the minimum wage, after taking into account of inflation, has been on the decline since its peak in the 1960s. That's why one of Sanders' biggest applause lines is

"A minimum wage of $7 an hour is a starvation wage. I applaud those cities-Seattle, Los Angeles and others-that have raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour. And that is exactly what we will do at the federal level."

rise_and_fall_of_minimum_wage

7. The tax system favors the rich

We all know that the rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. They hire the best lawyers to help make their incomes vanish on IRS papers. They shift money abroad. They use their influence to create and abuse loopholes. And they sell us the lie that decreasing taxes on the rich make all boats rise.

The chart below shows the result on the state and local levels. The sad truth is that the poorer you are, the more you pay as a percent of your income.

rich_pay_lower_state_tax_rates

8. The Rich Buy the Political System

As our economy fractures under the weight of runaway inequality, so does our entire democracy. Money is pouring into politics, especially since the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling. As the chart below makes clear, corporations and financial institutions are taking full advantage as they flood the political process through Super PACS.

Sanders wants Super PACS outlawed and Citizens United overturned.

9. "The American Dream" is Fading Away

Many Americans still believe in the American Dream - the idea of genuine upward mobility. We cherish the idea that our children will do as well or better than we have done.

But we're getting a wake up call.

The chart below shows that the odds of rising above your father's economic position in the U.S. is about 50/50. In Denmark, you have about a seven to one chance of doing better.

No wonder Bernie wants us to learn a thing or two from the Danes

odds_youll_be_stuck_in_same_class_as_your_parents

10. The Largest Police State in the World

Freedom pays the price for runaway inequality. Because we refuse to use government to provide decent paying work for all those who are willing and able to work, we leave vast tracks of our cities mired in poverty.

We allow institutional racist practices (especially in housing, education and criminal justice) to trap more people of color on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder.

Instead of using government to create jobs, we use government to fund prisons.

Instead of a War on Poverty we have declared war on the poor.

As a result, we now have more prisoners both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the population than any country in the world. And if you compare the chart below with the first chart in this article, you'll find that the incarceration surge started with the onset of runway inequality.

number_of_federal_and_state_prisoners

Taking Them On

Perhaps Bernie's biggest applause line is the one that sets us on our course. His campaign cannot succeed in one election. We need to connect with our neighbors and colleagues and help organize and mobilize for change.

"This campaign is sending a message to the billionaire class: Yes, we have the guts to take you on."

Let's hope he's right.

tim s

There is much more to a candidates platform than simply economics, which readers of NC know to be as much pseudo-science as anything, and the Fed, which fails to live up to ideals for the common good, and actually preserves the status quo which is such a problem these days.

RP is a mixed bag for certain, but you get a sense that he is at least honest, which is a radical change in itself, and there is much for readers of this blog to latch onto. For instance:

To be sure, many of his positions are headscratchers, for sure, such as his belief in privatization and "free markets". These are very idealistic, and as you probably focus on, the readers of NC will call BS on very quickly.

Still, when having to choose between the internally conflicted and the pathological liar, it is no surprise that many will choose the internally conflicted.

fresno dan, November 13, 2015 at 3:28 pm

I agree.
And one other point: Paul, and every one else elected, so far at least, is not a Napoleon or Caesar, so most platforms are 99.9% baloney. (well, more accurately, most platforms are the same as it ever was – the candidates just say a lot of words to make it appear they are going to do something different – yesterday's LINKS about how Obama didn't REALLY oppose Bush's policies, just that they didn't go through a process to make them legal)

At least with Paul, there was some evidence that he would TRY to dial back all the war mongering….

Jim Haygood, November 13, 2015 at 9:57 am

'Ron Paul knows nothing about the Fed and Economics for which he claims to be an expert.'

He only wrote a book about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_the_Fed

Perhaps you don't agree with his conclusions.

Lambert Strether, November 13, 2015 at 2:58 pm

To be fair, plenty of people write books on topics of which they know nothing, or worse/less than nothing. All neo-liberal economists, for example.

Nigelk, November 13, 2015 at 1:53 pm

Ron Paul? Seriously? Did I drive through a wormhole this morning and arrive in Fall 2007?

jrs, November 13, 2015 at 2:21 pm

That's what they'll be saying about Sanders in 4 years. I don't mind Sanders as the best choice there is perhaps. But come on folks, none of this stuff has any hope really. A revolution? Well I don't hope for one either, but at least movement building might work. Other than that it's 5 minutes in the voting booth and get on with your life.

Jagger, November 13, 2015 at 2:04 pm

I would be curious how anybody who reads this blog could possibly be for Ron Paul, let alone have voted for him.

Ron Paul is anti-war. Who else is anti-war amongst the Repub/Dem tickets? Maybe Sanders. He did vote against the Iraqi invasion but wouldn't condemn Israel over the last air war on Gaza. Jury is still out on him.

bob

Is this a different Ron Paul?

https://web.archive.org/web/20021212201652/http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst100801.htm

washunate

We should remember that the image of the United Nations as a benevolent peacemaker is a myth, as evidenced by the sad history of its military actions over the past 30 years. In virtually every instance its so-called "peacekeeping missions" have done nothing but intensify regional conflicts. Kosovo and Somalia are poignant examples of UN policy gone bad, creating lasting resentment and instability rather than peace.

Uh, that sounds like pretty classic Ron Paul. Are you saying that acting as the world's police force bombing civilian infrastructure in Serbia was a good idea and that things are hunky dory in Somalia today? Do you support the current effort to wage war on the Assad government in Syria?

You didn't answer Jagger's question.

washunate, November 13, 2015 at 3:21 pm

Maybe we don't need experts. Maybe the God of Authority is a False God. Maybe instead of trying to fight war better, we should stop trying.

That's the thing about the three biggest things Paul stood for (end the Fed, end the drug war, end the Iraq war): they were ends. Not new programs that require advanced degrees and subject matter expertise, but rather, stopping horrible programs run by horrible people for horrible purposes.

Now maybe you disagree that they're horrible, and that's fine. Personally, I vehemently oppose the drug war and the US empire, but I'm not opposed to the Fed. To me, it just does what politicians tell it to do. But the point is, that's a matter of personal opinion, not expertise.

I wonder only half-jokingly if your comment is satire, too. I assume it was unintentional, but it sounds exactly like the whiny Democratic pundit enforcers complaining about Alan Grayson and FDL working with evil Republicans like Grover Norquist on Audit the Fed legislation. The era in which people can be intimidated via guilt by association is over. There are far more independents than Democrats today.

If you don't understand how a 2008 Ron Paul supporter could be interested in fearless commentary on finance, economics, politics, and power, then all I can surmise is that you don't want to understand. If you are genuinely curious, this link might be a particularly useful refresher on the tone of the day to day politics of the time:

https://shadowproof.com/2010/05/06/video-transcript-ron-paul-says-sanders-switched-and-watered-down-audit-the-fed/

TarheelDem, November 13, 2015 at 9:00 am

The rhetoric Occupy Wall Street was not usurped by the Democratic Party until it was crushed completed in an orchestrated multi-city police state take-down by Democratic and Republican mayors. I see no candidates talking about the right of free speech and assembly to petition government for the redress of grievances. I did not see that sort of repression happen with the Tea Party, which was receiving massive financing from the start. The two movements are not equivalent in how they have been received by the two parties.

wbgonne, November 13, 2015 at 10:21 am

Given that OWS and the Tea Party have been usurped by the respective national parties, and both movements are anti-status quo, my opinion is they should join forces. Also, considering there is little difference at the end of the day, between the republican and democrat parties, that they play both sides against the middle, if Trump and Sanders had an ounce of humility between them, they would both quit their party and run on a split ticket.

A couple of quibbles. First, OWS was not usurped by the Democrats: it was opposed, undermined and ultimately crushed by the Democratic Establishment, starting at the top with the Obama Administration all the way down to the mayors, many of whom were Democrats too. The Tea Party began as a populist movement but was largely hijacked by the GOP corporatists. That said, there is clearly a lot of populist energy on both the Right and the Left. Sanders carries the ball forward almost without misstep. Trump, however, is a decidedly mixed bag: while he is anti-TPP - a huge plus - he also opposes wage increases and probably holds many other anti-populist views that just haven't surfaced yet.

But the biggest problem with the merger you propose, however, is the one that has bedeviled populism since the 70s: identity politics issues. While I generally try not to over-emphasize such issues, they should not be discounted either. They should certainly not be disparaged. Let me put it this way: no self-respecting progressive could collaborate with someone who wishes Operation Wetback were our national immigration policy. Overt racism, sexism and homophobia cannot be accepted but political correctness should be rejected too as the antagonizing and divisive factor it is. In order for the merger you posit to occur - which would be a wonderful development - both the Left and the Right must downplay identity politics issues because those are the wedges that keep the two ends of economic populism from joining.

