"... How is it that Biden won so many states based on endorsements alone? No field offices, no real money, he barely visited some states, if at all and yet he won. ..."
"... Hillary had tons of endorsements everywhere, a field office in every state and major city, lots of cash, and she didn't win as many. This does not compute. ..."
"... The only difference is Biden is personally more appealing and approachable than Hillary. But still. Something fishy here. I'm wondering how many of those states had audit trails like hand-marked paper ballots and how many did not? ..."
"... The wide discrepancy between exit poll numbers and vote total percentages in some states seems a little fishy, too. Electronic voting machines: progress! (removing my foil bonnet now) ..."
How is it that Biden won so many states based on endorsements alone? No field offices, no
real money, he barely visited some states, if at all and yet he won.
Hillary had tons of
endorsements everywhere, a field office in every state and major city, lots of cash, and she
didn't win as many. This does not compute.
The only difference is Biden is personally more
appealing and approachable than Hillary. But still. Something fishy here. I'm wondering how
many of those states had audit trails like hand-marked paper ballots and how many did
not?
The wide discrepancy between exit poll numbers and vote total percentages in some states
seems a little fishy, too. Electronic voting machines: progress! (removing my foil bonnet
now)
I'll put the foil bonnet on Flora. DCG, the fishy smell is election fraud courtesy of the
DNC. Unless we have paper ballots hand counted in public, I don't buy the miraculous Biden
resurgence narrative from his supposed silent majority. Give me a family blogging break.
I absolutely fail to understand why anyone would consider this idea tin foil. Who do we
think we're dealing with here? These folks are playing to win and they will do anything and
everything in their power to do so. The system is set up perfectly to support psychopaths
Me neither. That fact that the Democrat party has never even tried to address the problems
with election integrity, even when they've had the presidency stolen from them, speaks
volumes.
They allow a phony riot to stop the count in FL, then hardly make a peep when the Supremes
anoint Bush in 2000 in a decision not meant to set precedent, and their response is
the Help America Vote Act which foisted these easily hackable machines on us as a solution?
The only reason you do that is if you want to be able to rig elections yourself.
After the debacle of the Iowa caucus this year and the unheard of swing to Biden this
week, it sure looks like the fix is in.
Please educate me–no seriously!–as to how hand marked paper ballots are so
very different from machine marked paper ballots. If you assume that machine marked
ballots–marked with the candidate's name (written in human readable English) and
securely stored for a potential hand recount–are crooked then aren't you assuming that
the entire election machinery is crooked and not just a vote tabulating machine? After all
long before computers were invented there was that thing called ballot box
stuffing.
Machine marked ballots have a middleman. Said machines 'phone home' to a central server,
which may well be running a program that fractionally 'shifts' votes as needed to edge out a
win for the estab preferred candidate (of either party). The 'red shift' in vote results
after electronic voting has been noted by statisticians.
One interesting coincidence here is that I was going to link to some statisticians' work I
know of, work that was easily available online as late as early January this year. When I
search for the links now they are either gone or the links are warned off as 'suspect'.
Info easily found online. Here's one very recent story's take away:
"Some of the most popular ballot-marking machines, made by industry leaders Election
Systems & Software and Dominion Voting Systems, register votes in bar codes that the
human eye cannot decipher. That's a problem, researchers say: Voters could end up with
printouts that accurately spell out the names of the candidates they picked, but, because of
a hack, the bar codes do not reflect those choices. Because the bar codes are what's
tabulated, voters would never know that their ballots benefited another candidate.
"Even on machines that do not use bar codes, voters may not notice if a hack or
programming error mangled their choices. A University of Michigan study determined that only
7 percent of participants in a mock election notified poll workers when the names on their
printed receipts did not match the candidates they voted for."
In the just past election are there any reports of ballots being printed out that had a
different name than the one the voter selected to be printed? And if that did happen would it
be anything other than accidentally pressing the wrong button? Surely if this "voters didn't
look at the ballot" (which personally I greatly doubt) idea was really the cheating scheme
then it would be highly likely to be exposed.
Re-read the part about the 'computer reads and tabulates the barcode information, not the
english text printout'. A hack or middleman could fiddle the barcode printout/information
(unrecognized by the human eye) , not the text printout.
Also consider that the fiddle works best if it's only a few percentage points different
than expected, one way or the other. People then say of unexpected results, 'oh, it was
really close, but that's how it goes, elections can be unpredictable', and accept the
election results as 'the will of the people.' It's called "electronic fractional vote
shifting". Really. It's called that. Fractional vote shifting.
Right–without a doubt. But the reason it prints that piece of paper is for a later
human audit by eye should a recount be demanded. In that case the barcode would become
irrelevant. There is a paper trail.
That said, I would agree there could be secret ballot concerns about the way I voted. You
feed the ballot into the counter right side up and unfolded with an election "helper"
standing nearby.
One reason both parties prefer 'close elections'. A few points either way won't raise
eyebrows. Won't raise a demand for a recount. (And, like compound interest, a 'few points'
one way or the other in various elections, over time, can add up to large effects in
political direction. imo.)
The problem is getting to the recount. My state does not allow recounts unless the machine
tally is extremely close. So if you want to rig an election, just make sure your candidate
wins by enough and there will never be a recount of those machine counted paper ballots.
I asked city officials for a few years to do recounts just to audit the machines, and was
told it was not allowed under state law unless there was a close enough race – I
believe the threshhold is in the low single digits. My wife later ran for office and lost by
about 1% and I was finally able to get a recount. We counted all the ballots by hand and
while the final outcome didn't change, what we found was that the hand recount tallied about
1-2% more votes than the machines had.
flora is right about the close elections. I find it very odd that in my younger days we
had landslides fairly often and now every presidential election goes right down to the
wire.
OK. This is my experience as a counter in a UK General Election, where hand-marked
ballot-papers are counted in public.
Each voting station has a sealed tin box. Arriving to vote your name is checked against
the electoral role and you are handed a ballot paper. You go into a curtained booth with a
stand-up desk and a pencil in a string and put a X in a box opposite the candidate you vote
for. Outside the booth you fold your ballot paper and post it into the box through a narrow
slot. When the election closes the box is delivered to – in our case – the
town-hall – where the counters sit at tables three to a side with a team-leader at the
head. One of the boxes is brought to each table, unsealed and the contents dumped into the
middle of it. Each counter then snags a pile of marked votes and sorts them into piles as
voted. Any uncertainties – where the vote isn't obvious – is passed up to the
team leader for assessment. When all the votes are tallied – including the
uncertainties – the total is compared with the note from the polling station stating
the number of votes cast there, and if they don't agree the count for that box is done
again.
All this is done under the eyes of representatives of the candidates who are free to move
around the tables at will, and who in particular can watch over the team-leaders dealing with
the uncertain ballot papers, but who are free to challenge any counter's tally.
Ballot boxes could be 'switched' between the voting station and the count, but that would
only work if you knew how many papers were in the box per the count or could also substitute
the tally signed off by the polling-station superintendent. Ballot-box stuffing wouldn't work
as again the votes cast and counted for that box/station would not align.
Could it be gamed? I suppose, but it would take a massive effort and conspiracy –
mostly at the polling-station/transit stage, tho' again the candidates can have observers
there. The whole system is run by the local authority and most of those involved in the
polling-station/count are local authority workers with their own political preferences so
finding enough to suborn to fix the count would be a difficult, and politically dangerous
operation. Even if one polling-station's box was corrupted in some way it would have little
effect on the overall result, and if it stood out as atypical could invite investigation.
So no, it's not perfect, but I can't think of a better way of doing it.
Ps. Each voting paper is numbered and taken from a book leaving a stub with the same
number. So to 'stuff' or otherwise tamper with the voting papers in the box you'd also need
to swap the actual voting paper book with a substitute bearing the same number system and I
think, tho' don't quote me on this, books of ballot papers for the various polling stations
are only issued on election day and at random.
IIRC, in a nut-shell, some of the systems used have a bar code printed on the ballot at
the time they are scanned into the system.
That bar code ' marks ', the ballot, and supposedly communicates the voter's
intentions to the tabulating software that counts the votes.
The rest of the ballot looks proper to the voter, but the voter has no way of telling what
the bar code means.
And from any IT professional's point of view, who cares what the ballot looks like, if the
mark on your ballot, (the one that is counted) was not made by your hand (say, a bar code
printed by a scanner), and/or, if there is a computer used to count the votes, that system is
intended to allow falsification of election results.
Due to the lack of legal action on the part of either of our political parties, to refute
the results of elections stolen by wholesale electronic election fraud, I can only conclude
that election fraud is a wholly acceptable tool in their bi-partisan toolbox?
And yes, you're right, they've always stuffed the ballot box, think of electronic vote
tabulation as the newest twist on an old trick.
The invention of electronic voting was intended to insure that voters can never vote their
way to freedom.
So your argument is that we must have hand counted ballots because the machine marked
version won't work because the recounters would have to hand count the ballots. Just to
repeat, yet again, when I voted a ballot shaped piece of plain paper was printed with my
candidate choice clearly printed along with a bar code, not qr. This then becomes the vote
itself and it can be read by a scanner or by a human. If done by a human then it is utterly
no different than if I had checked a box on a pre printed ballot.
And for all the objections cited by those above there are valid reasons for states to want
such a system. Obviously an all manual system is very labor intensive and also subject to
human error unless double checked by still more labor. You'd also have to print lots of
ballots before every election while not knowing exactly how many will be needed.
If there are suspicions of vote machine companies–and there should be–a more
logical approach might be to insist that all software is open source and that no machines are
connected directly to the internet or have usb ports. Signs in the precincts should advise
voters to check their paper ballot to make sure the correct choice is printed.
As with the Russia collusion hoax and impeachment fiasco, it would be hard to craft a sequence of
events that is turning out worse for Democrats than this year's nominating process.
But further analysis should mortify Democrats of all stripes. In effect, a broad Democrat field has been narrowed to two
of its least appealing candidates, and disillusionment in the party could become permanent.
Biden swept southern states and Texas, most of which will vote Republican this November. Sanders won western states
including California. Among minorities who play a big role in Democrat primaries, Sanders did well with Latinos and Biden
did well with blacks.
That means that the divisions within the Democrat Party aren't just along well-known ideological lines or between age
groups: they also stem from regional and racial fissures in the identity-obsessed, grievance-trafficking party. And it is
impossible to imagine whichever groups and factions lose doing so gracefully.
Then there is the grim reality of the two Democrat semifinalists.
If Biden is their nominee, they will be going to market with a 77-year-old lout, who recently has racked up more gaffes
than any national politician in recent memory, and is who is famous for such oddities as publicly smelling women's hair
uninvited.
Biden has always been a junior varsity player. His 1988 campaign ended after he was caught plagiarizing mediocre
material. His career was all but over when Barack Obama tapped him to be vice president in the 2008 campaign, owing largely
to Obama's lack of foreign policy experience. Biden chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but warranted nothing
more than a participation trophy: Obama's holdover secretary of Defense, Bob Gates, wrote that Biden was wrong on nearly
every major foreign policy issue in his career. He even opposed the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
On This Day
10
seconds
Do You Know What
Happened On This Day?
Mar
7
1876
Alexander Graham Bell is granted a patent for an
invention he calls the "telephone".
Biden dispensed with any notion he would or could play the moderate in the general election this fall in promising to
put Beto O'Rourke, the failed Texas candidate for Senate, in charge of gun control, which O'Rouke has vowed will consist of
forcible confiscation of arms from the law-abiding.
The alternative is Sanders, a 78-year-old socialist who will be 79 before the election, and who survived a heart attack
last year. Sanders's recent reiteration of support for some actions of communist governments like Cuba's wasn't a gaffe; it
was a carefully crafted position.
Aside from Obama, Democrats have won the White House by nominating moderate-seeming administrators. Sanders has refused
even to consider himself a Democrat for much of his career, considering the party to be insufficiently progressive.
Furthermore, the contest between Biden and Sanders won't be resolved anytime soon and could go to the convention unless
one candidate runs the board in states that have yet to vote.
Imagine an outcome in which Biden is the nominee. Supporters of Sanders, who won the most votes in the first two
contests and led national polls until establishment candidates conspired to dethrone him, will be furious. And then Biden
will likely lose to Trump in November.
This would lead to a continuous state within the Democrat Party where progressives believe they are dominated and taken
for granted by a feckless, globalist establishment that cannot win elections. It would be as if Jeb Bush beat Trump for the
GOP nomination in 2016 and then lost to Hillary Clinton.
It would be better for Democrats to nominate Sanders and have him lose to Trump. Neoliberals could say that the
progressives had their chance but lost big, and must henceforth defer to the corporate wing of the party. Progressives
could relish their defeat the same way conservatives did when Barry Goldwater was annihilated in 1964: a moral stand that
might bear fruit in the distant future.
Sanders's Super Tuesday loss to Biden in Minnesota is a particularly bad sign for Democrats this fall. Their only hope
in winning to the White House is to recover rust belt manufacturing states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania that
Trump won. If Sanders's plan for "free" healthcare and radical economic change didn't find an audience even among liberals
in Minnesota, it implies that Democrat efforts to paint the economy as lousy are failing. The Trump economy is evidently
delivering and is easy to contrast with the lost decade of economic malaise that preceded it.
A bright point of the evening was the complete failure of former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg to gain any real
support. Bloomberg poured hundreds of millions of dollars into conventional TV, radio, and digital ads, and the overpaid
consultants who produced them along with lackluster if well-catered events. His failure, like Hillary Clinton's in 2016,
shows the limits of money and digital wizardry.
But the silver lining ends there for Democrats. As with the Russia collusion hoax and impeachment fiasco, it would be
hard to craft a sequence of events that is turning out worse for Democrats than this year's nominating process. It is a
slow-moving disaster that is dividing the party and defaulting to an unappealing gerontocracy that reminds one of how party
leaders were chosen in the final decade of the Soviet Union.
Christian Whiton
,
a senior fellow at the Center for the National Interest, is the author of
Smart
Power: Between Diplomacy and War
. He was a State Department senior advisor during the George W. Bush and Trump
administrations.
So sellout by Clinton of the Democratic Party to Wall Street proved to be durable and
sustainable...
Bernie again behaves like a sheep dog with no intention to win... "Let's be friends" is not a
viable strategy...
Notable quotes:
"... the same character traits that make him an honorable politician also make him fundamentally unsuited for the difficult task of waging a successful outsider campaign for the nomination of a major political party. ..."
"... Why hasn't Sara Nelson, head of the Flight Attendants' Union, endorsed Bernie? (Personally I have always thought she'd be a good VP.) ..."
"... Robinson is dreaming if he thinks Non-Profit Industrial Complex entities like EMILY's List and Planned Parenthood will lift a finger to help Sanders, or busines unionists like Randi Weingarten. To his credit, though, Ady Barkan switched immediately. External support, though is correct: IIRC, there are plenty of union locals to be had; the Culinary Workers should be only the first. ..."
"... "Corporate Lobbyists Control the Rules at the DNC" [ ReadSludge ]. "Among the 447 total voting DNC members, who make up the majority of 771 superdelegates, there are scores of corporate lobbyists and consultants -- including many of the 75 at-large DNC members, who were not individually elected . ..."
"... The 32-member DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee contains the following 20 individuals: a health insurance board member co-chair, three surrogates for presidential campaigns (two for Bloomberg, one for Biden), four current corporate lobbyists, two former corporate lobbyists, six corporate consultants, and four corporate lawyers." ..."
"... "Joe Biden is a friend of mine" is the 2020-updated version of "enough about the damn e-mails, already". No amount of ground-level organizing can make up for a candidate willing to publicly overlook what should be high-office-disqualifying fundamental character traits in his opponents out of "niceness". ..."
"... It's easy to do a post Super Tuesday defeat analysis of Sanders but remember, everything seems to work before SC where I think the Democrats fixed the election and the same holds for Super Tuesday. ..."
Sanders (D)(1): "Bernie Sanders needs to find the killer instinct" [Matthew Walther,
The Week ].
I've heard Useful Idiots, Dead Pundits, and the inimitable Jimmy Dore all make the same point,
but Walther's prose makes the point most forcefully (as prose often does). The situation:
There is no greater contrast imaginable than the one between the popular (and frequently
exaggerated) image of so-called "Bernie bros" and the almost painfully conciliatory instincts
of the man they support.
This was fully in evidence on Wednesday afternoon when Sanders responded to arguably the
worst defeat of his political career by chatting with journalists about how " disgusted "
he is at unspecified online comments directed at Elizabeth Warren and her supporters and what
a " decent
guy " Joe Biden is.
He did this despite the fact that Warren, with the connivance of debate moderators,
recently called him a sexist in front of an audience of millions, effectively announcing that
she had no interest in making even a tacit alliance with the only other progressive candidate
in the race and, one imagines, despite thinking that the former vice president's record on
virtually everything -- finance, health care, race relations, the environment, foreign policy
-- should render him ineligible for office.
It should go without saying that offering these pleasantries will do Sanders few if any
favors.