Jagger, November 13, 2015 at 2:11 pm

Identity politics is in the DNA of the Democratic party. Abandoning identity politics is simply not going to happen for a few generations at best.

WindyCity, November 13, 2015 at 3:17 pm

There is discontent on the left and the right. That's what feeding the candidacies of Tea Party darlings like Trump and Carson and the Democratic Socialist Sanders. Working- and middle-class folks across the political spectrum have been hit hard with unemployment, bankruptcy, foreclosure, debt-slavery, and on and on. Those on the right blame immigration, Obama, and big government; those on the left blame corporate tyranny and capitalist greed. It's probably naive of me, but I do see an opening for a Sanders to draw support from the right. His message ought to resonate with the disaffected, disenfranchised, and disillusioned in all quarters. I've already heard reports of some Tea Baggers throwing in with him. It will be interesting to see if this becomes a significant movement.

Eric Patton

But as the chart below shows the bond has been broken.

I don't like the passive voice here. Who broke the bond? And why?

I recommend Noam Chomsky. Pay attention to Chomsky's comments about the dismantling of the Bretton Woods system in the early 70s. Also pay attention when Chomsky talks about the "crisis of democracy" and the very conscious destruction of the US educational system.

cwaltz, November 13, 2015 at 7:03 am

I have to laugh at anyone who argues they don't like redistribution because it's the equivalent of saying I don't like an economy. The reality is in capitalism you have redistribution. Businesses don't keep the money you give it for goods and services, they redistribute it. The problem is they redistribute it poorly. They put an inordinately large emphasis on rewarding the guy on the top of the totem pole regardless of his contributions(that's why you have CEOs walking away with multimillion dollar parachutes) while paying peanuts to what is often the face of their organization.

The Tea Party has a real critical thinking issue if it thinks any of this has anything to do with winners and losers. You can be a hard worker spending 17 years busting your backside only to find a CEO like Trump has decided that the business isn't profitable enough. Guess what? When he files for bankruptcy he'll get to keep his house, and be insulated from economic consequences that led to the bankruptcy. Meanwhile the same couldn't be said for that worker whose major "bad decision" was placing his lot in with the wrong company at the wrong time under the wrong leadership.

Paul Tioxon, November 13, 2015 at 10:06 am

A Million Student March yesterday was the national day of protest across the nation by university students marching for the cancellation of student debt and $15/hr wages for student jobs. Locally, in Philly, they tied up traffic marching from North to South down Broad St and from West To East across Market St converging at City Hall for a rally against debt, for the $15/hr wage and in solidarity with Mizzou and Yale against racism on campus. Helicopter coverage and on site reporters interviewed the students, allowing them to get their message across in their own words. A Google news search shows similar coverage from Pittsburgh, Reno, Oakland, Vanderbilt etc etc. The report linked below references Bernie Sanders remarks as an inspiration. One student in front of City Hall demanding student debt cancellation presented the case that since a college degree is a necessity, why are they forced into debt for something that society requires of them to live any kind of life worth living? Necessities of life should not require you to borrow money and go into debt. That is similar to buying you supplies from the mining company so you can go down to the mines and work. Candles and picks are required to mine, so why does your paycheck have to cover that cost? The students are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel!

http://6abc.com/news/philly-students-hit-the-streets-for-million-student-march/1081368/

Vatch , November 13, 2015 at 11:06 am

This is an excellent list of problems in the U.S. economy (some of them affect other parts of the world, too). Whether or not a person currently supports Senator Bernie Sanders, one should ask which candidates for public office are most likely to sincerely try to solve these problems. There are other non-economic issues, but the average person won't have a say in solving other problems unless most of the 10 problems in the list are, at the very least, partly solved.

3.14e-9, November 13, 2015 at 12:53 pm

This article won't convince anyone with half a brain of anything. It's a bunch of opinion, with weasel words such as "My strong impression is." That he cites Jeffrey St. Clair and Joshua Frank is all anyone needs to know. They've been hammering on the same opinion over and over with pretty much the same set of "facts," including inaccuracies such as Sanders's alleged support for the bombing of Gaza last summer. Sanders was one of a small minority of senators who actually didn't sign on to that resolution (S. Res. 498) and he didn't vote for it, because there is no vote on resolutions. They are approved by an arcane Senate rule called "unanimous consent," which is not what it sounds like, but it makes a great story for Chris Hedges and others who are just pissed off that Sanders chose to run as a Democrat.

Ultimately, this article is just more of the same ol' - which is ironic, given that that's what most of this crowd says about Sanders.

WindyCity, November 13, 2015 at 3:42 pm

Chris Hedges takes the same view. I am fully sympathetic with the harsh criticisms leveled at Sanders regarding his support for empire and his relative indifference to foreign policy. Also, he's clearly not a socialist (nor could he be, considering his support for US militaristic hegemony). He is a liberal social democratic in the FDR tradition, and what he advocates is the restitution and strengthening of New Deal restraints on capitalism aimed at reducing inequality. He does support worker self-directed enterprises (cooperative businesses owned and run by workers) and has introduced legislation to provide federal support for such endeavors. This does suggest he's mindful of what genuine socialism is about, though he hasn't highlighted these ideas in the campaign.

My own view is that Sanders could provide an impetus for more movement-led change, provided that the energy and hope that he has generated, especially among young people, be channeled into organizing efforts and civil disobedience after the election process has concluded. I have little doubt that Clinton will win the nomination, but if, instead of succumbing to depression and disillusionment after Sanders has been defeated, his enthusiastic supporters take their anger and commitment into movement-building, his campaign will have made an important contribution.

A big problem is that Sanders has pledged to support the Democratic candidate if it's not him. I don't see how he could really get behind the cynical, opportunistic neocon, neoliberal Clinton, but we'll see. It does look like he'll push the less worse argument on his supporters, and that would be unfortunate.

Vatch, November 13, 2015 at 12:37 pm

The article misrepresents some things. For example, these statements are false, or at the very least, exaggerations:

1) support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including President Obama's recent decision to maintain a troop presence; 2) blank-check support of Israel, including its savage bombing campaign in Gaza last year;

1 ) Sanders voted against the war in Iraq and against the Patriot Act. See this for links and this for the Iraq vote in the House.
2 ) Sanders has been very critical of Israel's behavior in Gaza. See this for more information and links.

Meant as a reply to Linda J.

Tom Stone, November 13, 2015 at 12:56 pm

Since reform is not going to happen we need to provide local police departments with more armored vehicles and finish doing away with the 2nd amendment.
The 1st and 4th are gone, it's time for sensible people to get with the program.
Wesley Clarke is calling for FEMA camps to be opened to hold "Extremists".
And he's considered a moderate…
The system is broken, get in line or get hurt.

Lonely fight against neoliberalism

Sanders is probably among very few US politicians who oppose both theory and practice of neoliberalism, which came to power in the USA with the election of Ronald Reagan. Now neoliberalism is 35 years old and already experienced one crisis (2008) which severely undermined its credibility. But it recovered and continue to exist in "zombie" (and really bloodthirsty) state: people understand that as a social system it is discredited, but have no viable alternative. What Sanders tried to propose is such an alternative in a form of resurrection of elements of New Deal. This is a tremendously difficult task. He does not enjoy support on financial oligarchy and thus face well organized and well fed Hillary campaign or discrediting him as a viable candidate. One positive thing about this duel that in rate face to face encounters Sanders might prevail over "not so bright" Hillary.

Neoliberalism is a new form of corporatism based on the ideology of market fundamentalism, dominance of finance in the economy (and restoration of the political power of financial oligarchy) and cult of the rich ("greed is good") instead of ideology based on racial or national superiority typical for classic corporatism. Like many religious doctrines it belongs to the class of Theological Voluntarism (with some pseudo mathematical voodoo attached as a justification; actually even this is not new. Iranian ayatollahs in the past needed to demonstrate proficiency in mathematics) , but unlike most philosophies and relations it does not try to suppress greed. On the contrary it pronounces it to be a virtue ("Greed is good"). All actions are covered under smokescreen of propaganda which is unprecedented in its cynicism, hypocrisy and contempt to the ordinary people. Probably exceeding cynicism of the USSR leadership which covered the same redistribution ( in case of the USSR mainly to military industrial complex and nomenklatura ) policies with Big Brother style slogans like "The Party cares for the wellbeing of the people". This is a tailor-made ideology for powerful interests, large international corporations who simply do want to have their way. They created a political system that is the very opposite of what our leadership, the mass media, opinion leaders, think tanks etc. proclaim as the world's foremost exemplary of democracy. The typical for corporatism union of corporate power and government was transformed by the US elite into a flavor of corporatism which Sheldon Wolin called "inverted totalitarianism" which is just another nickname for neoliberalism. Unlike traditional corporatism of Nazi Germany, and Italy the American neoliberal system is designed not to mobilize the populace, but to distract it, to encourage a sense of dependency (by cultivating fear, calling everything a "war", for example "war on terror") as well as encouraging political disengagement (as in Reagan quote: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." ) . Those dirty tricks allowed corporate elite to take full political power and kill remnants of unions political power while citizenry shows little interest or concern. In other words powerful corporate interests which were the key promoters of neoliberalism and the key beneficiaries of its spread. They ingeniously used the Cold War as a pretext of dismantling of the New Deal ( Pt 1-8 Hedges & Wolin Can Capitalism and Democracy Coexist - YouTube):

HEDGES: And the Cold War. So the Cold War arises. And this becomes the kind of moment by which capital, and especially corporate capital, can dismantle the New Deal and free itself from any kind of regulation and constraint to deform and destroy American democracy. Can you talk about that process, what happened during that period?