Lambert here: This is a Presidential primary, not the Senate floor. There is no comity.
Walther then gives a list of possible scorched earth tactics to use against Biden; we could all
make such a list. But then:
Sanders's benevolent disposition does him credit. But the same character traits that
make him an honorable politician also make him fundamentally unsuited for the difficult task
of waging a successful outsider campaign for the nomination of a major political
party.
Corbyn had the same problem...
Sanders really must not let Biden and the Democrat Establishment off the hook. He seems to
have poor judgment about his friends. Warren was no "friend." And neither is Joe Biden.
He should forget those false friends, go into the next debate, and slice Joe Biden off at
the knees. Trump would. And will, if Sander loses.
His canvassers and more importantly his millions of small donors deserve no less. The race
and the debate is now between two people, and only one can emerge the winner. Sanders needs to
decide if he wants to be that person, and then do
what it takes . (If the outcome of the Sanders campaign is a left that is a permanently
institutionalized force, distinct from liberal Democrats, I would regard that as a net
positive. If that is Sanders' ultimate goal, then fine. He's not going to achieve that goal by
being nice to Joe Biden. Quite the reverse.)
UPDATE Sanders (D)(2): "Time To Fight Harder Than We've Ever Fought Before" [Nathan J.
Robinson, Current
Affairs ].
"Biden now has some formidable advantages going forward: Democrats who no longer see him as
a failed or risky bet will finally endorse and campaign for him. He will find it easier to
raise money. He will have "momentum." Bloomberg's exit will bring him new voters.
Sanders may find upcoming states even harder to win than the Super Tuesday contests. But the
one thing that would guarantee a Sanders loss is giving up and going home, which is exactly
what Joe Biden hopes we will now do."
Here follows a laundry list of tactics. Then: "The real thing Bernie needs in order to win,
though, is external support. Labor unions, activists, lawmakers, anyone with a public platform:
We need to be pressuring them to endorse Bernie.
Why hasn't Sara Nelson, head of the Flight Attendants' Union, endorsed Bernie?
(Personally I have always thought she'd be a good VP.)
Now that Elizabeth Warren is clearly not going to win, will organizations like the Working
Families Party and EMILY's List and people like AFT president Randi Weingarten and Medicare For
All advocate Ady Barkan switch and endorse Sanders?
Where is the Sierra Club, SEIU (Bernie, after all, was one of the first national figures to
push Fight for $15), the UAW, Planned Parenthood? Many progressive organizations have been
sitting out the race because Warren was in it."
Good ideas in general, but Robinson is dreaming if he thinks Non-Profit Industrial
Complex entities like EMILY's List and Planned Parenthood will lift a finger to help Sanders,
or busines unionists like Randi Weingarten. To his credit, though, Ady Barkan switched
immediately. External support, though is correct: IIRC, there are plenty of union locals to be
had; the Culinary Workers should be only the first.
Warren (D)(1): "Why Elizabeth Warren lost" [Ryan Cooper, The Week ]. "Starting in
November, however, she started a long decline that continued through January, when she started
losing primaries . So what happened in November?
It is hard to pin down exactly what is happening in such a chaotic race, but Warren's
campaign certainly made a number of strategic errors. One important factor was surely that
Warren started backing away from Medicare-for-all, selling instead a bizarre two-step plan.
The idea supposedly was to pass universal Medicare with two different bills, one in her
first year as president and one in the third year. Given how difficult it is to pass anything
through Congress, and that there could easily be fewer Democrats in 2023 than in 2021, it was a
baffling decision. Worse, Warren then released a plan for financing Medicare-for-all that was
simply terrible.
Rather than levying a new progressive tax, she would turn existing employer contributions to
private health insurance plans into a tax on employers, which would gradually converge to an
average for all businesses but the smallest. The clear objective here was to claim that she
would pay for it without levying any new taxes on the middle or working classes. But because
those employer payments are still part of labor compensation, it is ultimately workers who pay
them -- making Warren's plan a horribly regressive head tax (that is, an equal dollar tax on
almost all workers regardless of income).
All that infuriated the left, and struck directly at Warren's branding as the candidate of
technical competence. It suggested her commitment to universal Medicare was not as strong as
she claimed, and that she would push classic centrist-style Rube Goldberg policies rather than
clean, fair ones. (Her child care plan, with its complicated means-testing system, had a
similar defect).
Claiming her plan was the only one not to raise taxes on the middle class was simply
dishonest. In sum, this was a classic failed straddle that alienated the left but gained no
support among anti-universal health care voters. More speculatively, this kind of hesitation
and backtracking may have turned off many voters." • On #MedicareForAll, called it here on
"pay for" ; and here on "transition." Warren's plans should not have been well-received,
and they were not. I'm only amazed that these really technical arguments penetrated the media
(let along the voters).
Warren (D)(2): "Warren Urged by National Organization for Women Not to Endorse Sanders: He
Has 'Done Next to Nothing for Women'" [
Newsweek ]. • Establishment really pulling out all the stops.
* * *
"Why Southern Democrats Saved Biden" [Mara Gay, New York
Times ]. (Gay was the lone member of the Times Editorial Board to endorse Sanders
.) "Through Southern eyes, this election is not about policy or personality. It's about
something much darker. Not long ago, these Americans lived under violent, anti-democratic
governments. Now, many there say they see in President Trump and his supporters the same
hostility and zeal for authoritarianism that marked life under Jim Crow .
They were deeply skeptical that a democratic socialist like Mr. Sanders could unseat Mr.
Trump. They liked Ms. Warren, but, burned by Hillary Clinton's loss, were worried that too many
of their fellow Americans wouldn't vote for a woman."
Well worth a read. At the same time, it's not clear why the Democrat Establishment hands
control over the nomination to the political establishment in states they will never win in the
general; the "firewall" in 2016 didn't work out all that well, after all. As for Jim Crow, we
might do well to remember that Obama destroyed a generation of Black wealth his miserably
inadequate response to the foreclosure crisis, and his pathetic stimulus package kept Black
unemployment high for years longer than it should have been. And sowed the dragon's teeth of
authoritarian reaction as well.
"Corporate Lobbyists Control the Rules at the DNC" [ ReadSludge
]. "Among the 447 total voting DNC members, who make up the majority of 771 superdelegates,
there are scores of corporate lobbyists and consultants -- including many of the 75 at-large
DNC members, who were not individually elected .
The 32-member DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee contains the following 20 individuals: a
health insurance board member co-chair, three surrogates for presidential campaigns (two for
Bloomberg, one for Biden), four current corporate lobbyists, two former corporate lobbyists,
six corporate consultants, and four corporate lawyers."
"Joe Biden is a friend of mine" is the 2020-updated version of "enough about the damn
e-mails, already". No amount of ground-level organizing can make up for a candidate willing to
publicly overlook what should be high-office-disqualifying fundamental character traits in his
opponents out of "niceness".
That's fine, but if his organization is then put at the disposal of Joe Biden, I don't see
how the organization survives. (That's why the DNC cheating meme* is important; it provides the
moral cover to get out of that loyalty oath (which the Sanders campaign certainly should have
had its lawyers take a look at)).
NOTE * Iowa, Texas, and California have all had major voting screw-ups, all of which
impacted Sanders voters disproportionately. The campaign should sue. They have the money.)
I once met an union organizer and he said he could go back to any site he had worked and be
on friendly terms with everyone. Bernie is thinking like an organizer. I think that making this
about Social Security is his best bet. It demolishes Biden in a way that makes the election
about the American people.
he needs to go after biden on the issues in a much more forceful manner than he typically
does, with lots and lots of specifics. did i mention lots of specifics? and lots of pointed
references to biden's past positions, and a focus on pinning him down on his position now. he
needs to ask questions biden will not be prepared for with easy scripted responses.
Perhaps if Sanders can keep successfully baiting Biden with hooks baited with Biden's own
past statements over and over and over again, that Sanders can then go on to practice some very
well disguised passive-aggressive pointing/not-pointing to Biden's mental condition by asking
Biden at every opportunity: " don't you remember that, Joe? You remember saying that, don't you
Joe? Don't you remember when you said that, Joe?"
Except 70% of Women according to Stanford finding these kind of confrontations distressing
to very distressing. Tricky. One changes emotions by using emotions so the trick here is
"allowing" Biden to act deranged and expressing sorrow over it. For 70% of guys they won't get
the emotional content, but will understand the logic of the questions and lack of answers. It
can be done, Bill Clinton and Obama were very good at this. Look you want to be president you
got to play the game at the highest level. Good practice for dealing with trump.
Timing was right for both Obama and Clinton. After the GFC voters would have gone for any
Democrat because Republicans were toxic. Similarly, it was fortuitous for Clinton because Perot
was running and he quit the race a couple of months before the election.
Obama got loads and loads of money from Wall Street. Neither of these guys would stand a
chance in an election year when the economy was doing well.
It's easy to do a post Super Tuesday defeat analysis of Sanders but remember, everything
seems to work before SC where I think the Democrats fixed the election and the same holds for
Super Tuesday.
I didn't see anyone pointing out that Bernie had to be confrontational when he seems to be
winning.
Wait. How many days ago was the field of candidates wide open?
If Bernard does not roast Biden on Social Security I will be disappointed. If Smokin' Joe
doesn't lash out with his typical aplomb, I'll be disappointed. I'm saving myself up
for bigger disappointments.
I'll be happy with the Vermont interpretation of Huey Long. I'm glad that people are finally
noticing we have one Socialist Senator.
Idea for an 'own the slur' bumper sticker: "I'm tickled pink by Bernie" -- Although I don't
know how the post-dial-up-modem crowd might misinterpret that?
I support Bernie because Bernie supports the polices I think we need to save the country:
M4A, GND,$15/hr min, free college, etc. To me, being an FDR Dem like Bernie is the moderate
position, we've done it before, we know it works. Biden's support of neoliberal polices that
have wrecked America is the extreme position.
But the DNC does not support FDR's Democracy. They have ended up to the right of Ronald
Reagan. Pelosi could have pushed a M4A bill but did not. Pelosi could have pushed any number of
polices to show how Trump is failing the working and middle class, but she did not.
So if Bernie is not picked for the general, I no longer have a reason to support the Dems,
and will stay home. Actually, I will probably not stay home, I will work to get Dems out of
office, and in general, work to burn the party to the ground. Why? Because it is in the way,
and does not support the working class or the middle class.
The Dem party has to decide – do they really support the working and middle class or
not. Because only Bernie supports those polices, and the rest of the Dems running for President
do not.
Democrats who no longer see him as a failed or risky bet will finally endorse and
campaign for him.
One of the themes that also seems to ring through these endorsements is Sanders'
unwillingness to kiss the local rings. Lori Lightfoot, for example, just endorsed Biden. She
had previously complained that when Sanders came to town for a union event he did not consult
with her. see here. Of course she also
criticized Biden for that too: see here.
I have heard the same theme from one of my local house members as well "he never called
me."
The Democrat party is a party of fiefdoms and each small king wants their cut. Or wants
control over their own optics.
The real threats to our democracy are our unaccountable surveillance state and the craven
politicians in Washington, DC.
And, no, Ben, we can't keep our republic because we don't have a sufficient mass of
critical thinkers to run it. If we did, this kind of BS, having been shot full of holes once,
wouldn't get any air.
Ground Owl Eats Fox , February 22, 2020 at 21:49
I don't think the Democrats have been very coordinated, and they (the establishment in
general) is growing more desperate. They're acting less and less rationally.
My hunch is that Sanders is going to be assassinated. Even if a low chance per industry
(5% for MIC; 5% for Wall Street; 5% for Hillary Clinton, etc ) the sheer number of powerful
enemies and tens of trillions of dollars (and power) potentially at stake IMO makes it likely
that this'll happen, whether coordinated or not. I'm guessing before the convention, if his
lead is looking formidable.
He needs to pick a safety VP to make killing him less attractive, and also needs to wear a
vest, ride around in a Popemobile-style vehicle, and have trustworthy chemists and doctors to
check his food and umbrellas and everything else. And lots of documenters with cameras so if
they do kill him in a violent hit maybe they won't get away with it.
how on earth could any entity, foreign or domestic, create any outcome in our burlesque
electoral process that's worse than any other? the parties are two arguing heads on the
same rapacious beast. or in the case of the primaries, a multi-headed beast.
the political circus can be likened to condi rice's concept of "constructive chaos" in the
middle east. instead of nonfunctional endless war to render malleable a target for
exploitation, we have endless functionless nitpicking blather to render popular leadership
impossible.
Yes, the results from American Samoa are in, first to report 100% on
Super Tuesday, and Tulsi is on the board, with over 20% of the vote, in second place behind
(surprise) Michael Bloomberg, who also earns his first delegates tonight. Biden, Sanders and
Warren didn't hit the 15% viability threshold and are shut out.
Now, if the DNC sticks to the same criteria for the upcoming debate as they had for the last
three, one delegate should be sufficient for Tulsi to return to the debate stage. Of course,
they've been known to change the rules in the middle of the game before, but this time it looks
like they won't have the excuse of too many candidates, particularly if Liz drops out if she
can't win her home state.
like many of the Pacific islands, the vast majority of the population is Christian, and like
many Pacific Islands the population revere their Chiefs and religious leaders. The American
Samoan Chief endorsed Bloomberg. Why he did is a partly explained in the following article from
The Hill ... Climate change is a very immediate and tangible experience for pacific
Islanders.
"I believe in Mike's message of change for the people of American Samoa -- he has the
experience and the vision to bring about the change we need -- including staving off climate
change, which will be devastating to our home. He has my family's vote, and my village," the
chief said, according to a campaign release.
I haven't seen Bloomberg's ads there, but I can imagine he promised to help them in that
regard.
She needed and more than deserved at least a delegate for her self-sacrificing, steadfast
courage and honesty throughout this crooked campaign season. From the preponderance of
Bloomberg votes, it looks like American Samoans haven't been paying close attention, but
thankfully some of them could see past sophisticated advertisements to recognize one who is
truly their own.
"... Nothing changed about Biden's sketchy past, e.g. war enabler, bigot and bank henchman, and his questionable competency to serve as president, but these politicians of great self-esteem are now instructing us to vote for a most flawed candidate. ..."
"... If Biden gets the nomination, it will be a pyrrhic victory. Trump will eat him alive. ..."
"... Biden is Obama 2.0 lite, and no one likes Obama anymore except for the Dem party faithful. We saw the Dems do this over and over again in Massachusetts with Martha Coakley. Hey, how about Coakley as Biden's running mate? ..."
The gang of would-be presidential candidates ran because each perceived that Biden was not the
best person to run for the office or to govern. Having all dropped out, including Bloomberg,
excepting Warren, as of today, they all have endorsed Biden, completely verifying our
essayist's hypothesis that meritocracy is dead in politics. Nothing changed about Biden's
sketchy past, e.g. war enabler, bigot and bank henchman, and his questionable competency to
serve as president, but these politicians of great self-esteem are now instructing us to vote
for a most flawed candidate.
If Biden gets the nomination, it will be a pyrrhic victory. Trump will eat him alive. Any of
us could write the script to defeat Biden. Biden is Obama 2.0 lite, and no one likes Obama
anymore except for the Dem party faithful. We saw the Dems do this over and over again in
Massachusetts with Martha Coakley. Hey, how about Coakley as Biden's running mate?
"I will note this, she's from Hawaii," King said of Gabbard.
"She's a congresswoman from Hawaii; American Samoa votes on Super Tuesday. The rules as
they now stand, if you get a delegate, you're back in the debates. As of now. Correct? "
"Yeah, they haven't, I mean, that's been the rule for every single debate," Thompson
replied.
"And the DNC has not released their official guidance for the March 15 debate in Phoenix,
but it would be very obvious that they are trying to cancel Tulsi, who they're scared of a
third party run, if they then change the rules to prevent her to rejoin the debate
stage."
And indeed, as the smoke clears from the Super Tuesday frenzy, this is precisely what
appears to have transpired.
"The Gabbard campaign said it was informed that it would net two delegates from the
caucuses in American Samoa, which will allocate a total of six pledged delegates," The Hill
reports today. "However, a report from CNN said that the candidate will receive only one
delegate from the territory on Tuesday evening."
"Tulsi Gabbard may have just qualified for the next Democratic debate thanks to American
Samoa," reads a fresh Business Insider
headline. "Under the most recent rules, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii may have qualified for
the next televised debate by snagging a delegate in American Samoa's primary."
"If Tulsi Gabbard gets a delegate out of American Samoa, as it appears she has done, she
will likely qualify for the next Democratic debate," tweeted Washington Post
's Dave Weigel. "We don't have new debate rules yet, but party has been inviting any
candidate who gets a delegate."
Rank-and-file supporters of the Hawaii congresswoman enjoyed a brief celebration on social
media, before having their hopes dashed minutes later by an announcement from the DNC's
Communications Director Xochitl Hinojosa that "the threshold will go up".