WOLIN: Well, I think the first thing to be said about it is the success with which the governing groups manage to create a Cold War that was really so total in its spread that it was hard to mount a critical opposition or to take a more detached view of our relationship to the Soviet Union and just what kind of problem it created.

And it also had the effect, of course, of skewing the way we looked at domestic discontents, domestic inequalities, and so on, because it was always easy to tar them with the brush of communism, so that the communism was just more than a regime. It was also a kind of total depiction of what was the threat to -- and complete opposite to our own form of society, our old form of economy and government.

HEDGES: And in Politics and Vision, you talk about because of that ideological clash, therefore any restriction of capitalism which was defined in opposition to communism as a kind of democratic good, if you want to use that word, was lifted in the name of the battle against communism, that it became capitalism that was juxtaposed to communism rather than democracy, and therefore this empowered capital, in a very pernicious way, to dismantle democratic institutions in the name of the war on communism.

WOLIN: Oh, I think there's no question about that, the notion that you first had to, so to speak, unleash the great potential capitalism had for improving everybody's economical lot and the kind of constraints that had been developed not only by the New Deal, but by progressive movements throughout the 19th century and early 20th century in the United States, where it had been increasingly understood that while American economic institutions were a good thing, so to speak, and needed to be nurtured and developed, they also posed a threat.

They posed a threat because they tended to result in concentrations of power, concentrations of economic power that quickly translated themselves into political influence because of the inevitably porous nature of democratic representation and elections and rule, so that the difficulty's been there for a long time, been recognized for a long time, but we go through these periods of sleepwalking where we have to relearn lessons that have been known almost since the birth of the republic, or at least since the birth of Jeffersonian democracy, that capitalism has its virtues, but it has to be carefully, carefully watched, observed, and often controlled.

Later Wendy Brown, professor in Berkley advanced Professor Wolin ideas to a new level in her book Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution (Zone Books, 2015). Notable quotes from her interview (What Exactly Is Neoliberalism):

"... I treat neoliberalism as a governing rationality through which everything is "economized" and in a very specific way: human beings become market actors and nothing but, every field of activity is seen as a market, and every entity (whether public or private, whether person, business, or state) is governed as a firm. Importantly, this is not simply a matter of extending commodification and monetization everywhere-that's the old Marxist depiction of capital's transformation of everyday life. Neoliberalism construes even non-wealth generating spheres-such as learning, dating, or exercising-in market terms, submits them to market metrics, and governs them with market techniques and practices. Above all, it casts people as human capital who must constantly tend to their own present and future value. ..."

"... The most common criticisms of neoliberalism, regarded solely as economic policy rather than as the broader phenomenon of a governing rationality, are that it generates and legitimates extreme inequalities of wealth and life conditions; that it leads to increasingly precarious and disposable populations; that it produces an unprecedented intimacy between capital (especially finance capital) and states, and thus permits domination of political life by capital; that it generates crass and even unethical commercialization of things rightly protected from markets, for example, babies, human organs, or endangered species or wilderness; that it privatizes public goods and thus eliminates shared and egalitarian access to them; and that it subjects states, societies, and individuals to the volatility and havoc of unregulated financial markets. ..."

"... with the neoliberal revolution that homo politicus is finally vanquished as a fundamental feature of being human and of democracy. Democracy requires that citizens be modestly oriented toward self-rule, not simply value enhancement, and that we understand our freedom as resting in such self-rule, not simply in market conduct. When this dimension of being human is extinguished, it takes with it the necessary energies, practices, and culture of democracy, as well as its very intelligibility. ..."

"... For most Marxists, neoliberalism emerges in the 1970s in response to capitalism's falling rate of profit; the shift of global economic gravity to OPEC, Asia, and other sites outside the West; and the dilution of class power generated by unions, redistributive welfare states, large and lazy corporations, and the expectations generated by educated democracies. From this perspective, neoliberalism is simply capitalism on steroids: a state and IMF-backed consolidation of class power aimed at releasing capital from regulatory and national constraints, and defanging all forms of popular solidarities, especially labor. ..."

"... The grains of truth in this analysis don't get at the fundamental transformation of social, cultural, and individual life brought about by neoliberal reason. They don't get at the ways that public institutions and services have not merely been outsourced but thoroughly recast as private goods for individual investment or consumption. And they don't get at the wholesale remaking of workplaces, schools, social life, and individuals. For that story, one has to track the dissemination of neoliberal economization through neoliberalism as a governing form of reason, not just a power grab by capital. There are many vehicles of this dissemination -- law, culture, and above all, the novel political-administrative form we have come to call governance. It is through governance practices that business models and metrics come to irrigate every crevice of society, circulating from investment banks to schools, from corporations to universities, from public agencies to the individual. It is through the replacement of democratic terms of law, participation, and justice with idioms of benchmarks, objectives, and buy-ins that governance dismantles democratic life while appearing only to instill it with "best practices." ..."

"... Progressives generally disparage Citizens United for having flooded the American electoral process with corporate money on the basis of tortured First Amendment reasoning that treats corporations as persons. However, a careful reading of the majority decision also reveals precisely the thoroughgoing economization of the terms and practices of democracy we have been talking about. In the majority opinion, electoral campaigns are cast as "political marketplaces," just as ideas are cast as freely circulating in a market where the only potential interference arises from restrictions on producers and consumers of ideas-who may speak and who may listen or judge. Thus, Justice Kennedy's insistence on the fundamental neoliberal principle that these marketplaces should be unregulated paves the way for overturning a century of campaign finance law aimed at modestly restricting the power of money in politics. Moreover, in the decision, political speech itself is rendered as a kind of capital right, functioning largely to advance the position of its bearer, whether that bearer is human capital, corporate capital, or finance capital. This understanding of political speech replaces the idea of democratic political speech as a vital (if potentially monopolizable and corruptible) medium for public deliberation and persuasion. ..."

"... My point was that democracy is really reduced to a whisper in the Euro-Atlantic nations today. Even Alan Greenspan says that elections don't much matter much because, "thanks to globalization . . . the world is governed by market forces," not elected representatives. ..."


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

Home 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 1999

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section

[Dec 14, 2019] Impeachment vote represents a trap for Sanders

Dec 14, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

drumlin woodchuckles , December 14, 2019 at 12:54 am

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.

[Dec 13, 2019] Don't Think Sanders Can Win? You Don't Understand His Campaign

Sanders/Tulsi combination might be viable and can probably defeat Trump
Dec 13, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

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.

[Dec 09, 2019] Presidential candidates who want to place conditions on Israeli military aid have prompted pro-Israel House Democrats to go on the offensive.

Notable quotes:
"... "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 ..."
Dec 09, 2019 | www.unz.com

renfro , says: December 8, 2019 at 4:46 am GMT

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

Read more: https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2019/12/democratic-lawmakers-2020-rhetoric-israel-aid.html#ixzz67UEIl383

[Dec 08, 2019] Bernie Sanders unveils plan to boost broadband access, break up internet and cable titans

Notable quotes:
"... "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." ..."
Dec 08, 2019 | web204.coolhandle.com:2083

"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.'"

[Dec 07, 2019] 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. ...

Dec 07, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

Fred C. Dobbs , November 30, 2019 at 04:12 PM

The Case for Bernie
https://nyti.ms/2OT4WWM
NYT - Ross Douthat - Nov. 30

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.

(How Kamala Harris's Campaign Unraveled https://nyti.ms/2L2GQYw )

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. ...

[Dec 06, 2019] Hillary smears Bernie Sanders

Dec 06, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

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 .

me title=

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 ."

Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders at a debate on February 4, 2016 in Durham, New Hampshire. Getty Images

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!"


KimAsa , 48 minutes ago link

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.

sha384 , 1 hour ago link

I guess we're all russians now, except for Hillary and her small cabal of psychopaths

Smerf , 1 hour ago link

April 2015 Clinton Campaign email ( https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1120 );

"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:

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.

[Nov 30, 2019] Obama Takes the Field and Hillary May Be Around the Corner by Stephen J. Sniegoski

Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
Nov 30, 2019 | www.unz.com

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.

[Nov 28, 2019] 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

Nov 28, 2019 | caucus99percent.com

Plus there is Bernie (of course).

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.


Pluto's Republic on Thu, 11/28/2019 - 3:04am

I see it that way, too.

@QMS

DNC will burn rubber
before going progressive

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

Snode on Wed, 11/27/2019 - 3:40pm
Upbeat news!

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.

Situational Lefty on Thu, 11/28/2019 - 12:04am
Growing cracks

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.

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.

[Nov 28, 2019] Sanders Calls Out MSNBC s Corporate Ownership -- In Interview On MSNBC HuffPost

Notable quotes:
"... 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.'" ..."
Nov 28, 2019 | www.huffpost.com

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.'"

[Nov 27, 2019] Obama Admits He Would Speak Up Only To Stop Bernie Sanders Nomination

Highly recommended!
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.
Notable quotes:
"... Image source: Getty ..."
Nov 27, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

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."

Image source: Getty

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.

[Nov 27, 2019] If Sanders had some character he would run as an independent with Tulsi

Nov 27, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

james , Nov 26 2019 22:58 utc | 20

'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..

[Nov 05, 2019] Both Latinos and young voters going disproportionately for Sanders.

Nov 05, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

"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.

[Nov 02, 2019] Sanders just happened to vote against the most self-destructive of the recent adventures. He's an imperialist through and through. If I have to pick between Imperialists, should I choose the incompetent one or the one who's going to have a heart attack in the first year of the job?

Nov 02, 2019 | crookedtimber.org

Donald 10.31.19 at 10:45 pm @ 51

Faustusnotes --

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.

... ... ...

faustusnotes 11.02.19 at 3:08 am @ 68 ( 68 )

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?

[Oct 28, 2019] this item's been posted by CIA.

Oct 28, 2019 | sputniknews.com

Sanders use of social media to get message out went off in a new direction.

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.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 27 2019 19:22 utc | 69

[Oct 05, 2019] Did Bernie Sanders have a heart attack? Cardiologists weigh in on his condition, prognosis

Notable quotes:
"... 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. ... ..."
Oct 05, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

Fred C. Dobbs , October 04, 2019 at 10:04 AM

Did Bernie Sanders have a heart attack? Cardiologists weigh in on his condition, prognosis
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/10/04/did-bernie-sanders-have-heart-attack-cardiologists-weigh-his-condition-prognosis/DG1IeByC2mwI7ossVNRdbI/story.html?event=event25 via @BostonGlobe

Felice J. Freyer - October 4

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. ...

Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... , October 04, 2019 at 10:07 AM
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. ...

ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , October 04, 2019 at 01:45 PM
Last spring the rolling Stones cancelled a few dates because Mick Jagger had a similar event. Jagger is romping the tour now!
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to ilsm... , October 04, 2019 at 09:46 PM
Don't get yer hopes up.

Mick is not eligible
for the presidency.

Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... , October 04, 2019 at 10:11 AM
... 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. ...

Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... , October 04, 2019 at 04:26 PM
Bernie Sanders leaves Las Vegas hospital after treatment for heart attack
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2019/10/04/bernie-sanders-leaves-las-vegas-hospital-after-undergoing-heart-procedure/1NwKAaPiNJvS47nmyOhjBM/story.html?event=event25 via @BostonGlobe

Michelle L. Price - Associated Press - October 4

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. ...

[Oct 02, 2019] Sanders has heart procedure, cancels campaign events for now - ABC News

Informal end of his 2020 campaign...
Oct 02, 2019 | abcnews.go.com

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.

me name=

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.

President Donald Trump is 73.

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.

... ... ...

me name=

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.

[Oct 02, 2019] Nice he recovered, but you have to think this is the end of his campaign.

Running Presidential campaign in his age should be put in Guinness records book.
Oct 02, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

anne , October 02, 2019 at 09:03 AM

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.
Plp -> anne... , October 02, 2019 at 09:54 AM
Agree

Bernie was John the Baptist
To a new popular progressive movement

American De facto social democracy

The green new deal

EMichael , October 02, 2019 at 09:03 AM
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."

https://www.vox.com/2019/10/2/20895083/bernie-sanders-hospital-surgery-stent-emergency

[Sep 27, 2019] Sanders endorsed the impeachment proceedings

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.
Sep 27, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
karlof1 , Sep 26 2019 19:23 utc | 51
bevin @41--

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.

[Sep 20, 2019] W>ith considerable forethought neolibral MSM 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.

Notable quotes:
"... "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. ..."
www.truth-out.org
By Neal Gabler , Moyers & Company

15 June 2016 | http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/36432-did-the-press-take-down-bernie-sanders

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.

To see more stories like this, visit Moyers & Company at Truthout.

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.

Truthout remains a vital counterpoint to the mainstream news. Keep grassroots media thriving, make a tax-deductible donation today! This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

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.

Related Stories

Why the Media Want a Trump and Clinton Race By Michael C. Burton, New Media Monitor | Op-Ed Bernie Sanders Vows to Take His Fight All the Way to Democratic Convention By Elizabeth Preza, AlterNet | News Analysis Voters Outraged as Media Accused of Falsely, Preemptively Crowning Clinton By Jon Queally, Common Dreams | News Analysis

[Sep 15, 2019] Donald Trump as the DNC s nominee by Michael Hudson

Highly recommended!
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. ..."
Sep 15, 2019 | www.unz.com

Originally from: Breaking Up the Democratic Party, by Michael Hudson - The Unz Review

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.


follyofwar , says: September 12, 2019 at 2:20 pm GMT

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.

anon [110] Disclaimer , says: September 12, 2019 at 3:29 pm GMT
> When neoliberals shout, "But that's socialism," Americans finally are beginning to say, "Then give us socialism."

True, true! Also, when the neoliberals shout, "But that's nationalism," Americans finally are beginning to say, "Then give us nationalism."

One plus one is

Dutch Boy , says: September 12, 2019 at 3:42 pm GMT
Elizabeth Warren seems a more likely nominee than Sanders.
Biff , says: September 12, 2019 at 4:37 pm GMT
@Dutch Boy

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.

Svevlad , says: September 12, 2019 at 5:06 pm GMT
@anon Hehe. I propose that the anti-neoliberals join forces to beat this terrible beast...
Altai , says: September 12, 2019 at 6:19 pm GMT
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.

A123 , says: September 12, 2019 at 6:48 pm GMT
@Altai

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.

PEACE

davidgmillsatty , says: September 12, 2019 at 7:43 pm GMT
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.

A123 , says: September 13, 2019 at 12:20 am GMT
@bluedog

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."

PEACE

RadicalCenter , says: September 13, 2019 at 3:45 am GMT
@follyofwar Based on gabbard's immigration statements, voting for her is also voting for our continuing displacement.
Carlton Meyer , says: Website September 13, 2019 at 4:22 am GMT
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.

follyofwar , says: September 13, 2019 at 2:06 pm GMT
@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.

follyofwar , says: September 13, 2019 at 2:29 pm GMT
@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.
Justvisiting , says: September 13, 2019 at 7:37 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer Great comment.

Bernie has had many opportunities in the past few years to show real courage and stand for something, anything. He has failed every time.

I am actually beginning to feel sorry for him–he knows he has a mission, but he just can't seem to figure out what it is anymore

Getting old is not fun.

[Sep 14, 2019] The Vital facts concerning Sanders

Sep 14, 2019 | www.unz.com

Durruti , says: September 14, 2019 at 2:35 pm GMT

@Johnny Walker Read ...the Vital facts concerning Sanders.

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 ,...

[Sep 13, 2019] Bernie Sanders response on Venezuela was following the standard American Empire line.

Notable quotes:
"... "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. ..."
Sep 13, 2019 | www.alternet.org

Hellprin_fan 13 hours ago ,

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.

gcogs -> Hellprin_fan 11 hours ago ,

""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.

[Sep 12, 2019] 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 I have become convinced he is just another lifelong political mouthpiece

Sep 12, 2019 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Mark Chapman September 4, 2019 at 1:04 pm

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.

[Sep 01, 2019] The candidacy of a doddering Clintonite doofus does not and should not merit serious consideration.

Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
Aug 25, 2019 | www.counterpunch.org

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).

[Aug 31, 2019] Last election, Bernie lost me when he didn't stand up to the DNC for screwing him and his supporters.