"We have two more debates -- of course the threshold will go up," tweeted Hinojosa
literally minutes after Gabbard was awarded the delegate. "By the time we have the March
debate, almost 2,000 delegates will be allocated. The threshold will reflect where we are in
the race, as it always has."
We have two more debates-- of course the threshold will go up. By the time we have the
March debate, almost 2,000 delegates will be allocated. The threshold will reflect where we
are in the race, as it always has.
-- Xochitl Hinojosa (@XochitlHinojosa) March 4,
2020
"DNC wastes no time in announcing they will rig the next debates to exclude Tulsi,"
journalist Michael Tracey tweeted in response.
This outcome surprised nobody, least of all Gabbard supporters. The blackout on the Tulsi
2020 campaign has reached such extreme heights this year that you now routinely see pundits
saying things like there are no more people of
color in the race, or that Elizabeth Warren is the only
woman remaining in the primary. They're not just ignoring her, they're actually erasing
her. They're weaving a whole alternative reality out of narrative in which she is literally,
officially, no longer in the race.
After Gabbard announced her presidential candidacy in January of last year I
wrote an article explaining that I was excited about her campaign because she would
severely disrupt establishment narratives, and, for the remainder of 2019, that's exactly what
she did. She spoke unauthorized truths about Syria, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, she drew
attention to the plight of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden and said she'd drop all charges
against both men if elected, she destroyed the hawkish, jingoistic positions of fellow
candidates on the debate stage and arguably single-handedly destroyed Kamala Harris' run.
The narrative managers had their hands full with her. The Russia smears were relentless, the
fact that she met with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad was brought up at every possible
opportunity in every debate and interview, and she was scoffed at and derided at every
turn.
Now, in 2020, none of that is happening. There's a near-total media blackout on the Gabbard
campaign, such that I now routinely encounter rank-and-file liberals on social media who tell
me they honestly had no idea she's still running. She's been completely redacted out of the
narrative matrix.
All candidates of color are out. An openly gay married candidate is out. 2 women left. The
rest? 70+ old white men fighting for the future of America in 2020. Because of course.
So it's unsurprising that the DNC felt comfortable striding forward and openly announcing a
change in the debate threshold literally the very moment Gabbard crossed it. These people
understand narrative control, and they know full well that they have secured enough of it on
the Tulsi Problem that they'll be able to brazenly rig her right off the stage without
suffering any meaningful consequences.
The establishment narrative warfare against Gabbard's campaign dwarfs anything we've seen
against Sanders, and the loathing and dismissal they've been able to generate have severely
hamstrung her run. It turns out that a presidential candidate can get away with talking about
economic justice and plutocracy when it comes to domestic policy, and some light dissent on
matters of foreign policy will be tolerated, but aggressively attacking the heart of the actual
bipartisan foreign policy consensus will get you shut down, smeared and shunned like nothing
else. This is partly because US presidents have a lot more authority over foreign affairs than
domestic, and it's also because endless war is the glue which holds the empire together.
And now they're working to
install a corrupt, right-wing warmongering dementia patient as the party's nominee. And
from the looks of the numbers I've seen from Super Tuesday so far, it looks entirely likely
that those manipulations will prove successful.
All this means is that the machine is exposing its mechanics to the view of the mainstream
public. Both the Gabbard campaign and the Sanders campaign have been useful primarily in this
way; not because the establishment would ever let them actually become president, but because
they force the unelected manipulators who really run things in the most powerful government on
earth to show the public their box of dirty tricks.
"... The arrogance of the Democratic party has been on full display this time around with their in your face cheating and voter suppression. Even if the Russians were "interfering" enough in 2016 to make a difference, which I seriously doubt, they could not have done as much damage to the integrity of our system of elections as the Democratic party has done. ..."
"... I know one thing, I have come to hate Elizabeth Warren almost as much as the Democratic party itself. I hope she is happy with selling her soul to potentially garner a spot on a losing ticket with a racist has-been who cannot even remember Obama's name, what state he is in or even the position he is running for, all of which have happened. Trump will have a field day with a Biden/Warren ticket. ..."
That is all I can say about how the Democratic party has run the primaries. We are so screwed
and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it. The establishment simply does not care about
the people. The arrogance of the Democratic party has been on full display this time
around with their in your face cheating and voter suppression. Even if the Russians were
"interfering" enough in 2016 to make a difference, which I seriously doubt, they could not
have done as much damage to the integrity of our system of elections as the Democratic party
has done.
I have avoided posting much this primary season because I have become too cynical to add
anything of value to these posts. I know one thing, I have come to hate Elizabeth Warren
almost as much as the Democratic party itself. I hope she is happy with selling her soul to
potentially garner a spot on a losing ticket with a racist has-been who cannot even remember
Obama's name, what state he is in or even the position he is running for, all of which have
happened. Trump will have a field day with a Biden/Warren ticket.
First, Warren. Wikipedia is showing her with 53 delegates this morning, up from 8
yesterday. So she won roughly 45 out of 1300+, or under 4% versus the roughly 5% she had won
from the first 4 contests. As a campaign in decline that's almost exactly as expected.
Second, Bloomberg. Words can express how satisfied I am that he's out. Wikipedia shows him
with 50 delegates, including a win in American Samoa (well done, Sir!). Both the self-funded
billionaire vanity runs crashed and burned. However corrupt the system is (and it is), it
isn't outright for sale to the highest bidder. There are procedures that need to be
followed.
Now there's Uncle Joe. He was leading in polls for the last year and only fell short in
January and February due to legitimate concerns about his electability. With those concerns
temporarily removed because of the solid (and expected) win in SC together with the DINO
Establishment throwing everything they had behind him let people overlook his diminished
faculties and vote for the man he used to be.
A quick side note: Sanders fills venues with 10,000+ supporters. Biden can't fill a
restaurant. That doesn't tell us much about overall support, it tells us something about
support by age group. Young people go to big events. Old folks stay home and watch TV. But
old people show up to vote.
Sanders fell apart with the 65+ voters, getting under 10%. This is a big voting block and
you can't just write it off. I don't know what, if anything, can be done about it at this
point. He won young voters, but didn't get the huge turnout he needed to compensate.
Going forward it's clearly a Sanders/Biden race. Is it possible that they can avoid Biden
speaking in public for the rest of the race? I'm afraid that Sanders will avoid hitting Biden
with concerns about his declining mental state and stick to policy as he is inclined to do.
There's plenty there to address, and maybe Biden will make the case on his own in the
meantime.
Much of the Southern Primary happened yesterday. There's still Florida and Georgia, both
with a lot of delegates, and I would be surprised if Biden doesn't win them. The rest of the
map is more competitive.
A plurality at the convention is the most Sanders can hope for at this point. We all know
how that one comes out.
What you describe is probably why Russiagate spread so easily to so many people. Nothing
happened in previous elections? Everything you describe never happened as you point out. The
American electoral system was and is pristine and virginal. Until the Russians came and
destroyed American democracy through social media themes, memes, and retweets. The American
electoral system was never brutally corrupted by rigged votes, voter suppression on the scale
of hundreds of thousands, deliberately miscounted votes, voter fraud, etc. Americans never
did to each other anything as bad as what the Russians did to Americans.
Of course, for me never worked as I worked in primaries of a democratic machine dominated
city. I tried to sorta warm people on other sites that while they were looking for Russians
at the front door, the gop was coming in the bad door for some rather nasty election
interference.
Of course what we are seeing now is democrats cheating other democrats. But that reality
will never be acknowledged because, hey, it never happened before. Just unintentional
mistakes like in Iowa (farm folk cheating--no way) or Brooklyn.
What you describe is probably why Russiagate spread so easily to so many people.
Nothing happened in previous elections? Everything you describe never happened as you
point out. The American electoral system was and is pristine and virginal. Until the
Russians came and destroyed American democracy through social media themes, memes, and
retweets. The American electoral system was never brutally corrupted by rigged votes,
voter suppression on the scale of hundreds of thousands, deliberately miscounted votes,
voter fraud, etc. Americans never did to each other anything as bad as what the Russians
did to Americans.
Of course, for me never worked as I worked in primaries of a democratic machine
dominated city. I tried to sorta warm people on other sites that while they were looking
for Russians at the front door, the gop was coming in the bad door for some rather nasty
election interference.
Of course what we are seeing now is democrats cheating other democrats. But that
reality will never be acknowledged because, hey, it never happened before. Just
unintentional mistakes like in Iowa (farm folk cheating--no way) or Brooklyn.
Instead of that $600 million+ he spent, Bloomberg could have wired just $100k to a
Russian troll farm & rode their juvenile social media posts all the way to the White
House. (This is the actual logic of the establishment narrative since 2016: https://t.co/VTZTPFyT3m ) pic.twitter.com/QJTPdBl9hC
I'm more inclined regarding yesterday's results to look to the voters for fault, even with
a heavy hand played by the establishment. And I don't see the latter effort so much corrupt
as SOP for political parties, although this time the thumb on the scales worked to a
remarkable degree and not necessarily for the betterment of the party long term. In previous
cycles, e.g. the GOP elite trying to stop Trump in their 2016 primaries, it didn't work at
all.
Yes, there was voter suppression -- intentional by the GOP in TX, probably accidental in
CA with the very long lines to vote in SoCal with new voting machines and yet another attempt
at high-teching what should be a low-tech, pencil-and-paper voting process. But of the voters
on Election Day who managed to cast a ballot, it was clear in most places which side they
picked.
Yes too, there was information suppression and distortion in the several traditional cable
and print outlets, which clearly favored Joe and despised Bernie. But this is the Information
Age, and for all but the destitute, there is available this thing called the Internet. It's
up to voters in a democracy to inform themselves; that is their responsibility to achieve
good governance. Sadly, most are too lazy or not that interested to bother, and settle for
what's fed to them on teevee.
In American elections, the best person and candidate with the most meritorious ideas
doesn't always prevail. That isn't always because of a corrupted system. Politics often
rewards the snakes because that's the nature of the messy beast.
Cant Stop the M... on Wed,
03/04/2020 - 8:28am We base our entire politics on the idea that we're living in a
meritocracy. In other words, like the knights of old at a joust, we find out who is best
through competition, a competition assumed to be both fair and honest. In the old days, the
joust was assumed to be fair and honest because God was both omnipotent and just and therefore,
obviously, would not allow a bad man to win. Nowadays, even most of us who believe in God don't
believe that God controls the outcome of competitions in that way. Yet the assumption of a fair
and honest competition persists, despite blatant evidence to the contrary.
In the case of U.S. elections, it is assumed, not that the will of God controls the outcome
of competitions, but that the will of the people does. Voter suppression and election fraud are
hand-waved away on the dubious grounds that any candidate strong enough could overcome such
things. Or maybe the people are to blame. The supporters of the defeated candidate must not
have worked hard enough, or maybe the people generally are to blame for not voting in large
enough numbers. Those who challenge any of these assumptions are defeated, either by
institutional inertia or by gaslighting.
Nothing happens, so nothing happened
Here's what I mean by institutional inertia.
In 2000, there was ample evidence that George W. Bush had committed fraud in the
presidential election, with the help of his brother, the governor of Florida. In 2004, there
was ample evidence that George W. Bush had committed fraud once again, famously in Ohio, and
less famously in Florida for a second time. However, in the first case, Gore stopped fighting
after an obviously partisan and corrupt Supreme Court decision, and not a single member of the
U.S. Senate was willing to help the Congressional Black Caucus challenge the election. In the
second case, Kerry refused to challenge the election in Congress, and the legal case he brought
about election fraud, after the fact, did not even make it to the Supreme Court.
In 2016, when New Yorkers brought a case that there had been election fraud and voter
suppression in the Democratic primaries, the case was thrown out on the grounds that each
county in New York had to file such cases separately, and, by then, the election would be over.
Pleas to delay the vote count, or to delay declaring a winner, until the voting rights of the
people could be secured, were brushed aside. Much later, when a civil lawsuit was brought
against the DNC, the case was once again thrown out for lack of standing, but not before the
DNC lawyers had defended their client on the grounds that the DNC didn't have to provide a fair
competition, or any competition at all, really, and certainly didn't have to care what the
people thought.
The effect of this institutional inertia is not simply that cheaters win the day, or that
the people, whose will is being suppressed, lose morale and give up. The complaint itself
begins to fade from people's minds. People begin to make excuses for what happened, to justify
it, to act as if there never were cheating to begin with. Even many of those who dissent find
that, over time, the injustice they remember mellows: no less a person than Jimmy Dore, hardly
a weak-minded hack for the establishment, talks now about Gore's "loss" in 2000 as an evil
caused by the electoral college. While the electoral college is obviously a tool for elites to
control American politics (and never has that been so obvious as over the past two election
cycles), such a narrative ignores and erases the police checkpoints that were set up in 2000
near predominantly African American polling places in Leon county, Florida. It ignores the
Republican Speaker of the House, Tom DeLay, sending Republican staffers to Dade County to break
up Miami's vote count by marching into the Supervisor of Elections office and screaming at the
top of their lungs so that no accurate count could take place. It ignores and erases the
digital Jim Crow that purged the voter lists of African American Democrats by claiming,
falsely, that they were felons. It ignores the fact that emails between the State of Florida
and the company that created the Jim Crow software revealed that the company had warned that
their software would draw too many false positives, and that the State of Florida had replied
"That's just what we want."
Similarly, the DNC's perfidy in 2016 has been reduced to the following: 1) that they had
pre-selected their candidate, and didn't provide a real or fair competition, 2) that they gave
debate questions ahead of time to Hillary Clinton, 3)that they used the electoral college, most
particularly superdelegates, to overwhelm the Sanders movement, and that 4) the party primaries
were often closed, not allowing independents the right to vote. Left out, or forgotten, are the
multiple polling places closed in states from Arizona to New York (in New York, sometimes even
the open polling places had no staff or broken machines), the media calling California for
Clinton before the votes were counted, the 136,000 voters purged off Brooklyn's voter rolls (no
doubt because Bernie Sanders was born and grew up in Brooklyn and that might have given him an
advantage there), and the much larger multi-state purge of the Democratic party through
changing people's voter registration without their knowledge and consent.
I'm not bringing this up to attack Jimmy Dore, who is one of the most reliable truth-tellers
in the media today, but rather to point out what people's minds do under the stress of watching
the establishment normalize corruption again and again. If there is no power to challenge
institutional corruption, most people, over time, make of the corruption something less unjust
and outrageous. Simply smothering objections to injustice with institutional inertia, will,
over time, allow the victors to erase the evidence of their crime.
Sore Loserman
Since we believe, with the faith of fanatics, that competition must be honest and fair, it's
easy to gaslight the losers (or the apparent losers). The Republicans in 2000 did not need to
disprove the fact that George W. Bush had committed fraud and contravened the will of the
people when he climbed up a staircase of disenfranchised Black faces to become President. All
the Republicans needed to do was issue tens of thousands of bumper stickers that replaced the
words "Gore/Lieberman" with "Sore Loserman." The RNC was using the same argument that was
bruited about in the 1980s about poverty and employment. Unemployed poor people had lost the
economic competition. Therefore, there must be something wrong with them. Maybe they weren't
educated enough, smart enough, clean enough, hard-working enough; maybe they were people of bad
character. Bloomberg's racial profiling worked much the same way. Black people are losers in
the judicial game because they commit more crimes. That's why we put more police in their
neighborhoods, because there are more criminals among young Black men than anywhere else.
Corruption can't bring down a meritorious man. If you're good, you'll win. If you complain
about cheating or any other form of injustice, you must be a Sore Loserman, attempting to cover
up your own inadequacies by whining.
It's pretty obvious that this way of thinking makes it literally impossible to stop even the
most outrageous injustice, as long as the perpetrators of that injustice have enough power to
spread their "Sore Loser" messaging far and wide. So if I commit identity theft today and
access one of your bank accounts, I can be brought to account. But if Wall St cheats
homeowners, there was probably something wrong with the homeowners, or with the government for
suggesting that those homeowners should get loans. If George W. Bush cheats in an election,
there was probably something wrong with the other candidate, or with the voters.
People tend to get upset when I bring this up, because they think that talking about the
corruption of the system will demoralize voters, making such discussions their own form of
voter suppression. But I bring this up because the worst damage that can come out of Bernie
Sanders losing contests in a highly compromised electoral process is that the idea of
meritocracy be preserved. There are valid reasons for voting even in a corrupted system (of the
"make 'em sweat" variety). There are valid reasons for not voting in a corrupted system. But
whatever a citizen chooses to do on Election Day, the idea of meritocracy must die.
Despite all the truly horrendous policies, from both the Democrats and the Republicans, that
have laid our society, our people, and the world to waste, the most poisonous effect of the
tyranny we live under is its fraudulence: its pretense of being a fair, accurate, and
reasonable expression of the will of the people. Even the Democrats' attacks on Trump, who is
supposed to be a Manchurian candidate placed in office by Russian intelligence operatives and
an existential threat to our democracy, have, in the past two years, increasingly focused on
the people who support Trump. It's the voters fault for supporting the bad man. So even when we
are supposedly in a situation of foreign powers changing the outcome of a presidential
election, it's still the people's fault. Why? Well, there was a competition, and somebody won,
so the person who won must be there by the will of the people. It has to be the
people's fault.
Corruption among the powerful isn't a thing.
System-wide corruption in all the various infrastructures of our country, especially the
political ones, isn't a thing.
Or, if it is, you just didn't do enough lifting at the political gym to be able to fend it
off.
I just can't be sympathetic with Bernie and his voters tonight. Remember how Bernie came out
to support Tulsi Gabbard when she was having such a hard time with the establishment? Neither
do I. Remember how Bernie's supporters made sure Bernie would speak the truth about
russiagate, or they weren't going to support him? Neither do I. Remember how Bernie made it
clear in every debate and every interview that the choice is endless war or medicare for all?
He didn't. Watching someone with a few leftist atoms in him being defeated in State after
State by a warmongering sociopath who belongs in a hospice with bars on the windows, is like
watching what he deserves.
People who casually tell you that Bernie is for the Empire--and not for the repair of
society-- are people trafficking in lies.
I encourage everyone to look at Bernie with a critical eye and decide for yourself.
Bernie has a history of deference to the Democratic Party and Democratic Party leaders.
All of whom are 100% pro-Empire.
'Nice guy' Bernie doesn't do anything that threatens the establishment. HE promises
revolutionary change - but that has NEVER come just from establishment Parties via the
ballot box. It has come from independent Movements.
When Bernie talks about Empire matters, he generally obfuscates or reinforces
pro-Empire narratives (like Russiagate's McCarthyism).
Anyone in political life for any length of time (like Bernie) must know that USA
is EMPIRE-FIRST. Empire priorities (military and intelligence focus; 'weaponized' liberalism;
neoliberal graft; dollar hegemony; Jihadis as a proxy army; etc.) dictate the limits of
domestic politics.
Bernie's quixotic insurgency was doomed to fail unless Bernie attacked the Democratic
Party's connection to Empire and use of identity politics to divide and conquer. Oh, and
Bernie would have to threaten to leave the Democratic Party -- but then would become the
independent Movement that Bernie and the Democratic Party have tried so hard to prevent!
In a remarkable statement that has gone virtually unreported in the American media,
Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination,
publicly denounced US intelligence agencies for interfering in the presidential contest and
attempting to sabotage the campaign of Democratic frontrunner Bernie Sanders.
In an opinion column published February 27 by the Hill , Gabbard attacked the
article published by the Washington Post on February 21, the eve of the Nevada
caucuses, which claimed that Russia was intervening in the US election to support Sanders. She
also criticized the decision of billionaire Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York
City, to repeat the anti-Russia slander against Sanders during the February 25 Democratic
presidential debate in South Carolina.
Gabbard is a military officer in a National Guard medical unit who has been deployed to Iraq
and Kuwait and has continuing and close contact with the Pentagon. She is obviously familiar
with the machinations of the US military-intelligence apparatus and knows whereof she speaks.
Her harsh and uncompromising language is that much more significant.
She wrote:
Enough is enough. I am calling on all presidential candidates to stop playing these
dangerous political games and immediately condemn any interference in our elections by
out-of-control intelligence agencies. A "news article" published last week in the
Washington Post, which set off yet another manufactured media firestorm, alleges
that the goal of Russia is to trick people into criticizing establishment Democrats. This is
a laughably obvious ploy to stifle legitimate criticism and cast aspersions on Americans who
are rightly skeptical of the powerful forces exerting control over the primary election
process.
We are told the aim of Russia is to "sow division," but the aim of corporate media and
self-serving politicians pushing this narrative is clearly to sow division of their own -- by
generating baseless suspicion against the Sanders campaign. It's extremely disingenuous for
"journalists" and rival candidates to publicize a news article that merely asserts, without
presenting any evidence, that Russia is "helping" Bernie Sanders -- but provides no
information as to what that "help" allegedly consists of.
Gabbard continued:
If the CIA, FBI or any other intelligence agency is going to tell voters that "Russians"
are interfering in this election to help certain candidates -- or simply "sow discord" --
then it needs to immediately provide us with the details of what exactly it's alleging.
After pointing out that the Democratic Party establishment and the corporate media have had
little interest in measures to actually improve election security, such as requiring paper
ballots or some other form of permanent record of how people vote, Gabbard demanded:
The FBI, CIA or any other intelligence agency should immediately stop smearing
presidential candidates with innuendo and vague, evidence-free assertions. That is
antithetical to the role those agencies play in a free democracy. The American people cannot
have faith in our intelligence agencies if they are pushing an agenda to harm candidates they
dislike.
As socialists, we do not share Gabbard's belief that the intelligence agencies have a
positive role to play or that the American people need to have faith in them. As her military
career demonstrates, she is a supporter of American imperialism and of the capitalist state.
However, her opposition to the "dirty tricks" campaign against Sanders is entirely legitimate
and puts the spotlight on a deeply anti-democratic operation by the military-intelligence
apparatus.
Gabbard denounces this "new McCarthyism" and calls on her fellow candidate to rebuff the CIA
smears and "defend the freedoms enshrined in our Constitution." Not a single one of the
remaining candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination -- including Sanders himself --
has responded to her appeal.
Her statement concludes that the goal of the "mainstream corporate media and the
warmongering political establishment" was either to block Sanders from winning the nomination,
or, if he does become the nominee, to "force him to engage in inflammatory anti-Russia rhetoric
and perpetuate the new Cold War and nuclear arms race, which are existential threats to our
country and the world."
Despite Gabbard's appeal for the Democratic candidates not to be "manipulated and forced
into a corner by overreaching intelligence agencies," the Democratic Party establishment has
been working in lockstep with the intelligence agencies in the anti-Russia campaign against
Trump, which began even before election day in 2016, metastasized into the Mueller
investigation and then the effort to impeach Trump over his delay in the dispatch of military
aid to Ukraine for its war with Russian-backed separatist forces.
Her comments are a complete vindication of what the World Socialist Web Site has
written about the anti-Russia campaign and impeachment: these were efforts by the Democratic
Party, acting as the representative of the military-intelligence apparatus, to block the
emergence of genuine left-wing popular opposition to Trump, and to channel popular hostility to
this administration in a right-wing and pro-imperialist direction.
Gabbard herself was the only House Democrat to abstain on impeachment, although she did not
voice any principled grounds for her vote, such as opposition to the intelligence agencies. She
has based her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination largely on an appeal to
antiwar sentiment, particularly opposing US intervention in Syria. She has also said that if
elected, she would drop all charges against Julian Assange and pardon Edward Snowden.
These views led to a vicious attack by Hillary Clinton, the defeated Democratic presidential
candidate in 2016, who last October called Gabbard "a Russian asset," claiming that she was
being groomed by Russia to serve as a third-party candidate in 2020 who would take votes away
from the Democratic nominee and help re-elect President Trump. "She's the favorite of the
Russians," Clinton claimed.
Since Clinton's attack, the Democratic National Committee has excluded Gabbard from its
monthly debates, manipulating the eligibility requirements so that billionaire Michael
Bloomberg would qualify even for debates held in states where he was not on the ballot but
Gabbard was, such as Nevada and South Carolina.
"... Biden and Warren are both enthusiastic supporters of neocon foreign policy which is in line with their phony support for the working class. What happened to Warren's glittering M4A plan? It turned back into a pumpkin didn't it? It was all smoke and mirrors. No surprise if you know her history. ..."
"... Imperial Borg Assimilation ..."
"... The Foreign Policy Establishment ..."
"... Warren is an establishment social climber. She took off the mask and her true colors shone through when she viciously attacked Bernie Sanders as a misogynist. Yet still many people surrounding the Sander's campaign support Warren. Why is that? Big money on the left supports her, that's why. That big money also pays a lot of salaries in the liberal political job market. Have you heard of the The Democracy Alliance ? ..."
"... Why do so many liberals or even progressives dislike Tulsi and are so eager to see her gone? Propaganda from the media. The media for a year has relentlessly promoted Red Baiting towards Tulsi because Tulsi challenges the "Washington Consensus" (unfettered elite rule over America and the world with an iron fist). ..."
"... Everyone in the pro-Israel lobby (myself included) is already talking about how to make sure that Tulsi Gabbard's campaign is over before it even gets off the ground -- If you're going to bet on a Dem candidate, look elsewhere. ..."
"... There are many reasons behind that. The main reason though is Tulsi trying to stop war. The Neocons and Saudis have been pushing American politicians, celebrities, media owners, think tanks, foundations and so on for years -- to destroy Syria. Supposedly because Syria is close allies with Iran. ..."
As I was checking the news earlier today
I noticed that the coronavirus had killed another top government official in Iran, bringing the total to 3. Or at
least the 3 they have released info on. There's a chance it's worse among the Iranian leadership but they don't
want to cause a panic. I checked the Twitterverse after that for my daily dose of madness and surprisingly kept
seeing people ask rhetorically:
Why is Tulsi Gabbard still in the
primary race?
Turns out that Amy "She Hulk" Klobuchar
had dropped out of the primary race apparently to suck up to Joe Biden for a VP slot. And so had Pete "Honestly
I'm Not Annoying" Buttigigieididisjjd. This of course should surprise no one since the threat of Bernie Sanders to
the financial criminal syndicates greasing the palms of practically all politicians and media to do their bidding
have seen the writing on the wall. They realize they need candidates to drop out in order to coalesce centrist
votes around one or two to stop what they perceive to be a huge problem for them in Bernie Sanders.
... ... ...
Biden and Warren are both enthusiastic
supporters of neocon foreign policy which is in line with their phony support for the working class. What happened
to Warren's glittering M4A plan? It turned back into a pumpkin didn't it? It was all smoke and mirrors. No
surprise if you know her history.
Did you see her on Pod Save America regaling us with how much she believes in
crippling countries by sanctions if they dare to resist the racist
Imperial Borg Assimilation
Machine
aka
The Foreign Policy Establishment
?
That doesn't sound woke to me Miss Thang
.
Warren is an establishment social
climber. She took off the mask and her true colors shone through when she viciously attacked Bernie Sanders as a
misogynist. Yet still many people surrounding the Sander's campaign support Warren. Why is that? Big money on the
left supports her, that's why. That big money also pays a lot of salaries in the liberal political job market.
Have you heard of the
The Democracy Alliance
?
The Democracy Alliance is a
semi-anonymous donor network funded primarily by none other than Democratic mega-donor George Soros. Since its
inception in 2005, it is estimated the Alliance has injected over $500 million to Democratic causes. While it
isn't typical that they would endorse a candidate outright, they focus more on formulating a catalog of
organizations and PACs that they recommend the network of about 100 or so millionaires and billionaires invest
in. Democracy Alliance almost literally have their hands in every major left-leaning institution you have (and
haven't) heard of -- John Podesta and Neera Tanden's Center for American Progress, David Brock's Media Matters,
Center for Popular Democracy, Demos (we'll come back to this one), and the Working Families Party. All of these
organizations are listed on the Alliance's website as recommended investments for it's members; and invest they
do. Here's the rub: Democracy Alliance's membership isn't made entirely public -- but we know enough that alot
of the people that have sat in the highest levels of that organization have an affinity for Elizabeth Warren.
... ... ...
Why do so many liberals or even
progressives dislike Tulsi and are so eager to see her gone? Propaganda from the media. The media for a year has
relentlessly promoted Red Baiting towards Tulsi because Tulsi challenges the "Washington Consensus" (unfettered
elite rule over America and the world with an iron fist).
That is why we got this from Jacob Wohl
after Tulsi declared her candidacy last year:
Everyone in the pro-Israel lobby
(myself included) is already talking about how to make sure that Tulsi Gabbard's campaign is over before it
even gets off the ground -- If you're going to bet on a Dem candidate, look elsewhere.
There are many reasons behind that. The
main reason though is Tulsi trying to stop war. The Neocons and Saudis have been pushing American politicians,
celebrities, media owners, think tanks, foundations and so on for years -- to destroy Syria. Supposedly because
Syria is close allies with Iran.
But they are not the only ones who want
Syria destroyed. Other reasons may have to do with massive profits at stake. A natural gas survey team from Norway
some years ago discovered that Syria has the largest
untapped deposits of natural gas in the world
. After that secret discovery became known by various powerful
people
plans were drawn up to split
up the profits after the destruction of the Syrian government. But after Syria
asked Russia for help that changed their plans.
She is not having our country
become a plaything for rich a-holes who use the lives and limbs of service members for their greedy
scams. Because of that the idle rich sociopaths ruling America with their political and media henchmen
went after Tulsi with a full barrage of lies
, media blackouts, and massive amounts of propaganda --
all to stop her message from getting out so they can create a false image of her in people's minds.
Everything and anything they can throw at her, they do.
There are two politicians whom
they fear. Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. Which is why Bernie Sanders has unsurprisingly been trying
to stay out of the foreign policy debate, or he even goes along with the establishment for the most part.
He saw what they unleashed against Tulsi. He knows from long experience that propaganda works on a lot of
people. The financial elites are not naive though, they probably believe he is going along with their
ridiculous foreign policy as a political strategy -- until he gains more power. They fear that if he gains
that power he will, like Tulsi, not go along with their imperial stormtrooper agenda.
The thing to watch today will be the vote stealing by the Democrat oligarchy. They are the
world champions at every sort of electoral malfeasance. Remember in 2016 how Bernie almost
won New York until Brooklyn, his hometown, was counted and more than 20,000 voters
disappeared? Then there was California where millions of votes went uncounted and Hillary was
called the winner.
The Democrats are not really a political party in the sense that europeans understand the
term, more like an agglomeration of electoral machines, controlled by politicians owned by
vested interests, making up the rules as they go along.
With both Biden and Warren desperate for anything that can be portrayed as momentum expect
the unexpected: repeats of the sort of nonsense we saw in Iowa and local precincts in which
110% of the electorate give unanimous support to the candidate most likely to take away their
social security and wave 'bye-bye' as they die untreated of diseases. Or malnutrition.
A
nd the cherry on top of the electoral sundae in today's primaries will be the near unanimity
with which the most glaring irregularities are ignored by the media, and anyone suggesting
that 2+2= anything as predictable as 4 will be called a conspiracy theorist, working for
Putin and the KGB.
"... Clinton also lied to the country about "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq and voted for that obviously illegal war. This after 8 years of her husband's genocidal sanctions killed a minimum of 500,000 innocent Iraqi children . ..."
"... What Bernie Sanders suffered and endured in 2016 was outrageous. Yet, he persisted and to this day attempts to help common Americans as much as he can. He does what he believes to be the right thing. His integrity and his record of fighting for working Americans are not the points of contention in this race. ..."
"... Today, however, Senator Bernie Sanders is the only Democrat who beats Trump in poll after poll . The only one. This is no small matter. Trump needs to be beaten in the tangled Electoral College, where a simple numerical victory isn't enough. ..."
"... Bernie is the best choice, but it is interesting that you brought up the genocidal sanctions on Iraq. Bernie supported those sanctions. He also supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which reaffirmed US support for the sanctions even after 500,000 children had been killed. ..."
"... Well, the BBC is bigging up Joe Biden right now, yet another of its ridiculous pieces of propaganda utterly devoid of its duty to serve its license payors, who are the British people, not the neoconservative banking elite. ..."
"... How interesting, it's Obama who gave the "cue" for Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Beto, Rice, and the entire slippery gang to circle the wagons in support of the most reactionary warmongering candidate running. The same Obama who released drones every Tuesday morning killing brown and blacks throughout the Middle East and Africa– the majority of slaughtered were innocent women and children. ..."
"... The desperation of the national security state is reflected by The DNC's Shenanigans. The security state would rather promote a crooked, warmongering, lying, racist who barely can put together two logical thoughts then accept a candidate who represents a hopeful future for the next generation. ..."
"... The DNC's message is very clear– they're a "private party" and the working-class are NOT invited. ..."
"... But this by far is the most frightening thought, Biden, does not have all his marbles–it's obvious–we can only guess it's some type of dementia. So if Biden, slides through deploying a multitude of underhanded machinations and becomes the nominee, Trump, will make mincemeat of him during the debates. ..."
"... I'm not in the Orange Baboon's Fan Club, but I find it sad and a little bit pathetic the way people still invest their hopes and put their faith in figures like Bernie, Tulsi or Jezza. Bernie got shafted in 2016 and just saluted smartly and fell into line behind Crooked Hillary. When she lost, he started singing from the approved hymn sheet. The evil Putin stole the election for Kremlin Agent Trump. He has been parroting the same nonsense for the past 4 years. ..."
"... Jeez people get a clue. How many times do you need to fall for the "this candidate is so much better and will solve everything" ruse? Remember Obama? The exact same bullshit was going around back then. ..."
"... We have hope😁 . We have change😁 . We have hope and change you can believe in😁 . Well, yeah, we all know what happened during Obombers 8 years. The entire thing is nothing but Kabuki theatre. For all those still believing the United States is a democracy. ..."