Aug 31, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

WestcoastDeplorable , August 31, 2019 at 4:20 pm

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!

katiebird , August 31, 2019 at 7:02 pm

NOTHING Trump has done as president has upset you as much as Bernie sticking to his 2016 promise to support the Democratic Nominee?

[Aug 28, 2019] In a way Russiagate's continuance id an attack on Sanders and Sanders seems to be unwilling to counter this threat effectively with it due to his initial gullibility:

Notable quotes:
"... 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". ..."
Aug 28, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
Arioch , Aug 27 2019 12:20 utc | 164

karlof1 , Aug 26 2019 21:24 utc | 137

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:
  1. "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."
  2. " 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.

https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2019/08/26/insiders-dont-criticize-other-insiders/


bevin , Aug 27 2019 12:48 utc | 166

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.

arby , Aug 27 2019 17:03 utc | 176
"
Bernie Sanders
‏Verified account @BernieSanders

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 "

karlof1 , Aug 27 2019 19:33 utc | 188
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.

juliania , Aug 27 2019 19:50 utc | 190
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.

... ... ...

bevin , Aug 27 2019 23:52 utc | 218

"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.

Jackrabbit , Aug 28 2019 4:23 utc | 236
aye, myself & me @235:
... Dr. Jill Stein offered him a spot on her ticket in 2016 and he totally ignored her?

Yup.

He entered the race to "raise issues", not to defeat Hillary, his "friend of 25 years".

He had no interest in "raising issues" as part of a third party, though. Because third-party candidates can't win. Wait ... what?

[Aug 15, 2019] Trump and Bernie are the only ones who can fill stadiums for their rallies.

Aug 15, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Grant , August 15, 2019 at 5:16 pm

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.

foghorn longhorn , August 15, 2019 at 5:56 pm

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.

Cal2 , August 15, 2019 at 6:19 pm

"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.

Yves Smith , August 15, 2019 at 6:27 pm

It is at least good advance work to make sure the hall is too small for the expected crowd .

[Aug 15, 2019] Why the Rich Want to Bury Bernie, the Not-Really-Socialist

Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
Aug 15, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

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. "

[Aug 13, 2019] Sanders has chances to win New Hampshire

Aug 13, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

Fred C. Dobbs , August 13, 2019 at 04:32 AM

In New Hampshire, Bernie Sanders
works to retain strong base of support
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/08/12/new-hampshire-sanders-works-retain-strong-base-support/JXtjqrCYWWPc9ULPdiM7FO/story.html?event=event25 via @BostonGlobe

James Pindell - August 12

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.

('Close behind'?)

(Poll Shows Biden, Sanders & Warren as NH Big Three
https://www.suffolk.edu/news-features/news/2019/08/06/13/28/poll-shows-biden-sanders-and-warren-as-nh-big-three
-- Suffolk University)

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."

Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to ilsm... , August 13, 2019 at 05:07 AM
'Sanders (is) 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.'

If Liz & Bernie do that tag-team thing, they become #1 in NH.

[Aug 12, 2019] 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. 2020 might be different

Aug 12, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

Fred C. Dobbs , August 12, 2019 at 06:36 AM

(Just six months until the NH Primary.)

NH primary winners tend to be moderate,
except for Bernie Sanders. Can lightning strike twice?
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/08/11/new-hampshire-can-lightning-strike-twice-for-liberal-like-bernie-sanders/VxpMaDktyaGLkcw01Mqp6J/story.html?event=event25 via @BostonGlobe

James Pindell - August 11

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.

(Read the full results from the Suffolk/Globe poll
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2019/08/06/read-full-results-from-suffolk-globe-poll/KgAI4zyhePmefYpyIO6AAI/story.html?event=event25 )

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.

anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , August 12, 2019 at 06:57 AM
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. ]

Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to anne... , August 12, 2019 at 07:17 AM
Is Bernie Sanders a Leftist or a Moderate?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/02/sanders-democrats/583519/
The Atlantic - February 27, 2019

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.)

Gun Policy https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/ via @feelthebernorg

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. ...

Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... , August 12, 2019 at 07:36 AM
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.)

[Aug 08, 2019] Biden, Sanders, and Warren are the only candidates with support in the double digits

Notable quotes:
"... Warren has the best potential to grow ..."
"... 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... ..."
Aug 08, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

Fred C. Dobbs , August 07, 2019 at 05:42 AM

The top tier of Democrats in NH is
starting to solidify, and more poll takeaways
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/08/06/the-top-tier-democrats-starting-solidify-and-more-poll-takeaways/y4SYgN0uzQPs9SZH0xYvjM/story.html?event=event25
via @BostonGlobe - August 6

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. ...

Biden, Sanders, and Warren top
post-debate survey of NH Democrats
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2019/08/06/biden-sanders-and-warren-top-postdebate-survey-democrats/OQFDiH2UeFSbEj0i4DRNCL/story.html?event=event25 via @BostonGlobe

... 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...

Graphic: See key results from the Suffolk/Globe poll
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2019/08/06/poll-suffolk-university-boston-globe-poll-puts-biden-atop-democratic-primary/c5k6eDUNmU5VlDWsAU91yM/story.html?event=event25 via @BostonGlobe

ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , August 07, 2019 at 09:45 AM
Biden seems to have the democrat "NH state machine" who did okay in 2016, the delegation all democrats in lock step with the crooked DNC.

Sad that Bernie has to be hitched to the saddest excuse for a party since the Nixon GOP.

[Aug 03, 2019] In 2016, Sanders was Hillary's sheepdog. In 2020, the Democratic Party is Trump sheepdog

Aug 03, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Jackrabbit , Aug 3 2019 4:05 utc | 55

In 2016, Sanders was Hillary's sheepdog.

In 2020, the Democratic Party sheepdogs for democracy itself.

[Aug 03, 2019] The Best Guide For The Perplexed Progressive in 2020 is 2016 by John V. Walsh

Aug 01, 2019 | www.unz.com

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.

John V. Walsh can be reached at john.endwar@gmail.com

Anonymous [322] • Disclaimer , says: August 1, 2019 at 4:26 am GMT

“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.
Daniel Rich , says: August 1, 2019 at 6:09 am GMT
@Anonymous Quote: “When was that?”

Reply: The moment he endorsed HRC and showed his true colors.

Kronos , says: August 1, 2019 at 8:15 am GMT
@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.

Nik , says: August 1, 2019 at 8:15 am GMT
I dont remember either Bernard Saunders or Tulsi Gabbard even uttering the word Apartheid.

These peopke are hypnotized

alexander , says: August 1, 2019 at 9:35 am GMT
The reality, Mr. Walsh,

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.

stone cold , says: August 1, 2019 at 10:25 am GMT
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.
War for Blair Mountain , says: August 1, 2019 at 11:47 am GMT
You left out two facts:

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!!!!

Justvisiting , says: August 1, 2019 at 12:54 pm GMT
@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.

concerned , says: August 1, 2019 at 1:14 pm GMT
Check out “The National Security State Needs an Enemy: Senator Warren Warns About “White Supremacist” Threat” by Kurt Nimmo at:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/state-needs-enemy-warren-warns-about-white-supremacist-threat/5685241?print=1

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?

[Jul 31, 2019] Second, Sanders extracted several billion dollars for community health centers as his price for supporting the Obamacare bill. That was the benefit of Sanders being "there," unmentioned by Axelrod. He wasn't a passive observer, he improved the Obamacare bill.

Jul 31, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Lambert Strether Post author , July 30, 2019 at 11:32 pm

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.

[Jul 31, 2019] Did you hear what this other candidate said about your mother??!!?!?"

Jul 31, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

JohnnyGL , July 30, 2019 at 9:37 pm

Seriously, some of these questions are like, "Did you hear what this other candidate said about your mother??!!?!?"

Mark Gisleson , July 31, 2019 at 11:29 am

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.

No longer reporting, he now teaches reporting.

[Jul 31, 2019] 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,

Bernie: I do know it. I wrote the damn bill! The Guardian live blog is good
Most of the "Democrats" on the stage are Republicans in disguise. Bernie is one of the few who is not.
"By calling yourself a capitalist are you trying to convince voters you are a safer choice than Senator Sanders?" Great.
Jul 31, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

The Rev Kev , July 30, 2019 at 8:34 pm

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.

mejimenez , July 31, 2019 at 9:37 am

It's a tough call. Bernie has been hugely successful in moving the Overton Window much further to the left in 4 years than I thought possible. That progress is at least partially due to his consistent dogmatism about terminology. For a good analysis of how that works, see https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/national-party-news/320907-dems-worry-too-much-about-upsetting-others-that-needs .

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.

ambrit , July 30, 2019 at 9:48 pm

... 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.

Grant , July 30, 2019 at 8:42 pm

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?