"... 'In the democratic system, the necessary illusions cannot be imposed by force. Rather, they must be instilled in the public mind by more subtle means. A totalitarian state can be satisfied with lesser degrees of allegiance to required truths. It is sufficient that people obey; what they think is a secondary concern. But in a democratic political order, there is always the danger that independent thought might be translated into political action, so it is important to eliminate the threat at its root. ..."
"... Debate cannot be stilled, and indeed, in a properly functioning system of propaganda, it should not be, because it has a system-reinforcing character if constrained within proper bounds. What is essential is to set the bounds firmly. Controversy may rage as long as it adheres to the presuppositions that define the consensus of elites, and it should furthermore be encouraged within these bounds, thus helping to establish these doctrines as the very condition of thinkable thought while reinforcing the belief that freedom reigns ..."
"... Every opportunity to push back Neo liberalism should be taken. ..."
"... Once again, Mark Twain sums up my feeling: "If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it." ..."
"... Where's yours? That's impertinent. Our voting process was programmed, close to 100% by two guys, at one point not many years ago, with the same last name, the brothers Urosevich. The machine owners claim that, as it is their proprietary software, the public is excluded from the vote-counting. ..."
In 2016, Hillary Clinton deserved to lose, and she did. Her deception, her
cheating in
the primary elections , was well-documented, despicable, dishonest, untrustworthy. Her
money-laundering scheme
at DNC should have been prosecuted under campaign finance laws.
Her record of warmongering and gleefully gloating over death and destruction was also well established. On national TV she
bragged about the mutilation of Moammar Qaddafi: "We came, we saw, he died!"
Clinton also lied to the country about "Weapons of Mass Destruction"
in Iraq and voted for that obviously illegal war. This after 8 years of her husband's genocidal sanctions killed a minimum of
500,000 innocent Iraqi children .
This person was undeserving of anyone's support.
What Bernie Sanders suffered and endured in 2016 was outrageous. Yet, he persisted and to this day attempts to help common
Americans as much as he can. He does what he believes to be the right thing. His integrity and his record of fighting for working
Americans are not the points of contention in this race.
His opponents have instead opted for every nonsensical conspiracy theory and McCarthyite smear they can concoct, including the
most ridiculous of all: the
Putin theory , without a single shred of evidence to support it.
Today, however, Senator Bernie Sanders is the only Democrat who beats Trump in
poll after
poll . The
only one. This is no small matter. Trump needs to be beaten in the tangled Electoral College, where a simple numerical victory isn't
enough.
Bernie wins, and he has the best overall shot of changing the course of history, steering America away from plutocracy and fascism.
That crucial race is happening right now in the primaries . If Bernie Sanders doesn't secure 50% of all delegates, then DNC insiders
have already signaled that they will steal the nomination and give it to someone else -- who will lose to Trump. The real election
for the future of America is on Super Tuesday.
It's either Trump or Bernie. That's your choice. Your only choice.
Bernie is the best choice, but it is interesting that you brought up the genocidal sanctions on Iraq. Bernie supported those
sanctions. He also supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which reaffirmed US support for the sanctions even after 500,000
children had been killed.
Bernie also voted for Clinton's 1999 bombing campaign on Kosovo.
All that said, yes, Bernie is the best option.
Rhys Jaggar ,
Well, the BBC is bigging up Joe Biden right now, yet another of its ridiculous pieces of propaganda utterly devoid of its duty
to serve its license payors, who are the British people, not the neoconservative banking elite.
When they spout bullshit that 20% of UK workers could miss work 'due to coronavirus', when we have had precisely 36 deaths
in a population of 65 million plus, you know that like climate change, they spout the 1% probability as the mainstream narrative
.
It just shows what folks are up against when media is so cravenly serving those who do not pay them.
Charlotte Russe ,
"If Bernie Sanders doesn't secure 50% of all delegates, then DNC insiders have already signaled that they will steal the
nomination and give it to someone else -- who will lose to Trump. The real election for the future of America is on Super Tuesday."
While Bernie spent more than three decades advocating for economic social justice Biden spent those same three decades
promoting social repression."
"The 1990s saw Biden take aim at civil liberties, authoring anti-terror bills that, among other things, "gutted the federal
writ of habeas corpus," as one legal scholar later reflected. It was this earlier legislation that led Biden to brag to anyone
listening that he was effectively the author of the Bush-era PATRIOT ACT, which, in his view, didn't go far enough. He inserted
a provision into the bill that allowed for the militarization of local law enforcement and again suggested deploying the military
within US borders."
How interesting, it's Obama who gave the "cue" for Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Beto, Rice, and the entire slippery gang to circle
the wagons in support of the most reactionary warmongering candidate running. The same Obama who released drones every Tuesday
morning killing brown and blacks throughout the Middle East and Africa– the majority of slaughtered were innocent women and children.
The desperation of the national security state is reflected by The DNC's Shenanigans. The security state would rather promote
a crooked, warmongering, lying, racist who barely can put together two logical thoughts then accept a candidate who represents
a hopeful future for the next generation.
The DNC's message is very clear– they're a "private party" and the working-class are NOT invited. In fact, they're
saying more than that–if uninvited workers and the marginalized dare to enter they'll be tossed out on their arse
In plain sight the mainstream media news is telling millions that NO one can stop the military/security/surveillance/corporate
state from their stranglehold over the corrupt political duopoly.
I say fight and don't give-up! Be prepared–organize a million people march and head to Milwaukee– the future of the next generation
is on the line.
But this by far is the most frightening thought, Biden, does not have all his marbles–it's obvious–we can only guess it's
some type of dementia. So if Biden, slides through deploying a multitude of underhanded machinations and becomes the nominee,
Trump, will make mincemeat of him during the debates.
But if Biden, makes it to the Oval Office he'll be "less" than a figurehead. Biden, will be as mentally acute as the early
bird diner in a Florida assisted living facility after a recent stroke. The national security state will seize control– handing
the "taxidermied Biden" a pen to idiotically sign off on their highly insidious agenda ..
Ken Kenn ,
Pretty straightforward for me ( I don't know about Bernie? ) but if the Super delegates and the DNC hierarchy decide to hand the
nomination over to Biden then Bernie should stand as an independent.
At least even in defeat a left marker would be placed on the US political table away from the Corporate owners and the shills
that hack for them in the media and elsewhere. At least ordinary US people would know that someone is on their side.
Corbyn in the UK was described as a ' Marxist' by the Tories and the unquestioning media. Despite all that ' Marxist ' Labour got 33% of the vote. People will vote for a ' socialist '
Charlotte Ruse ,
Unfortunately, Bernie won't abandon the Democratic Party. However, there's a ton of Bernie supporters who will vote Third Party
if Bernie doesn't get the nomination.
paul ,
I'm not in the Orange Baboon's Fan Club, but I find it sad and a little bit pathetic the way people still invest their hopes and
put their faith in figures like Bernie, Tulsi or Jezza. Bernie got shafted in 2016 and just saluted smartly and fell into line behind Crooked Hillary. When she lost, he started singing from the approved hymn sheet. The evil Putin stole the election for Kremlin Agent Trump.
He has been parroting the same nonsense for the past 4 years.
That's when he hasn't been shilling for regime change wars in Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia and elsewhere against "communist
dictators."
Bernie will get shafted again shortly and fall into line behind Epstein's and Weinstein's best mate Bloomberg or Creepy Joe,
or Pocahontas, or whoever.
If by some miracle they can't quite rig it this time and Bernie gets the nomination, the DNC will just fail to support him,
and allow Trump to win. They would rather see Trump than Bernie in the White House.
Just like Starmer, Thornberry, Phillips and all the Blairite Backstabber Friends of Israel were more terrified of seeing Jezza
in Number Ten than any Tory.
Dr. Johnson said that getting remarried represented the triumph of hope over experience.
The same applies to people expecting any positive change from people like Bernie, Tulsi, or Jezza.
The system just doesn't allow it.
pete ,
Jeez people get a clue. How many times do you need to fall for the "this candidate is so much better and will solve everything"
ruse? Remember Obama? The exact same bullshit was going around back then.
We have hope😁 . We have change😁 . We have hope and change you can believe in😁 . Well, yeah, we all know what happened during
Obombers 8 years. The entire thing is nothing but Kabuki theatre. For all those still believing the United States is a democracy.
clickkid ,
"The real election for the future of America is on Super Tuesday."
Sorry Joe, but where have you been for the last 50 years" Elections are irrelevant. Events change the world – not elections. The only important aspect of an election is the turnout. If you vote in an election, then at some level you still believe in
the system.
Willem ,
Sometimes Chomsky can be useful
'In the democratic system, the necessary illusions cannot be imposed by force. Rather, they must be instilled in the public
mind by more subtle means. A totalitarian state can be satisfied with lesser degrees of allegiance to required truths. It is sufficient
that people obey; what they think is a secondary concern. But in a democratic political order, there is always the danger that
independent thought might be translated into political action, so it is important to eliminate the threat at its root.
Debate cannot be stilled, and indeed, in a properly functioning system of propaganda, it should not be, because it has a system-reinforcing
character if constrained within proper bounds. What is essential is to set the bounds firmly. Controversy may rage as long as
it adheres to the presuppositions that define the consensus of elites, and it should furthermore be encouraged within these bounds,
thus helping to establish these doctrines as the very condition of thinkable thought while reinforcing the belief that freedom
reigns.'
If true, the question is, what are we not allowed to say? Or is Chomsky wrong, and are we allowed to say anything we like since TPTB know that words cannot, ever, change political action
as for that you need power and brutal force, which we do not have and which, btw Chomsky advocates to its readers not to try to
use against the nation state?
So maybe Chomsky is not so useful after all, or only useful for the status quo.
Chomsky's latest book, sold in book stores and at airports, where, apparantly, opinions of dissident writers whose opinions
go beyond the bounds of the consensus of elites, are sold in large amounts to marginalize those opinions out of society, is called
'Optimism over despair', a title stolen from Gramsci who said: 'pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.'
But every time I follow Chomsky's reasoning, I end in dead end roads of which it is quite hard to find your way out. So perhaps
I should change that title into 'nihilism over despair'. If you follow Chomsky's reasoning
clickkid ,
Your Chomsky Quote:
"'In the democratic system, the necessary illusions cannot be imposed by force. .. " Tell that to the Yellow Vests.
ajbsm ,
Despite the deep state stranglehold .on the whole world there seems to be a 'wind' blowing (ref Lenin) of more and more people
turning backs on the secret service candidates – not just in America. Power, money and bullying will carry on succeeding eventually
the edifice is blown away – this will probably happen, it will be ugly and what emerges might not even be better(!) But the current
controllers seem to have a sell by date.
Ken Kenn ,
I'm not convinced of the theory that the more poor/whipped/ spat upon people become the more likely they are to revolt.
A revolution can only come about when the Bourgeoisie can no longer continue to govern in the old way. In other words it becomes more than a want – more of a necessity of change to the ordinary person.
We have to remember that in general ( it's a bit of a guess but just to illustrate a point ) that a small majority of people
in any western nation are reasonably content – to an extent. They are not going to rock the boat that Kennedy tried to make the tide rise for or that Thatcher and her mates copied with
home owner ship and the right to get into serious debt. This depends on whether you had/have a boat in the first place. If not you've always been drowning in the slowly rising tide.
Sanders as I've said before is not Castro. He has many faults but in a highly parameterised p Neo liberal economic loving political and media world he is the best hope. Not great stuff on offer but a significant move away from the 1% and the 3% who work for them ( including Presidents and Prime
Misister ) so even that slight shift is plus for the most powerful country on planet earth.
I have in the past worked alongside various religious groups as an atheist as long as they were on the right( or should that
be left?) side on an issue.
Now is not the time for the American left to play the Prolier than though card.
Every opportunity to push back Neo liberalism should be taken.
wardropper ,
I'm not convinced of the theory that the more poor/whipped/ spat upon people become the more likely they are to revolt.
But didn't the Storming of the Bastille happen for that very reason?
I think people are waiting for just one spark to ignite their simmering fury – just one more straw to break the patient camel's
back. Understandably, the "elite" (which used to mean exalted above the general level) are in some trepidation about this, but,
like all bullies their addiction to the rush of power goes all the way to the bitter end – the bitter end being the point at which
their target stands up and gives them a black eye. It's almost comical how the bully then becomes the wailing victim himself,
and we have all seen often enough the successfully-resisted dictatorial figure of authority resorting to the claim that he is
now being bullied himself. But this is a situation of his own making, and our sympathy for him is limited by our memory of that
fact.
Ken Kenn ,
Where's the simmering fury in the West.
U.S. turnout is pathetically low. Even in the UK the turnout in the most important election since the First World War was 67%. I see the result of the " simmering fury " giving rise to the right not the left. Just that one phrase or paragraph of provocative words will spark the revolution?
... ... ...
wardropper ,
My point, which I thought I made clearly enough, was that the fury is simmering , and waiting for a catalyst. I also think
an important reason for turnout being low is simply that people don't respond well to being treated like idiots by an utterly
corrupt establishment. They just don't want to participate in the farce.
Once again, Mark Twain sums up my feeling: "If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it."
I'm not trying to be argumentative, and, like you, I am quite happy to back Sanders as by far the best of a pretty rotten bunch.
Perhaps China is indeed leading in many respects right now, but becoming Chinese doesn't seem like a real option for most of us
at the moment . . . Incidentally I have been to China and I found the people there as interesting as people anywhere else, although
I particularly enjoyed the many things which are completely different from our western cultural roots.
Rhisiart Gwilym ,
Speaking of the Clintons' death toll, didn't Sanders too back all USAmerica's mass-murdering, armed-robbery aggressions against
helpless small countries in recent times? And anyway, why are we wasting time discussing the minutiae of the shadow-boxing in
this ridiculous circus of a pretend-democratic 'election'? Watching a coffin warp would be a more useful occupation.
I go with Dmitry Orlov's reckoning of the matter: It doesn't matter who becomes president of the US, since the rule of the
deep state continues unbroken, enacting its own policies, which ignore the wishes of the common citizens, and only follow the
requirements of the mostly hyper-rich gics (gangsters-in-charge) in the controlling positions of this spavined, failing empire.
(My paraphrase of Dmitry.)
USPresidents do what their deep-state handlers want; or they get impeached, or assassinated like the Kennedy brothers. And
they all know this. Bill Hick's famous joke about men in a smoke-filled room showing the newly-'elected' POTUS that piece of film
of Kennedy driving by the grassy knoll in Dealy Plaza, Dallas, is almost literally true. All POTUSes understand that perfectly
well before they even take office.
Voting for the policies you prefer, in a genuinely democratic republic, and actually getting them realised, will only happen
for USAmericans when they've risen up and taken genuine popular control of their state-machine; at last!
Meanwhile, of what interest is this ridiculous charade to us in Britain (on another continent entirely; we never see this degree
of attention given to Russian politics, though it has a much greater bearing on our future)? Our business here is to get Britain
out of it's current shameful status, as one of the most grovelling of all the Anglozionist empire's provinces. We have a traitorous-comprador
class of our own to turn out of power. Waste no time on the continuous three-ring distraction-circus in the US – where we in Britain
don't even have a vote.
wardropper ,
The upvotes here would seem to show what thinking people appreciate most.
Seeing through the advertising bezazz, the cheerleaders and the ownership of the media is obviously a top priority, and I suspect
a large percentage of people who don't even know about the OffG would agree.
John Ervin ,
Where's yours? That's impertinent. Our voting process was programmed, close to 100% by two guys, at one point not many years ago,
with the same last name, the brothers Urosevich. The machine owners claim that, as it is their proprietary software, the public is excluded from the vote-counting. And that
much still holds true. Game. Set. Match. Any questions?
Antonym ,
What Bernie Sanders suffered and endured in 2016 was outrageous.
US deep state ate him for breakfast in 2016: they would love him to become string puppet POTUS in 2020. Trump is more difficult to control so they hate him.
John Ervin ,
Just one more Conspiracy Realist, eh! When will we ever learn?
"The deep state ate him for breakfast in 2016 ." That gives some sense of the ease with which they pull strings, nicely put.
One variation on the theme of your metaphor: "They savored him as one might consume a cocktail olive at an exclusive or entitled
soirée."
It is painfully clear by any real connection of dots that he is simply one of their stalking horses for other game. And that Homeland game (still) doesn't know whether a horse has four, or six, legs.
*****
"Puppet Masters, or master puppets?"
Antonym ,
It is painfully clear that US Deep state hates Trump simply by looking at the Russiagate they cooked him up.
Fair dinkum ,
The US voters have surrounded themselves with a sewer, now they have to swim in it.
Sadly I reckon Bernie Saunders will be ousted by the powers that don't want him to be
successful in the bordello that is the Washington politik.
I find it amusing he's labeled as a Socialist. He's a champagne socialist at best.
I fall about laughing when he claims he's going to tell Putin anything at all.
Should the miracle of U.S. democracy pass and he's elected POTUS, meeting Vladimir
Vladimirovich will be a rather large culture shock methinks.
Thanks for the laughs, those passed and if elected, those to come, Bernie.
Very smart establishment tactic. A combo of long predicted Biden win in South Carolina with
resignation of Klob and Butti and endorsement may give Biden plurality in some states.
Strategy of picking a senile champion with "stellar" Obama credentials and a mine of paydirt
for Republican to excavate is dubious. But the youngsters, starting from Beto and ending with
Klob/Butti pair of mixed twins proved to be so-so campaigners at their best. BTW, Steyer
dropped after spending 200 M+ with nary a comment. The same may happen to Little Mike. Direct
reign of billionaires in USA seems to be a failing experiment (assuming that Little Mike is
correct when he says that Donald "I will not show tax return to anyone" Trump is a fake
billionaire), or a work still in progress.
What is there to comment on? The majority right in the DNC will be pushing Biden, the left of
right under Sanders will be cheated out of the nomination and Trump will rule another 4
years.
That there is a "left" in the Democrat Party is an illusion, what counts for the left there
would be the equivalent of the CDU in Germany under Merkel.
It's about the numbers and superdelegates. The "reforms" in the DNC system following 2016
include a new rule that superdelegates, all 93 of them, cannot take part in the first round
of voting. If there is no outright plurality, these 93 delegates, all of whom have stated no
intention to give their votes to Bernie, will rule the day. The only candidate that might
help Bernie is Warren if/if the math shows that whatever number of delegates she gets would
give Bernie his plurality in the first round. Those superdelegates tell us a lot about our
two-party system.
At least one wealthy delegate is a major donor to Republican candidates.
They largely represent the same corporate interests that ensure that neither party does
anything dramatic to harm Wall Street or big industries. A look at the actual voting records
of Democratic senators and house members reveals a lot that public posturing does not.
Democratic leaders have said that they would rather lose the election to Trump than to
have the party taken over by progressives. The mainstream corporate Democrats may well get
their way, but what happens to the party afterwards is the question.
.. GOP strategist and avid Never Trumper Rick Wilson said ... Obama needs to throw his
full weight behind Biden before Super Tuesday in a way that will shake up the race ... Obama
can transform this race in a hot second. ... It's now or never ... Biden beat Sanders like a
rented mule. The exit polls told the tale; it was a crushing defeat across almost every
demographic group ...
Gotta love these Republicans who have our best interests at heart.
Last week in Nevada it was Sanders who beat Biden like a rented mule, inflicting a crushing
defeat across almost every demographic group. But that was then, this is now, and a Republican
stratigist says "It's now or never" to defeat Sanders Trump.
Super Tuesday is ... Tuesday. Biden, as I noted yesterday, hasn't visited any Super Tuesday
state in a month, has almost no money, is not on the air, has little or no ground game. Early
voting is already in progress in several states. What can be done in one day to turn
things around?
Realistically, nothing. Yes, a big endorsement by Obama could have an impact, but how many
voters would even hear about it before voting? Biden will definitely get a bounce from his win
in SC, but how big will it be? How much did Sanders' win in Nevada help him in SC?
Team Biden believes having Klobuchar in the race through Super Tuesday is incredibly
helpful to them.
Why? It blocks Bernie Sanders in the Minnesota primary on Tuesday.
"If Amy gets out, that gives Minnesota to Bernie,"
...
Four years ago, Sanders crushed Hillary Clinton in Minnesota, winning 62% to 38% ...
The Biden campaign wants Warren to be in the race through Super Tuesday, when Massachusetts
voters weigh in.
Not to win. Not to hoard delegates for a convention fight. But just taking every opportunity
to slow Bernie down.
Finally, and I only saw one tweet about this and can't find any confirmation, that Bloomberg
hasn't made any ad buys beyond Super Tuesday. Anyone know anything about this?
Steyer has spent $200 million, got nothing for it, and has dropped out. I'm hoping that's
what we see for Bloomberg as well. Is Bloomberg trying to win? Or just to stop Bernie? Super
Tuesday will tell the tale.
@WoodsDweller -- Biden, Bloomberg, Warren, Klobuchar -- is stepping in to do his or
her part for the overall goal of stopping Bernie. They are 100% loyal to the Dem
establishment which is 100% loyal to the neocon, neoliberal, oligarchic, globalist Deep
State. They know the Dem establishment will reward them -- and you can practically smell the
certainty of that knowledge on Liz. She'll do and say whatever they ask of her.
with anything but a full on assault by the DNC, the media, and their respective
surrogates. What I didn't expect, especially from dubious "progressives" like Warren, was to
hear non-viable candidates openly talking about blunting Bernie's momentum with their only
goal being to collect delegates into the convention. Yes, most of us anticipated this was
going to turn into a contested convention by design, but I don't know how many of us believed
they'd tip their hand so blatantly and so soon into the process. Now that they have, it gives
Bernie time to prepare his own strategy for meeting their threat at the convention. Maybe
someone could refresh his memory on how effective the bus loads of people that GWB arranged
were in shaping the media narrative of "civil disruption vs. accurate counting" in Florida?
Taking a page out of that playbook, Bernie's people really need to start thinking about
organizing an army of supporters in strength that rivals his numbers at his rallys, and
descend onto Wisconsin. And maybe as an added bonus, conjure up the image of the 1968
convention Buttigieg seems to believe Bernie is so nostalgic about resurrecting. If the
Establishment is going to twart the will of the people, let the will of the people be
heard.
First, a wild methodological error. Bernie actually received more votes yesterday than in
2016. Perhaps only people who voted in 2016 were polled.
Second, everyone knows that Bernie is the person most likely to defeat Trump and Biden is
the worst possible candidate. Perhaps thousands of Trump supporters came out pretending to be
Democrats to vote for Biden. This has supposedly happened before.
Third, the quisling Democrats have given up all pretense of being honest and are blatantly
stealing the nomination from Bernie. This is the most likely.
.
In many ways, this race is now the same exact contest that was fought back in 2016. It has
come down to Joe Biden -- The Establishment choice -- despite his obvious Ukraine corruption,
family payoffs, obstruction of justice and abuse of office, etc. -- and despite Biden being
100% wrong on every issue from the Iraq War to NAFTA to the TPP to Syria (more Regime
Change) to Libya to saying China is not an economic threat , etc. -- and despite him
being a bumbling buffoon and gaffe machine who doesn't even know what State he is in, and
constantly mangles sentences, and arrogantly yells at or insults prospective voters -- and
despite him on multiple occasions caught sniffing the hair and fondling young girls in
public.
How is this different from Hillary Clinton .. just without the Cackle ?
Bernie Sanders, as in 2016, is the only other option now that has a multi-state Campaign
support structure. While Mike Bloomberg can buy million dollar Ads and saturate them
everywhere across TV and the Internet .. he has no real voter base, a phony message, and no
charisma.
So it is Sanders .vs. Biden , which is essentially a rematch between Sanders and
Clinton -- or -- essentially a rematch between Sanders and the DNC Establishment (who also
control the rules of the game).
My question is, who in earth would ever want to vote for the doddering and incoherent Joe
Biden under any circumstance? Clearly, Biden just represents the anti-Sanders vote here, and
The Establishment, with Bloomberg, Buttiburger, and Klobachar all failing, has closed ranks
to consolidate around the one dog-faced, pony soldier left standing in the race: Quid Pro
Joe.
Come on man! Get down and do some pushups Jack. I don't want your vote.
Polls and Votes and super delegates and Media narratives will all now be fixed around
Biden from this point on (if they weren't already). So expect a whole lot of Malarkey
upcoming, and this means that Sanders will have to win by big margins, and win a whole lot
more States than he did in 2016, in order to survive.
Anything can happen, but it seems that both Warren and Biden are going down the tubes, and
without yet having been able to stop Bernie. Buttegieg seems to be doing well, but the only
reason to expect that to last is that he is a Deep State/CIA-creation like Obama was.
Just as Democrat-supporters have had to find the path to accepting -- or
embracing–whatever they are told is necessary to defeat Trump (the CIA, the defiant
heroism of Nancy Pelosi in tearing up Trump's speech, the "principled stands" of militarist
reactionaries such as John Bolton, Alexander Vindman, and Mitt Romney, and deep hatred and
contempt for ordinary people in general -- is there any doubt that there is no limit to how
reactionary Democrats and "the Left" can get?), now they will have to accept Michael Bloomberg
as the "alternative."
My own view is that Trump is not an "oligarch," because oligarchs exist among other
oligarchs; that's a subject for further exploration, but it is clear that Bloomberg is, in
fact, such an oligarch.
A thesis regarding the postmodern spectacle: What one might accept, even minimally, at one
point, perhaps as necessary in a purely tactical sense ("the Left," broadly speaking), one can
come to embrace at a later moment (confirmed OP Democrats who will vote "BNMW"). This is the
moving line of bullshit as it moves around what stands in as a "principle" in this scene:
"Because Trump."
The moving line really does some fantastic work for the neoliberal-globalist forces who want
a "return to normalcy." What people who think of themselves as some kind of "resistance" at
first grudgingly accept will later come to embrace.
In the wake of Iowa, and now New Hampshire, there are already good liberals talking up
Bloomberg as the best chance for beating Trump -- this includes people who claim they would
prefer Bernie. Somehow they are getting past the fact that only Bernie is given a realistic
chance of beating Trump in an election. Certainly, things can change, but what is really going
on here?
Among OP Dems it seems likely that the instinct for neoliberal globalist "normalcy" is
kicking in, and so Dems are proposing to go with an oligarch billionaire -- just yesterday the
worst thing on earth -- who has many times the wealth of Trump, and who represents the ugliest
sector of globalist capital.
Will those supposedly in the left, and those supposedly to the left, of the Democratic
Party, remain dutiful and accept (and then enthusiastically embrace -- again, any- and
everything is possible here) this "alternative"?
They have failed every test thus far, but perhaps Sanders can turn them around. As I argued
previously, this will take a movement of great strength and depth. Even if Sanders cannot win
the general election, he would be doing the world a great favor in defeating Bloomberg. Despite
serious reservations, I wish him well in this pursuit.
Of course, if Sanders were to win the nomination but not the general, those who despise him
now would despise him that much more, and very likely even many who like him now would turn
against him. It is hard not to see the maneuverings of the Clintons here, and even more the
Clintonist mainstream of the Democratic Party, and just in recent days trial balloons are
floating around with the proposal that Hillary could be Bloomberg's VP pick. No one should be
surprised if things turn out the other way 'round.
When one considers this whole mess, and adds to it the way that Identity Politics, at least
in its current predominant form as woke ideology for resistance LARPers, fits hand in glove
with globalist economic and military agendas, I find it difficult to see how the Trump
Disruption, Clarification, and the bits of Experiment that have gained traction are not
qualitatively superior.
Of one thing we can be sure, however, namely that the circumnavigations and circumlocutions
of those who claim to the contrary will continue to kick into ever-higher gears.
Bill Martin
is a philosopher and musician, retired from DePaul University. He is completing a book with the
title, "The Trump Clarification: Disruption at the Edge of the System (toward a theory)." His
most recent albums are "Raga Chaturanga" (Bill Martin + Zugzwang; Avant-Bass 3) and "Emptiness,
Garden: String Quartets nos. 1 and 2 (Ryokucha Bass Guitar Quartet; Avant-Bass 4). He lives in
Salina, Kansas, and plays bass guitar with The Radicles.
"... It is especially galling to see how the Hollywood Community has embraced the era of red-baiting Joseph McCarthy as the new standard for what is acceptable. There was a time that a few brave souls in Hollywood (I am thinking Lucille Ball, Kirk Douglas and Gregory Peck), spoke out against the blacklisting of actors, writers and directors for their past political ties to the Soviet Union. ..."
"... This was an ugly, awful and evil time in America. It was a period of time fed by fear and ignorance. While it is true that there were Americans who identified as Communists and embraced the politics of the Soviet Union, we scared ourselves into believing that communist subversion was everywhere and that America was teetering on the brink of being submerged in a red tide. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's crazy rant accusing U.S. Army Major and Member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, as a Kremlin puppet is not a deviation from the norm. Clinton exemplifies the terrifying norm of the political and cultural elite in this country. Accusing political opponents of being controlled by foreign enemies, real or imagined, is an old political tactic. Makes me wonder what Edward R. Murrow or Dalton Trumbo would say if we could bring them back from the dead. ..."
"... "Hillary Clinton's crazy rant accusing U.S. Army Major and Member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, as a Kremlin puppet is not a deviation from the norm." ..."
"... Ms. President is the closest facsimile to Lady Macbeth that American politics has been able to produce. She'd have murdered her own husband if she had thought succession would have fallen to her. As it was, the only thing that kept him alive was that she needed him for the run she had in mind for herself. The debris that this woman has left in her wake boggles the mind. That she came within a whisker of the job where she would perhaps have left the country in that debris field is a sobering thought to think about what American presidential politics has become in the 21st c. Alas, what passes for her failure and the Country's good fortune, her loved ones in the Arts are still not over. And so they are left commiserating and caterwauling over the Donald this, and the Donald that, while all this good material and their celebrity goes down the tube. Good riddance to them both. ..."
"... Trump campaigned on Drain the Swamp in 2016. The Swamp attempted to take him down with the Russia Collusion hoax that included Spygate and the Mueller special counsel investigation. ..."
In the wake of the latest Hollywood buffoonery displayed at the Oscars, I think it is time for the American public to denounce
in the strongest possible terms the rampant hypocrisy of sanctimonious cretins who make their living pretending to be someone other
than themselves. Brad Pitt, Joaquin Phoenix and Barbara Streisand pop to mind as representative examples. All three are eager to
lecture the American public on the need for equality and non-discrimination. Yet, not one of the recipients of the
Oscar
gift bags worth $225,000 spoke out against that extraordinary excess nor demanded that the money spent purchasing these "gifts"
be used to benefit the poor and the homeless. Nope, take the money and run.
It is especially galling to see how the Hollywood Community has embraced the era of red-baiting Joseph McCarthy as the new
standard for what is acceptable. There was a time that a few brave souls in Hollywood (I am thinking Lucille Ball, Kirk Douglas and
Gregory Peck), spoke out against the blacklisting of actors, writers and directors for their past political ties to the Soviet Union.
Now I have lived long enough to see the so-called liberals in Hollywood rail against Donald Trump and his supporters as "agents
of Russia." Many in Hollywood, who weep crocodile tears over the abuses of the Hollywood Blacklist, are now doing the same damn thing
without a hint of irony.
If you are a film buff (and I consider myself one) you should be familiar with these great movies that remind the viewer of the
horrors visited upon actors, writers and directors during the Hollywood Blacklist:
The Front -- a 1976 comedy-drama film set against the Hollywood blacklist in the 1950s. It was written by Walter Bernstein,
directed by Martin Ritt, and stars Woody Allen and Zero Mostel.
Good Night, and Good Luck -- a 2005 historical drama film directed by George Clooney, tells the story of Edward R.
Murrow fighting back against the hysterical red-baiting of Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Trumbo -- a 2015 American biographical drama film directed by Jay Roach that follows the life of Hollywood screenwriter
Dalton Trumbo, who was blacklisted but continued to write award winning movies in alias (e.g. Spartacus).
This was an ugly, awful and evil time in America. It was a period of time fed by fear and ignorance. While it is true that
there were Americans who identified as Communists and embraced the politics of the Soviet Union, we scared ourselves into believing
that communist subversion was everywhere and that America was teetering on the brink of being submerged in a red tide.
Thirty years ago I reflected on this era and wondered how such mass hysteria could happen. Now I know. We have lived with the
same kind of madness since Donald Trump was tagged as a Russian agent in the summer of 2016. And the irony is extraordinary. The
very same Hollywood elite that heaped opprobrium on Director Elia Kazan for naming names in Hollywood in front of the House UnAmerican
Activities Committee, are now leading the charge in labeling anyone who dares speak out against the failed coup as "stooges" of the
Kremlin or Putin.
Hillary Clinton's crazy rant accusing U.S. Army Major and Member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, as a Kremlin puppet is not a
deviation from the norm. Clinton exemplifies the terrifying norm of the political and cultural elite in this country. Accusing political
opponents of being controlled by foreign enemies, real or imagined, is an old political tactic. Makes me wonder what Edward R. Murrow
or Dalton Trumbo would say if we could bring them back from the dead.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is a vast understatement. You never could have convinced me 4 years ago that virtually all of my liberal
friends would have completely lost touch with reality due to their visceral hatred of one man.
It no longer matters if you agree with people on social policy, entitlements, student loans, homelessness, drug addiction or
even wealth distribution.
If you do not share their irrational hatred of Trump, you're going to be lambasted, shunned and treated like a pariah.
Hillary Clinton has become the poster child for the corruption that has captured and paralyzed our political parties and government
institutions. Why is she above prosecution? Is the corruption complete? Can we look to any individual or group to restore our
Republic? Wake me when the prosecutions begin.
"Hillary Clinton's crazy rant accusing U.S. Army Major and Member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, as a Kremlin puppet is not
a deviation from the norm."