Librarian Guy , July 30, 2019 at 8:46 pm

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.

Carey , July 30, 2019 at 9:25 pm

Sanders-Warren 2020? Nice to see her supporting him here.

Lambert Strether Post author , July 30, 2019 at 9:27 pm

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.

Monty , July 30, 2019 at 9:31 pm

Bernie looks much better tonight. Warren too. The rest of these characters look pathetic and should wrap up their campaigns at once.

flora , July 30, 2019 at 9:57 pm

Think this Gravel tweet captures the debate's dynamics.

https://twitter.com/MikeGravel/status/1156380051266506752

anon in so cal , July 30, 2019 at 9:59 pm

Yes, Gravel nails it:

"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."

[Jul 30, 2019] The -Existential Battle- Is for Control of the Democratic Party

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. ..."
Jul 30, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

... ... ...

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. "

... ... ...


TG , July 30, 2019 at 1:45 pm

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.

Redlife2017 , July 30, 2019 at 4:52 am

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.

Nax , July 30, 2019 at 2:42 am

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.

Tyronius , July 30, 2019 at 4:59 am

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.

JCC , July 30, 2019 at 9:05 am

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.

Left in Wisconsin , July 30, 2019 at 11:32 am

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.

Big River Bandido , July 30, 2019 at 7:16 am

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.

Norb , July 30, 2019 at 6:09 am

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.

g3 , July 30, 2019 at 4:08 am

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 :

https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/hope-killers-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.

It is not broken. It is fixed. Against us.

The Rev Kev , July 30, 2019 at 4:43 am

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.

Norb , July 30, 2019 at 7:18 am

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.

notabanker , July 30, 2019 at 9:17 am

This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry.

When their fiat money is worthless, we'll see how effective that "wrath" really is.

ambrit , July 30, 2019 at 12:55 pm

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.

Carey , July 30, 2019 at 3:49 pm

Could that be why "our" three-letter agencies have been stocking up on that substance for awhile, now?

Phil in KC , July 30, 2019 at 1:09 pm

" The purpose of the Democratic Party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion."

Wow! I'm going to be keeping that little nugget in mind as I watch the debates. Well-stated, Norb.

DJG , July 30, 2019 at 8:43 am

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.

mle in detroit , July 30, 2019 at 10:30 am

+100

ptb , July 30, 2019 at 9:21 am

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.

KYrocky , July 30, 2019 at 9:32 am

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.

freedomny , July 30, 2019 at 11:28 am

Good read:

https://eand.co/why-the-21st-century-needs-an-existential-revolution-c3068a10b689

dbk , July 30, 2019 at 11:45 am

Perhaps another indication of internal discord that's getting out of hand:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/5-more-top-dccc-staffers-out-in-ongoing-diversity-saga

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.

Really?

Matthew G. Saroff , July 30, 2019 at 11:55 am

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.

flora , July 30, 2019 at 1:07 pm

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.

sharonsj , July 30, 2019 at 2:53 pm

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.

[Jul 30, 2019] Sanders vs McGovern

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. ..."
Jul 30, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com


g3 , , July 30, 2019 at 4:20 am

The last time a "rogue" candidate got the Dem nomination, this is what happened.

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001705.html

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.

Yves Smith , , July 30, 2019 at 5:59 am

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_United_States_presidential_election Nixon had put forward a bill for a guaranteed minimum income in 1969 , so I am at a loss as to how this position helped McGovern.

Arizona Slim , , July 30, 2019 at 6:30 am

By modern standards, Nixon would be considered a radical socialist.

John , , July 30, 2019 at 8:10 am

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.

Watt4Bob , , July 30, 2019 at 8:01 am

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.

Anon , , July 30, 2019 at 1:22 pm

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".

Henry Moon Pie` , , July 30, 2019 at 8:18 am

"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.

[Jul 30, 2019] The main task of Democratic Party is preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left and killing such social movements

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... 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 ..."
Jul 30, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

g3 , July 30, 2019 at 4:08 am

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 :

https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/hope-killers-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.

It is not broken. It is fixed. Against us.

Norb , July 30, 2019 at 7:18 am

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.

[Jul 20, 2019] Masks fall at last Bernie officially declares war on corporate Dems who seek to survive around Warren

In view of Sanders behaviour in 2016 this is a highly questionable analysis. The fact that Warren is a neocon in foreign policy was known long ago.
Jul 20, 2019 | failedevolution.blogspot.com
Masks fall at last: Bernie officially declares war on corporate Dems who seek to survive around Warren June 21, 2019 globinfo freexchange

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.

me title=


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 ...

https://www.youtube.com/embed/i3a9V5w6x14

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y5mFDHBV9L8

https://www.youtube.com/embed/8MydhlzKg1Q

https://www.youtube.com/embed/XRFBqP00YqA Share

Share Comments
  1. Anonymous 21/6/19 20:59

    #FeelTheBern or Feel the BURN because there is #NoMIddleGround for me
    and others (many others) like me
    All in for #Bernie2020

    Reply

[Jul 06, 2019] The Antiwar Movement No One Can See by Allegra Harpootlian

Notable quotes:
"... "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. ..."
Jul 02, 2019 | consortiumnews.com

Originally from: TomDispatch.com

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."

Ilhan Omar @IlhanMN

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. http://www. startribune.com/rep-ilhan-omar -with-perspective-of-a-foreigner-sets-ambitious-global-agenda/510489882/?om_rid=3005497801&om_mid=317376969&refresh=true

7,176 3:24 PM - May 28, 2019 Twitter Ads info and privacy Rep. Ilhan Omar, with 'perspective of a foreigner,' sets ambitious global agenda

From her seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and with a growing international reputation, the former refugee is wading into debates over various global hot spots and controversies.

startribune.com

2,228 people are talking about 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 .

This article is from TomDispatch.com .


Edwin Stamm , July 5, 2019 at 10:40

"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.

Jim Glover , July 3, 2019 at 17:43

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

P.Brooks , July 3, 2019 at 12:54

No More War

Don Bacon , July 3, 2019 at 12:29

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.

https://www.tulsi2020.com/a/first-democratic-debate

P.Brooks , July 3, 2019 at 13:53

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:

http://www.brasilwire.com/holy-war/

[excerpt:]

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw-njAmvZ80

"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.

Robert Harrow , July 3, 2019 at 15:54

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.

Piotr Berman , July 3, 2019 at 21:15

"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

Mary Jones-Giampalo , July 4, 2019 at 00:41

Absolutely! #Tulsi2020

peter mcloughlin , July 3, 2019 at 10:43

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.

O Society , July 3, 2019 at 09:48

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.

http://osociety.org/2019/07/03/the-science-of-influencing-people-six-ways-to-win-an-argument/

jmg , July 3, 2019 at 13:55

Seen on the street:

Support Our Troops
BRING THEM HOME NOW

https://media.salon.com/2003/03/the_billboard_bush_cant_see.jpg

Bob Van Noy , July 3, 2019 at 08:39

New

Bob Van Noy , July 3, 2019 at 08:42

New and better link here:
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache/files/7/e/7ebd2b61-aa29-49ac-9991-53a53da6a57f/3163D991E047042C0F52C929A2F60231.israel-syria-letter-5-21.pdf

Gregory Herr , July 3, 2019 at 21:40

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.

https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/2019/5/nearly-400-lawmakers-call-on-trump-to-address-threats-in-syria

Is your legislator a signee of this list? All of mine are

James Clooney , July 3, 2019 at 10:11

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).

Karen , July 3, 2019 at 07:59

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.

James Clooney , July 3, 2019 at 10:22

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."

Dan Kennedy: Censorship of graphic Iraq war photographs -- 29 Jul 2008
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jul/29/iraqandthemedia.usa

jmg , July 3, 2019 at 18:36

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY7gPcDFwQc

Dao Gen , July 3, 2019 at 05:20

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".

James Clooney , July 3, 2019 at 09:38

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.

James Clooney , July 3, 2019 at 08:36

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???

triekc , July 3, 2019 at 07:25

US military contribution to ecocide: https://climateandcapitalism.com/2015/02/08/pentagon-pollution-7-military-assault-global-climate/

Seer , July 3, 2019 at 16:35

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)

From https://www.mintpressnews.com/shes-hot-and-shes-cold-elizabeth-warren-and-the-military-industrial-complex/253542/

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.

James Clooney , July 3, 2019 at 09:56

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.

James Clooney , July 3, 2019 at 10:02

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:

STUDY FINDS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HIGH MILITARY CASUALTIES AND VOTES FOR TRUMP OVER CLINTON
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/10/study-finds-relationship-between-high-military-casualties-and-votes-for-trump-over-clinton/

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.

Helga I. Fellay , July 3, 2019 at 11:09

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.