Ms. President is the closest facsimile to Lady Macbeth that American politics has been able to produce. She'd have murdered
her own husband if she had thought succession would have fallen to her. As it was, the only thing that kept him alive was that
she needed him for the run she had in mind for herself. The debris that this woman has left in her wake boggles the mind. That
she came within a whisker of the job where she would perhaps have left the country in that debris field is a sobering thought
to think about what American presidential politics has become in the 21st c. Alas, what passes for her failure and the Country's
good fortune, her loved ones in the Arts are still not over. And so they are left commiserating and caterwauling over the Donald
this, and the Donald that, while all this good material and their celebrity goes down the tube. Good riddance to them both.
I agree that HUAC's conduct was excessive but you really ought to show the other side of the coin as well.
Communism was genuinely awful. To this day we don't know how many people died, murdered by their own governments, in Soviet
Russia and Communist China.
The U. S. government was infiltrated at the very pinnacle of government (as in presidential advisors) by Soviet agents.
We know this from Kremlin documents.
We now know (based on Kremlin documents) that the American Communist Party was run by knowing Soviet agents and was funded
by the Soviet Union.
The motion picture industry had been heavily infiltrated by Communists including some actual Soviet agents (while Reagan
was head of SAG he rooted them out).
We resolved those issues the wrong way but they desperately needed to be resolved.
This is self-righteous baby boomer nonsense. It was a brief and slightly uncomfortable time for a handful of people in Hollywood,
after which the subversion of American culture and institutions chugged along merrily along to the present day.
But this episode has been re-purposed and often reduced to caricature as part of a long ideological project aimed at convincing
generations of otherwise intelligent white people that their past is a shameful parade of villains.
Kirk Douglas bravely defied the blacklist by giving Dalton Trumbo credit on Spartacus under his real name, effectively breaking
the blacklist.
I saw part of the Academy Awards and all I heard over and over again were the words race and gender, no female directors nominated.
On a side note, this being Black History month, teevee is usually filled with the appropriate programing. But because it is
the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Aushwitz the Jews are stealing the Blacks thunder by hogging the programming. When the
oppressed collide.
Just how big is the carbon footprint on a $225,000 swag bag? So nice to see Hollywood integrity in action. I wonder what the Bernie
Tax will be on them in 2021?
Chills run down my spine that you start your list with 'The Front'.
Woody Allen's 'The Front', a 'film noir' about the beast and about courage in trying to slay it, is an absolute masterpiece,
its end is unmeasurably spectacular and encouraging, and... somehow the movie never got the acclaim it deserves, and lives as
one of those quiet orphans.
But it is highly actual, and that is why you must have come to place it first.
Trump campaigned on Drain the Swamp in 2016. The Swamp attempted to take him down with the Russia Collusion hoax that included
Spygate and the Mueller special counsel investigation.
Rep. Devin Nunes uncovered many of the shenanigans while he investigated the claims of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
He implored Trump to use his prerogative as POTUS to declassify many documents and communications. Trump instead took the advice
of Rod Rosenstein acting as AG who initiated the Mueller investigation and did not declassify. He then passed the buck to AG Barr,
who has yet to declassify.
The question that needs to be asked in light of this: Is Trump a conman who has duped the electorate with Drain the Swamp as
he has not used his exclusive powers of classification to present to the voter all the documents and communications about the
actions of law enforcement and intelligence agencies relating to claims about Russian influence operations during the 2016 election?
Blue Peacock, the question that needs to be asked is do you blow your wad all at once on one play. Or do you drip, drip, drip
it out strategically. I suggest the latter in this endless game of gotcha politics. Yes, Trump is a con man. That is how he made
his billions - selling sizzle. One quality that does translate well into the political arena. No one is surprised - his life has
been on the front pages for decades.
The only newly revealed quality that I find remarkable is his remarkable staying power - the most welcome quality of all. It
takes ego maniacs to play this game. Surprised anyone still thinks politics is an avocation for normal people. It isn't. And we
the people are the ones that demand this to be the case.
I left the american sh*thole a long time ago and my choice never felt better. I look forward to seeing 50% of americans trying
to slaughter the other 50% over socialism. Here we're doing just fine with socialist medecine, and social programs for just about
everyting. The Commons are still viable where common sense resides... Oligarchs love cartels, socialism and piratization: it's
all about privatizing the gains and socializing the losses to the hoi polloi.
I wonder if Hollywood knows how small some of the audiences in actual movie theaters are now. It's always surprising to me that
I am sitting in almost empty theaters now when I decide I want actual movie theater popcorn and so will pay to watch a movie that
I have read about and heard about from friends who have already seen the movie. I don't attend unless I've heard good things from
my friends about the movie.
I am constantly surprised that some people even consider watching the Oscars now. I feel the same about professional sports.
You would be surprised at how good high school plays are and how good high school bands, orchestras, choirs are. The tickets
are cheap, and a person actually gets to greet the performers.
I feel the same about my local university (my Alma Mater). It's Performing Arts departments are excellent. As a student long
ago, my student pass allowed me to attend wonderful performances.
The Glory Days of Hollywood are no more. The actors and directors need to be humbled by having to go to towns across the country
to see how sparse the audience in a movie theater is now. It's not at all as I remember as a child when there were long lines
at the ticket window.
So she was fooled into thinking Iraq had something to do withe 9/11?
Guess she couldn't figure out buildings never fall at free fall speed unless they have
demolition charges set in them.
Hello Prairiedog,
Do you know why my comments are not accepted or shown here?
I replied to your comment with my comment that is not being accepted here.
I see you have a high ratting so i thought you may have an idea about accepted comments. what
am I doing wrong?!
The risk is limited - this kills the old and infirm.
MOA was accurate in all the panic - China controlled its initial outbreak (although a
re-entry is not unlikely imo). That the rest of the world didn't react fast enough, is
expected though, but saying that before it was a thing would have been unnecessarily
scare-mongering I'd say.
Hi B,
looks like the guys at New England Biolabs have a very rapid assay for COVID-19 --- Rapid
Molecular Detection of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Virus RNA Using Colorimetric LAMP
Yinhua Zhang, Nelson Odiwuor, Jin Xiong, Luo Sun, Raphael Ohuru Nyaruaba, Hongping Wei,
Nathan A Tanner
Its a preprint -- but this is the way to go an isothermal loop mediated amplification
(LAMP) assay. You ought to be able to get a result in about 30 minutes -- faster once they
really automate it. Should cost virtually nothing a few cents.
Other versions of it might be adapted so you can use them in the field so a general
practitioner or even a soldier will be able to make the diagnosis at the bed side-- its a
simple color change in a tube. All you need is a pipette the assay tube a hot block and a
timer. True positive rate 99.99% false positive about 1% or less. This what the CDC needs.
Problem is that they have to mass produce the assay tubes -- we need 100 million like
yesterday. The other thing is that we might need martial law to quarantine people and we need
to train people to use the kits and fast.
All of a sudden, "freedom isn't free" axiom acquires a really macabre meaning. The inevitable
devastation in countries with laissez-faire approach to this emergency will eventually prove
"totalitarian" Chinese measures as being vastly superior.
The US will undoubtedly - if grudgingly - adopt Beijing MO, but only after hundreds of
thousands of people die needlessly, and America's healthcare system falls apart under the
pressure of millions of patients unable to pay exorbitant bills.
The American mind does not know what "public health" is.
"Public health" is not a thinkable thought. b's paragraph beginning with "Tests must be
freely available..." is a sequence of events that cannot exist even in fiction in America.
Only someone who has never lived here could write that paragraph. None of b's suggestions are
happening. And because these simple measures cannot happen, a price will be paid.
The overreaction to this will cause much, much more damage than the virus would have if it
were responded to in a conventional, sensible way. Those in positions of responsibility are
terrified of underreacting, and it's easy to rationalize that it's better to be safe than
sorry.
If measures taken cause unnecessary disruption, if they increase the level of stress, the
levels of disease and the amount of death will rise rather than fall. There is more to
disease than just microbes.
This is not to say that we should be laissez-faire. Our response to the yearly outbreak of
the flu is, in my opinion, insufficient. Schools are an unprecedented institution of
prolonged propinquity. Children go to school, are with their classmates in enclosed rooms all
day, and bring the disease home. Children survive, but grandma and grandpa might not. Schools
can be shuttered during outbreaks, and the technology exists, at least for the relatively
fortunate, to continue the instruction online. People should also be encouraged to avoid
stressful prolonged propinquity situations such as travel on planes, trains, and interstate
buses.
It's occurred to me that the death rate statistics might be misleading. Since China closed
their schools, one can assume that the disease rate among children fell substantially.
However, elderly people who live in care facilities, which is a high density living
situation, would not enjoy the falling infection rate, and they are exactly the population
most susceptible to a fatal outcome. This alone, perhaps, might make the death rate higher
for COVID19 than for the flu.
The US healthcare system, the privatized system of exploitation of the sick for greater
investor profits, is not capable of dealing with a pandemic. Trump and his gang of thieves,
charlatans, and unapologetically incompetent followers of Ayn Rand and graduates of the Koch
Brothers University, will prevent the socialization of medicine if they possibly can. Will a
future cover of Time Magazine show them all hanging from lamp posts?
Whether this pandemic provokes the rapture of Pence & his 144,000 elect and the much
anticipated End Times, or whether it fizzles out, I do heartily wish for one outcome: the
disenfranchisement of Donald J Trump, his heirs & assigns, and all those who seem unable
to smell the stink of his bullshit.
CDC estimates 30 million flu cases each year with 30,000 deaths and 500,000
hospitalizations. I think we are a long way from any real concern. The US is nowhere near as
polluted or densely populated as China. Also, I don't think we know how the disease spreads
among non Asians. They are keeping that under wraps. Aside from those captives on the cruise
ship there really has not been much spread from those who returned from China (visitors or
citizens).
Agreed that the US leadership is clueless and their thrashing around in order to protect
corporate capitalism is xenophobic and dangerous to the world. Came across this research on a
plant bioflavonoid that you might find useful in the treatment of SARS COV-1 (aka
COVID-19).
It's always Groundhog Day in the USA.
It's always late August 2005.
It's always New Orleans.
It's always Hurricane Katrina [or something else] on the horizon.
It's always a Republican Administration in power.
Who needs external enemies when we have such internal incompetents available to do the work
of sabotage? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_Day_(film)
Neither Reps nor Dems are psychologically capable even of conceiving the kinds of measures
the post calls for. Trump's stooge already proclaimed that profit is the one and only goal of
any response ("the market must decide"), while the Dem leadership as well can speak and think
only in terms of making care "affordable", IOW the main purpose of the whole process still
has to be corporate control and profit, even if a few stray Dems do want government to
subsidize some victims. The purpose still is money changing hands, profit, commerce. Until
the Big One levels the karma of this place that will never change.
It seems almost like fate is teeing up one practice play each time, just to show the US
how hollowed out it is, before the real play begins. First was the Iranian reprisal strike
which could have been so much more devastating. And now, although it's too early to tell how
severe this pest ultimately will be, it looks so far like it won't completely cleanse the
place. But if so that won't be for the lack of the US economic and cultural system giving it
every opportunity it can use.
I have no doubt the US learns zero from either test case. By now the US is too berserk and
stupid to deduce anything from its very survival than confirmation of the excellence of its
policy and encouragement to further escalate and accelerate.
The idea that Uncle Sam will do something useful and timely is simply laughable. I have been
mostly housebound due to severe illness for the past five years. Imagine a five year
quarantine! In all that time I have had zero social support besides receiving a disability
pension. I hire a personal shopper every two weeks to bring groceries; everything else comes
via UPS or FedEx. I frequently go two weeks at a time and never see anyone except maybe a
delivery driver.
There is no system to take care of housebound people. For me there is no medical personal
to make housecalls, no social support, no personal care workers, nothing. And this at a time
when nationwide there are only small numbers of people like myself. Multiply this non-system
by 100 or 1000 and people will die at home and no one will even notice.
Uncle Sam's Day of Reckoning may be fast approaching. And we will have well-earned every
bit of suffering headed our way.
Funny thing, b was right - China (and online deliveries as well really) managed to snuff the
spread out well, and it seems that the rest of the world and their 'representative
bureaucracies' will show all how limited they are when a fast acting 'unknown unknown'
(Rummy, how you made sense here!) does its thing.
I think everybody should listen the initial 47 minutes
Notable quotes:
"... Wanted to add that the malaise that is gripping the U.S. institutions is completely visible, it is not the opaque and obsequies portrait drawn by the punditry, news organizations, and elites. Seems most obvious to those of us outside the beltway that can clearly delineate between the failure of DC and the projections and marketing to the population that passes as wonky prose. Stupidity lacks the clarity, but brings the temerity making the facade not so subtle. ..."
"... Literally the only endorsement I've heard of Tulsi Gabbard - and a strikingly convincing one ..."
"... Isn't it just a question of the profits in the military business? ..."
In the United States and other democracies, political and economic systems still work in
theory, but not in practice. Meanwhile, the American-led takedown of the post-World War II
international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior. The combination
of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly disadvantageous to the
United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job, there is a need for
America's universities to provide the information and analysis of international best practices
that the political system does not.
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. is a senior fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute
for International and Public Affairs, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense, ambassador
to Saudi Arabia (during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm), acting Assistant Secretary
of State for African Affairs, and Chargé d'affaires at both Bangkok and Beijing. He
began his diplomatic career in India but specialized in Chinese affairs. (He was the principal
American interpreter during President Nixon's visit to Beijing in 1972.)
Ambassador Freeman is a much sought-after public speaker (see
http://chasfreeman.net ) and the author of several well-received books on statecraft and
diplomacy. His most recent book, America's Continuing Misadventures in the Middle East was
published in May 2016. Interesting Times: China, America, and the Shifting Balance of Prestige,
appeared in March 2013. America's Misadventures in the Middle East came out in 2010, as did the
most recent revision of The Diplomat's Dictionary, the companion volume to Arts of Power:
Statecraft and Diplomacy. He was the editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on
"diplomacy."
Chas Freeman studied at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and in
Taiwan, and earned an AB magna cum laude from Yale University as well as a JD from the Harvard
Law School. He chairs Projects International, Inc., a Washington-based firm that for more than
three decades has helped its American and foreign clients create ventures across borders,
facilitating their establishment of new businesses through the design, negotiation,
capitalization, and implementation of greenfield investments, mergers and acquisitions, joint
ventures, franchises, one-off transactions, sales and agencies in other countries.
Well worth the watch and hope more see it, especially the presentation in the initial 47
minutes. We Americans take our deficits and the $ as the reserve currency far too
lightly.
Wanted to add that the malaise that is gripping the U.S. institutions is completely
visible, it is not the opaque and obsequies portrait drawn by the punditry, news
organizations, and elites. Seems most obvious to those of us outside the beltway that can
clearly delineate between the failure of DC and the projections and marketing to the
population that passes as wonky prose. Stupidity lacks the clarity, but brings the temerity
making the facade not so subtle.
No, not mercenaries, this is a protection racket. The U.N. address in late 2018 by the
President (the laughter spoke volumes) was about as insightful as a "goodfellas" scene where
the shakedown of the little guy is highlighted. It was the speeches by other countries at the
meeting that was most informative.
A definitive pullback from U.S. hegemony was palpable, real, and un-moderated. Large and
small countries all expressed an unwillingness to be held under the thumb of the global
bully. This is the result of having an over abundance of a particle within D.C.; not the
electron, photon, or neutron...but the moron.
There was a statement that Sanders made at the debate
last night that deserves more attention, because it gets at the heart of the manufactured
controversy over Sanders' own past statements and the glaring hypocrisy that defines so many of
our foreign policy discussions. Sanders said this:
Excuse me, occasionally it might be a good idea to be honest about American foreign policy
[bold mine-DL], and that includes the fact that America has overthrown governments all over
the world in Chile, in Guatemala, in Iran. And when dictatorships, whether it is the Chinese
or the Cubans do something good, you acknowledge that. But you don't have to trade love
letters with them.
Several of Sanders' opponents last night were not interested in being honest about U.S.
foreign policy. If they had been interested, they would have to admit that U.S. politicians
acknowledge positive developments that take place under authoritarian regimes all the time, and
most of the time they do this to justify U.S. support for those governments. The fact is that
both Bloomberg and Biden have sometimes said very positive things about repressive
authoritarian states without any caveats. They haven't prefaced their praise by saying that
this is an oppressive government that violates human rights. They didn't say anything that
could be construed as a criticism. Biden
touted Mubarak as an ally and refused to call him a dictator just weeks before his ouster.
Bloomberg
praised the Saudi crown prince and his Vision 2030 plan last year without
qualification:
But Bloomberg has praised another murderous dictator – Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed
bin Salman, known as MBS – as recently as last year, long after he was implicated in
the murder of Post contributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi.