Piotr Berman , July 4, 2019 at 07:02

Trump standing up to his nominees:

>>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.

[Jul 04, 2019] If Sanders were gentile, they'd do a Jeremy Corbyn on him. He'd be 'anti-semitic'

Jul 04, 2019 | www.unz.com

Colin Wright says: Website July 2, 2019 at 7:00 pm GMT @gsjackson

' And then there is the fact that he is Jewish.'

That's the only reason he's able to differ from Israel's agenda to the modest extent that he does.

If Sanders were gentile, they'd do a Jeremy Corbyn on him. He'd be 'anti-semitic.'

[Jul 04, 2019] 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

Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
Jul 04, 2019 | www.unz.com

gsjackson says: July 2, 2019 at 8:02 am GMT 100 Words

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.

[Jun 28, 2019] Pathetic, the whole debate were pathetic

Here’s a transcript.
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. ..."
Jun 28, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

zagonostra, June 27, 2019 at 9:58 pm

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.

Carey, June 27, 2019 at 10:19 pm

Fully agree. And WTF was with that gesticulating moron at the break?

WheresOurTeddy, June 27, 2019 at 11:29 pm

his sleeves were rolled up, so you know he is a hardworking guy just like you, and can thus be trusted

jrs, June 28, 2019 at 1:54 am

+1

Yea online and a bunch of polling graphs, as if polling on donald trump and stuff is just so interesting

anon in so cal, June 27, 2019 at 10:31 pm

Twitter consensus:

Kamala Harris got more floor time than anyone else. Harris ended Biden's campaign. The debate is rigged against Bernie Sanders.

Twitter questions:

Did Harris get the debate questions in advance?

deeplyrad , June 28, 2019 at 4:43 am

C’mon Lambert, seriously, a joint with Harris?

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.

Sanders-Gabbard would be a winner against Trump.

[Jun 28, 2019] Sanders nailed it

Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
Jun 27, 2019 | verydeepleft.blogspot.com

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.

[Jun 28, 2019] Sanders 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

Jun 28, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

ChrisAtRU , June 27, 2019 at 9:59 pm

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

[Jun 28, 2019] Neoliberal MSM proposed set of debate questions for Bernie Sanders

Jun 27, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Chris , June 27, 2019 at 7:56 pm

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:

[Jun 28, 2019] CIA role from the Dulles Brothers onwardst 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.

Jun 28, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Chris , June 27, 2019 at 8:49 pm

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.

Geo , June 27, 2019 at 9:02 pm

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".

rowlf , June 27, 2019 at 9:49 pm

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?

Notes2sean@hotmail.com , June 27, 2019 at 10:32 pm

Protecting Big Finance is only the latest thing.

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.

Bill Carson , June 27, 2019 at 11:52 pm

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!

EricT , June 28, 2019 at 6:00 am

He said Wall Street too. I think banks fit under that umbrella.

[Jun 26, 2019] Bernie Sanders' Economic Bill of Rights

Jun 26, 2019 | consortiumnews.com

"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 ."

[Jun 25, 2019] Full interview Bernie Sanders on Face the Nation - YouTube

Notable quotes:
"... 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 ..."
Jun 23, 2019 | www.youtube.com

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.


Gurinder Dhillon , 2 days ago

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.

Wish I Was Sleeping , 2 days ago

Every interview Bernie does is a minefield of loaded questions and false dichotomies. No other candidate faces interrogation like Bernie does.

Scott Dickson , 2 days ago

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.

george plimpton , 2 days ago

Bernie is the real deal.

The Sneople , 2 days ago

"I wanna ask you about Iran." "Good." Ah, I love it. New and improved Bernie, ready to talk foreign policy.

Haha MissMiss , 2 days ago

Media talking head: JUST a limited STRIKE Bernie: you're part of the problem

Allen M , 2 days ago

Bernie Sanders 2020 NO SUBSTITUTE. We need the leader of the revolution.

Anasha , 2 days ago

One policy question after the next . How about vetting other candidates in the same way .

SpickyRooster , 2 days ago

Compare this to other Democratic Face the Nation low ball interviews. You can see who the MSM really hates

[Jun 25, 2019] Bernie Sanders suggested that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was "the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of the country."

Jun 25, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Harry Law , Jun 24, 2019 3:24:31 PM | 18

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".

http://theconversation.com/iraq-and-afghanistan-the-us-6-trillion-bill-for-americas-longest-war-is-unpaid-78241

[Jun 24, 2019] Sanders is right that any strike on Iran means war. Sanders is wrong in a sense that Trump has already attacked Iran -- the sanctions are illegal as was his violation of JCPOA

Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
Jun 24, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Stever , Jun 23, 2019 1:24:49 PM | 44

Sen. Bernie Sanders on "Face the Nation"

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.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/full-transcript-sen-bernie-sanders-on-face-the-nation/

karlof1 , Jun 23, 2019 3:01:02 PM | 69

Stever @44--

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.

[Jun 24, 2019] Bernie Sanders' Newest Plan Would Wipe $1.6 Trillion In Student Debt, Fund Free State College

Notable quotes:
"... 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 ..."
Jun 24, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Bernie Sanders' Newest Plan Would Wipe $1.6 Trillion In Student Debt, Fund Free State College

by Tyler Durden Mon, 06/24/2019 - 06:00 34 SHARES

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.

Sanders plan would forgive roughly three times as much debt as Elizabeth Warren's big student-debt amnesty plan, which would forgive some $640 billion in the most distressed student loans.

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.


3-fingered_chemist , 8 minutes ago link

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.

Rex Titter , 18 minutes ago link

Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!

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...

Buy gold and toss it in the lake,,,

honest injun , 24 minutes ago link

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.

[Jun 19, 2019] We're All Socialists Now!

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). ..."
Jun 19, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Via AntoniusAquinas.com,

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.

... ... ...


Condor_0000 , 55 seconds ago link

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

June 19, 2018

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/trumps-military-drops-a-bomb-every-12-minutes-and-no-one-is-talking-about-it/

Condor_0000 , 35 minutes ago link

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.

ChaoKrungThep , 50 minutes ago link

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.

Condor_0000 , 54 minutes ago link

REALITY CHECK FOR RIGHT-WINGERS

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%.

snatchpounder , 52 minutes ago link

You described crony capitalism not capitalism.

Condor_0000 , 48 minutes ago link

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.

snatchpounder , 25 minutes ago link

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.

Condor_0000 , 9 minutes ago link

Marx was a lunatic who never worked a day in his vile useless life.

You just described Donald Trump.

Decoherence , 43 minutes ago link

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.

Condor_0000 , 38 minutes ago link

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.

Decoherence , 29 minutes ago link

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.

me123me , 37 minutes ago link

So by your logic the money we earn isnt really ours.

me123me , 36 minutes ago link

You dont even know what socialism is. Your description is completely wrong.

Condor_0000 , 6 minutes ago link

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!"

Condor_0000 , 1 hour ago link

Operation Condor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Operation Condor (Spanish: 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).

ChaoKrungThep , 47 minutes ago link

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.

[Jun 15, 2019] Bernie is not the sheepdog you need to worry about

Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
Jun 15, 2019 | caucus99percent.com

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.

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

[Jun 14, 2019] 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:

Jun 14, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Grant , June 12, 2019 at 2:41 pm

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:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/06/12/watch-live-sanders-delivers-speech-why-democratic-socialism-only-way-defeat

Fiery Hunt , June 12, 2019 at 3:29 pm

Aaannnd .it's blocked on Bernie's you tube channel.

Music licensing behemoths Global Music Rights LLC and WMG

#bastards

nycTerrierist , June 12, 2019 at 3:39 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QThknQs-gIc

fantastic speech, Bernie brought the FDR thunder:

"I welcome their hatred "

Lambert Strether Post author , June 12, 2019 at 3:41 pm

> "I welcome their hatred "

He really said that? Bring it!

nycTerrierist , June 12, 2019 at 3:43 pm

It was rousing!

brought tears to my eyes, but Bernie often does,

I find him v. moving, a real mensh amongst careerist clowns

Jonathan Holland Becnel , June 12, 2019 at 6:05 pm

YUUUUUUUUUP

Good to see Bernie exposing our wretched oligarchy.

richard , June 12, 2019 at 9:15 pm

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?

JohnnyGL , June 12, 2019 at 5:03 pm

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

flora , June 12, 2019 at 5:55 pm

Scene from the 2016 campaign: New Dealer vs Neo Liberal. ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kpHK4YIwY4

ambrit , June 13, 2019 at 11:07 am

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.

flora , June 12, 2019 at 8:25 pm

Thanks for the USA – Sanders' speech link.
Fantastic!

https://eus.rubiconproject.com/usync.html

https://c.deployads.com/sync?f=html&s=2343&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nakedcapitalism.com%2F2019%2F06%2F200pm-water-cooler-6-12-2019.html

https://acdn.adnxs.com/ib/static/usersync/v3/async_usersync.html <img src="http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=16807273&cv=2.0&cj=1" /> Reply

Isotope_C14 , June 12, 2019 at 2:53 pm

Defining FDResque speech by Bernie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndD23MCDF_k

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".

Reply

Watt4Bob , June 12, 2019 at 3:33 pm

Clicked on link, message is something like;

Video Unavailable

"This video contains content from Global Music Rights LLC and WMG, one or more of whom have blocked it in your country on copyright grounds"

Yeah right, actually, it's part of what I deem the 'full-court-press'.

I can hear the DNC and DCCC glee-club in the bleachers chanting " Defense, Defense, Defense" from my desk in Minnesota.

Reply

nycTerrierist , June 12, 2019 at 3:42 pm

whoops! just saw this comment after I posted upstream

I watched live via USAToday on youtube, with no interruption

[Jun 08, 2019] Sanders burns Bill Kristol over 'foolish' pushing for Iraq war, asks where his apology is

May 28, 2019 | www.rt.com
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders took a swipe at neoconservative Bill Kristol for his "foolish advocacy of the Iraq war," and questioned whether he had apologized to the country for it yet. Sanders was responding to a tweet Kristol sent that said, "#Never Sanders," and linked to a New York Times article about the longtime Vermont senator's opposition to war.

"Have you apologized to the nation for your foolish advocacy of the Iraq war?" Sanders tweeted , adding he makes "no apologies for opposing it."

Sanders' record of opposing wars like Vietnam and Iraq, and US meddling in Nicaragua, has recently been highlighted by the media as the 2020 presidential primaries approach.

pic.twitter.com/yZj2fC8xRB

-- #WithTheseHands 🙌🏻🙌🏼🙌🏽🙌🏾 Eowyn (@WestCoastGadfly) May 26, 2019

Has Biden apologized for his support of that war and so many others? Please answer my poll: https://t.co/Xxsa70K56o

-- (𝕊𝕠𝕔𝕚𝕒𝕝) 𝔻𝕖𝕞𝕠𝕔𝕣𝕒𝕔𝕪 ℕ𝕠𝕨! 🇺🇸 (@IStandWithIlhan) May 25, 2019

Feel the Bern, Bill. pic.twitter.com/LcouTg1XdG

-- Meghan McCain's Tears™ (@Smedley_Butler) May 25, 2019

NBC's Meet the Press came under fire last week for tweeting , "Sanders said he won't apologize for supporting anti-Vietnam War efforts and voting against the war in Iraq," which sparked ridicule among social media users and inspired Sanders to release a video in which he stood by his anti-war stance and promised to do everything to prevent a war with Iran.

I was right about Vietnam.

I was right about Iraq.

I will do everything in my power to prevent a war with Iran.

I apologize to no one. pic.twitter.com/Lna3oBZMKB

-- Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) May 24, 2019

Kristol tweeted his 'never Sanders' diss after the former Burlington mayor introduced a petition to prevent "military action against Iran without congressional approval," something that likely upset Kristol, who has been calling for regime change in Iran for over 13 years.

Kristol refused to apologize over his comments, instead calling on Sanders to engage in a "real debate on US foreign policy."

Nope. I dislike quasi-Stalinist demands for apologies. I've defended and will defend my views on Iraq, and Syria, and Milosevic, and the Soviet Union, and more, as you defend yours. How about a real debate on U.S. foreign policy--I'll ask for no apologies!--on a campus this fall? https://t.co/AdC0CelINz

-- Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) May 26, 2019

A co-founder of the neoconservative think tank the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), Kristol called for regime change in Iraq in 1998 in a series of articles and a letter to then-President Bill Clinton. Following 9/11, PNAC encouraged the George W. Bush administration to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Kristol ardently supported the war in Iraq, which he claimed would be a "two-month war" and repeatedly argued for sending more troops there to rectify the failing invasion.

During the 2006 Lebanon war, Kristol suggested the US take the opportunity to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, asking, "Why wait?"

If you like this story, share it with a friend!

[Jun 06, 2019] The Democratic base will simply not back another corporatist shill, especially after getting stabbed in 2016.

Notable quotes:
"... 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 ..."
May 01, 2019 | discussion.theguardian.com

DoesNotComputer -> LibertineUSA , 30 Apr 2019 15:12

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.

docjan , 30 Apr 2019 15:11
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.

Duncan_Idaho , 30 Apr 2019 15:11
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.

DoesNotComputer -> Gelion , 30 Apr 2019 15:06
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.

factfynder , 30 Apr 2019 15:06
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?
neonliberalism -> TheCheGuevara , 30 Apr 2019 14:57
His first campaign fundraiser after his announcement was hosted by the CEO of Comcast. That is wholly out of touch with the middle class.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/comcast-executive-to-host-joe-biden-fundraiser /
NativeAngeleno -> ILEXcottage , 30 Apr 2019 14:56
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.

JohnLG , 30 Apr 2019 14:51
"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.

LauraInMadrid -> Quantum Ape , 30 Apr 2019 14:45
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.)

kritikon -> AntiGuardianista , 30 Apr 2019 14:42

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.

CynicusCuratoris , 30 Apr 2019 14:39
"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.

ehmaybe -> fiddler1 , 30 Apr 2019 14:37

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.

neonliberalism -> violagirl , 30 Apr 2019 14:36
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
StrategyKing , 30 Apr 2019 14:35
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.

[Jun 05, 2019] Neoliberal MSM trashing Sanders

Jun 05, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Anonymous Coward , June 5, 2019 at 3:11 pm

Here's a great example of hackish media framing of Bernie:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/05/bernie-sanders-walmart-starvation-wages-1354268

The lede

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.

WheresOurTeddy , June 5, 2019 at 3:59 pm

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.

Lambert Strether , June 5, 2019 at 4:14 pm

Obviously, if you're not invited by management, you're not invited.

zagonostra , June 5, 2019 at 5:27 pm

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.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bernie-sanders-soviet-union-venezuela-not-examples-failed-socialism

Another Scott

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.

[Jun 03, 2019] Hillary is still bitter

Notable quotes:
"... He campaigned for her! Which is why I'm only giving nominal support this time. ..."
Jun 03, 2019 | caucus99percent.com

@HenryAWallace
link

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

Begrudgingly?

@gjohnsit
He campaigned for her! Which is why I'm only giving nominal support this time.

span ed by gjohnsit on Mon, 06/03/2019 - 6:12pm
The word you are looking for is "entitled"

@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."

[May 15, 2019] Bernie Sanders on trade with China, health care and student debt

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.
May 07, 2019 | www.youtube.com

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.

[May 12, 2019] 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?

May 12, 2019 | caucus99percent.com
@dfarrah

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?

[May 10, 2019] Bernie Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez Propose 15% Cap On Credit Card Rates; Visa, MC Tumble

May 10, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Bernie Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez Propose 15% Cap On Credit Card Rates; Visa, MC Tumble

by Tyler Durden Thu, 05/09/2019 - 10:37 3 SHARES

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.)

The full proposal is below


Archeofuturist , 6 minutes ago link

Why not just ban all usury? Why stop at 15%?

Would that be considered anti-semitic?

Posa , 6 minutes ago link

Shrewd move from Sanders and AOC.. end usury now!

Silver Willie , 7 minutes ago link

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.

anduka , 14 minutes ago link

The banks own Congress. How is this ever going to pass?

3-fingered_chemist , 13 minutes ago link

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?

beenlauding , 23 minutes ago link

This is an antisemitic attack on usury.

Wait, 15%-scratch that.

elctro static , 31 minutes ago link

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.

Either way, apocalypse is approaching.

[May 09, 2019] Bernie Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez Propose 15% Cap On Credit Card Rates; Visa, MC Tumble

May 09, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Bernie Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez Propose 15% Cap On Credit Card Rates; Visa, MC Tumble

by Tyler Durden Thu, 05/09/2019 - 10:37 3 SHARES

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.

me width=

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.)

The full proposal is below


Archeofuturist , 6 minutes ago link

Why not just ban all usury? Why stop at 15%?

Would that be considered anti-semitic?

Posa , 6 minutes ago link

Shrewd move from Sanders and AOC.. end usury now!

Silver Willie , 7 minutes ago link

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.

anduka , 14 minutes ago link

The banks own Congress. How is this ever going to pass?

3-fingered_chemist , 13 minutes ago link

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?

beenlauding , 23 minutes ago link

This is an antisemitic attack on usury.

Wait, 15%-scratch that.

elctro static , 31 minutes ago link

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.

Either way, apocalypse is approaching.

[May 07, 2