In a September 2019 interview with Arab News, Bloomberg praised Mohammed bin Salman's
"Saudi Vision 2030" plan, focusing especially on its loosening of some restrictions on Saudi
women. "I have had a number of women come up to me and say you don't understand this is the
best thing that has ever happened to Saudi Arabia because half the population was cut out and
now they are going in the right direction," Bloomberg said. He lauded King Salman and MBS for
their efforts "to take that country into the new world," saying, "They have made progress
going in the right direction."
He didn't acknowledge that MBS had jailed and tortured some prominent Saudi women
activists. And Bloomberg didn't mention that 11 months earlier, U.S. permanent resident and
Saudi journalist Khashoggi was murdered and dismembered by MBS's own henchmen. International
investigators and the CIA later concluded that the killing was a premeditated crime ordered
by MBS himself.
This wasn't just a case of Bloomberg letting optimism get the better of him. By the time he
said these things, the increasingly repressive nature of the Saudi government under Mohammed
bin Salman was well-known. The many war crimes and atrocities committed by his government in
Yemen had been in the news for years (and
they continue to happen ), Khashoggi's murder had happened almost a year earlier, and he
could not have missed the stories about the ongoing detentions and torture of political
activists, including Loujain
al-Hathloul , who is still imprisoned to this day. As far as political rights are
concerned, Saudi Arabia has clearly been moving in the wrong direction, but Bloomberg chose to
ignore all of that.
It would be fair to acknowledge that there have been some positive changes in Saudi Arabia
over the last few years at the same time that the crown prince has been cracking down on
dissent, killing critics, and consolidating power, but if you're going to talk about those
changes it would be important to state opposition and condemnation of the Saudi government's
myriad abuses. On that occasion, Bloomberg only offered praise, and there is no evidence that
he expressed any concern about Saudi government crimes and abuses until he was starting to run
for president. The Saudi Arabia example is a telling one, because for the last several years
many American politicians and media outlets embarrassed themselves by lavishing nothing but
praise on the Saudi crown prince for his "reforms."
As a matter of U.S. policy, Saudi Arabia has been given a pass for the many atrocities it
has committed in Yemen because the current administration places more value on selling them
weapons and the previous administration wanted to "reassure" them of our support. The issue
here is not just the double standard applied to U.S. clients, but that many of our leaders give
these governments a pass on their human rights violations and war crimes in order to justify
U.S. policies of support for those clients that cause even more death and destruction. In other
words, when U.S. politicians praise authoritarian clients, it is usually part of an effort to
whitewash the client government's record and to justify providing them with more weapons and
aid. There are real consequences and human costs when politicians turn into cheerleaders for
these governments.
Biden was vice president when the shameful policy of supporting the war on Yemen began, and
when he was part of the Obama administration there is no evidence that he opposed this policy
or spoke against it at any point. He has since turned against that policy, but he had nothing
to say about it when he could have done something about it. While Bloomberg was singing the
crown prince's praises, Sanders has been one of the leading critics of the Saudi government's
crimes and an opponent of U.S. enabling of those crimes. Which one would you rather have making
foreign policy decisions as president: Mohammed bin Salman's cheerleader or one of his most
vocal critics?
So, while I see Bernie heading for an electoral win quite possibly large enough to
prevent the DNC from cheating him out of the Democratic nomination, should he win the
Presidency, preventing him from dying of "a heart attack" before his inauguration may well
be a challenge. Paranoid? Maybe, but who can say? President Sanders may need an
extraordinary level of protection just to stay alive.
That's exactly one of the several reasons he should pick Tulsi Gabbard as his VP. The
voters might finally get a little suspicious if she *also* keels over from a "heart attack"
age 38. And the "Deep State" hate her so much more than Sanders, they'd hire an extra
food-taster for him.
Since today's Democrats are so big on race/gender issues plus "military service,"
nominating America's first non-white woman as a VP and a war veteran would check all the
boxes.
@TG I suspect that
the current Bernie on open borders is just a phase before the nomination. A salute to Demo
idiocy.
Bernie's close associate Gabbard has been quietly talking sense on the border issue for
quite some time.
This is an issue on which Trump has himself waffled a lot and delivered very little. It
would be looking a gift horse in the mouth if Bernie were not to run with the border issue
against Trump.
Bernie's close associate Gabbard has been quietly talking sense on the border issue for
quite some time.
What has Gabbard said in particular that is so sensible? The best I've heard from her is
that, well, we have to have some sort of control of our borders. But she is for another mass
amnesty. I can see how that can seem "pragmatic," but it is just an invitation for more large
scale illegal immigration.
Who is a closer associate of Sanders, Gabbard or AOC? Obviously the former can't campaign
for Sanders while she herself is running, and Sanders can't boost Gabbard the way he has
boosted AOC, but for the moment anyway Sanders looks closer to AOC than to Gabbard.
@Ron Unz
Bernie/Tulsi is the only ticket I would vote for over Trump.
I sent Trump to DC to burn the place down. Three years later the results are in: the Swamp
drained him. That said, he started the revolution. Now comes 2020, and the next chapter.
I still like Trump. He made some progress: destroyed Hillary. And I choose to believe he
was sincere in his stated policy goals, but faced unprecedented obstruction -- "Six ways from
Sunday". So I don't blame him entirely for not achieving those goals.
But for me, the top priority was ending the wars.
So now, as Bernie takes up the revolutionary cause from the left, I'm waiting to see who
gets my vote.
It never occurred to me, but yes, the idea of Tulsi as an insurance policy is another very
good reason to pick her.
Will that happen? Will the Sanders team see that? Chuck Rocha and Nina Turner are the only
Sanders team members I've seen in action, and they're some wicked smart people. Or will they
wuss out and pick a centrist? (Personally, I think Bernie is sufficiently revolutionary not
to wuss out, and yet )
Then too, it's still eight months till the election. If challenged, Trump could yet
execute any of several winning plays: withdraw from Syria, Iraq and Afghan; pardon Julian
Assange; declare his intent to replace Pompeo with Tulsi as Secretary of State. The list is
long, and Trump wants to win.
Democratic megadonor Bernard Schwartz has started reaching out to party leaders to
encourage them to coalesce around a candidate for president in order to stop the surge of
Sen. Bernie Sanders.
and then we call iran a regime?
Bloodstock , 2 hours ago
Yep he admitted that he bought 'em,,,now trying to cover it up. With the billions that
he's got, I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg.
PrideOfMammon , 2 hours ago
And you thought the *** takeover of the USA was still ahead.
IT is done~
commiebastid , 2 hours ago
final nails in coffin were hammered in with Citizens united
This article correctly describes how the neoliberal globalists and bankers are engaging in a
massive ripoff of the "99%" (although I think the ratio is more like 80-20% rather than
99-1%). But I don't think Bernie has the solution.
Frankly, the Democratic Party had the solution -- the New Deal, which actually
did create economic security for the white working class.
But they threw it out the window, and sided with the neoliberal oligarchy to finance their
hedonistic post-1960s lifestyle of porn, drugs, miscegenation, integration, and recreational
sex.
They've completely destroyed the culture. I don't think there is any solution at this
point.
It's interesting: Hudson calls Democrat's "the servants' entrance to the Republican Party"
and refers to the republican party's agenda in favor of the one percent.
Meanwhile, also on unz.com this very day,
Boyd Cathey has a column "The Russians are Coming" wherein he calls Republicans "a sordid and
disreputable second cousin of the advancing leftist juggernaut."
Perhaps they are both correct, and each of their own party's ruling apparatus is no better
than the "other" party's ruling apparatus at all.
The motto of both Democrats and Republican Neocons and Republican Country Clubbers: Don't
Think; Don't Ask; Pay Taxes; Vote for Us; Never Doubt 'Our' Filthy Rich; Blame 'Them' for
Everything 'We' Call Bad.
American Democracy, WASP created democracy, is a whore's game. It is con artistry.
@Anon 123 No, there
still is enough money even now to take care of the vast unemployed and underemployed class of
people, WITHOUT further taxing those of us still working full-time and increasingly
struggling.
1. Place natural resources -- oil, gas, and minerals -- under public ownership. Distribute
the proceeds from their extraction and sale as an equal dividend to every US Citizen. (As
part of the grand bargain, make it MUCH harder to gain US Citizenship, e.g. no birthright
citizenship and no chain migration aka "family reunification.") This is a more thorough, more
equitable national version of Alaska's resource-funded permanent fund.
How much do executives and shareholders of energy corporations profit each year off of our
God-given natural resources? That becomes revenue available for all US Citizens as a
universal basic income. (To minimize price/rent inflation, we can start the UBI very low and
phase it in gradually over a period of, say, 8 years.)
2. Stop the us government's constant aggressive wars and occupations far from our borders,
and close the majority of our bases abroad. Bring the troops home from Europe, Japan, and
South Korea -- they can guard our southern border instead, and the new bases will provide a
sustained boost to the hundreds of towns around the new bases here at home.
What if we reduced direct war, occupation, and foreign-base spending by $400 billion per
year. Seems like a conservative figure. Here is a website that still has 2018 fed gov
spending stats -- and seems to undercount military spending -- but a place to start:
Of course, since we are borrowing a large chunk of the fed gov's current spending, we
should not simply re-spend all of the military savings. Allocate part to other spending, but
simply don't spend the rest (thereby borrowing less each year).
3. The current federal "Alternative Minimum (Income) Tax" kicks in at far too low an
income level. Conversely, the AMT rate is far too low for extremely high incomes. What a
coincidence. Apply the AMT only to household annual income above $2 million, amply adjusted
for inflation, but tax the starch out of the oligarchs and billionaires. Yes, they can be
forcibly prevented from moving their assets and themselves out of the country. Bloomberg,
Zuckerberg, Buffet, Trump, the Sacklers, et al., can be confined and their property
confiscated as needed to pay the AMT on their income and a wealth tax.
Even now, the money is there to directly help the American people with no increase in
taxes on 99.5% of us, and with less fed gov borrowing than now.
Twenty-one of those were people that I spent $100 million ...
Names? I mean after all, if a guy's gonna bet frn100m on a hand of black jack, maybe he's
in a different class than me. I wonder if he has those folks punching his clock, from
the reports of his management style, it sounds like he's more interested in controlling
people's lives than in getting things done efficiently.
Akzed , 5 hours ago
That's $4.7M apiece. I forget, what are the limits for individual donations?
Bill of Rights , 6 hours ago
So is the FBI going to investigate Bloomturd for admitted. election fraud?
Laughter fills the room.
waspwench , 5 hours ago
Agreed. Mini-Mike is a control freak.
I would never have thought I would ever even contemplate such a thing but I am concluding
that there should be limits on any one person's wealth. Mike has $57 billion and we cannot
prevent him from using it to buy the government. There is something seriously wrong with such
a scenario.
GreatUncle , 6 hours ago
So Bloomberg just admitted he has been positioning himself to become king.
"... With Neoliberal Democrats like with Trotskyites , the only reality is power. For everything else, in any conflict between reality and fantasy, fantasy wins every damn time. ..."
in the wake of Sanders' landslide victory in Nevada, a brokered convention would mean
the end of the Democrat Party pretense to represent the 99 Percent.
as if it really mattered. Neoliberal Democrats policies are built on manufactured memes,
anecdotal narratives, hyperbolic delusions, ephemeral boogeymen, sweeping generalizations,
logical fallacies, and bloated definitions. In other words it's lies, lies, lies, lies, lies,
all the way up and down the chain.
With Neoliberal Democrats like with Trotskyites , the only reality is power. For
everything else, in any conflict between reality and fantasy, fantasy wins every damn
time.
"... But in the wake of Sanders' landslide victory in Nevada, a brokered convention would mean the end of the Democrat Party pretense to represent the 99 Percent. The American voting system would be seen to be as oligarchic as that of Rome on the eve of the infighting that ended with Augustus becoming Emperor in 27 BC. ..."
"... Last year I was asked to write a scenario for what might happen with a renewed DNC theft of the election's nomination process. To be technical, I realize, it's not called theft when it's legal. In the aftermath of suits over the 2016 power grab, the courts ruled that the Democrat Party is indeed controlled by the DNC members, not by the voters. When it comes to party machinations and decision-making, voters are subsidiary to the superdelegates in their proverbial smoke-filled room (now replaced by dollar-filled foundation contracts). ..."
"... I could not come up with a solution that does not involve dismantling and restructuring the existing party system. We have passed beyond the point of having a solvable "problem" with the Democratic National Committee (DNC). That is what a quandary is. A problem has a solution – by definition. A quandary does not have a solution. There is no way out. The conflict of interest between the Donor Class and the Voting Class has become too large to contain within a single party. It must split. ..."
"... A second-ballot super-delegate scenario would mean that we are once again in for a second Trump term. That option was supported by five of the six presidential contenders on stage in Nevada on Wednesday, February 20. When Chuck Todd asked whether Michael Bloomberg, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar would support the candidate who received the most votes in the primaries (now obviously Bernie Sanders), or throw the nomination to the super-delegates held over from the Obama-Clinton neoliberals (75 of whom already are said to have pledged their support to Bloomberg), each advocated "letting the process play out." That was a euphemism for leaving the choice to the Tony-Blair style leadership that have made the Democrats the servants' entrance to the Republican Party. Like the British Labour Party behind Blair and Gordon Brown, its role is to block any left-wing alternative to the Republican program on behalf of the One Percent. ..."
To hear the candidates debate, you would think that their fight was over who could best beat
Trump. But when Trump's billionaire twin Mike Bloomberg throws a quarter-billion dollars into
an ad campaign to bypass the candidates actually running for votes in Iowa, New Hampshire and
Nevada, it's obvious that what really is at issue is the future of the Democrat Party.
Bloomberg is banking on a brokered convention held by the Democratic National Committee (DNC)
in which money votes. (If "corporations are people," so is money in today's political
world.)
Until Nevada, all the presidential candidates except for Bernie Sanders were playing for a
brokered convention. The party's candidates seemed likely to be chosen by the Donor Class, the
One Percent and its proxies, not the voting class (the 99 Percent). If, as Mayor Bloomberg has
assumed, the DNC will sell the presidency to the highest bidder, this poses the great question:
Can the myth that the Democrats represent the working/middle class survive? Or, will the Donor
Class trump the voting class?
This could be thought of as "election interference" – not from Russia but from the DNC
on behalf of its Donor Class. That scenario would make the Democrats' slogan for 2020 "No Hope
or Change." That is, no change from today's economic trends that are sweeping wealth up to the
One Percent.
All this sounds like Rome at the end of the Republic in the 1st century BC. The way Rome's
constitution was set up, candidates for the position of consul had to pay their way through a
series of offices. The process started by going deeply into debt to get elected to the position
of aedile, in charge of staging public games and entertainments. Rome's neoliberal fiscal
policy did not tax or spend, and there was little public administrative bureaucracy, so all
such spending had to be made out of the pockets of the oligarchy. That was a way of keeping
decisions about how to spend out of the hands of democratic politics. Julius Caesar and others
borrowed from the richest Bloomberg of their day, Crassus, to pay for staging games that would
demonstrate their public spirit to voters (and also demonstrate their financial liability to
their backers among Rome's One Percent). Keeping election financing private enabled the leading
oligarchs to select who would be able to run as viable candidates. That was Rome's version of
Citizens United.
But in the wake of Sanders' landslide victory in Nevada, a brokered convention would mean
the end of the Democrat Party pretense to represent the 99 Percent. The American voting system
would be seen to be as oligarchic as that of Rome on the eve of the infighting that ended with
Augustus becoming Emperor in 27 BC.
Today's pro-One Percent media – CNN, MSNBC and The New York Times have been busy
spreading their venom against Sanders. On Sunday, February 23, CNN ran a slot, "Bloomberg needs
to take down Sanders, immediately." Given Sanders' heavy national lead, CNN warned, the race
suddenly is almost beyond the vote-fixers' ability to fiddle with the election returns. That
means that challengers to Sanders should focus their attack on him; they will have a chance to
deal with Bloomberg later (by which CNN means, when it is too late to stop him).
The party's Clinton-Obama recipients of Donor Class largesse pretend to believe that Sanders
is not electable against Donald Trump. This tactic seeks to attack him at his strongest point.
Recent polls show that he is the only candidate who actually would defeat Trump – as they
showed that he would have done in 2016.
The DNC knew that, but preferred to lose to Trump than to win with Bernie. Will history
repeat itself? Or to put it another way, will this year's July convention become a replay of
Chicago in 1968?
A quandary, not a problem
Last year I was asked to write a scenario for what might happen with a renewed DNC theft of
the election's nomination process. To be technical, I realize, it's not called theft when it's
legal. In the aftermath of suits over the 2016 power grab, the courts ruled that the Democrat
Party is indeed controlled by the DNC members, not by the voters. When it comes to party
machinations and decision-making, voters are subsidiary to the superdelegates in their
proverbial smoke-filled room (now replaced by dollar-filled foundation contracts).
I could not come up with a solution that does not involve dismantling and restructuring the
existing party system. We have passed beyond the point of having a solvable "problem" with the
Democratic National Committee (DNC). That is what a quandary is. A problem has a solution
– by definition. A quandary does not have a solution. There is no way out. The conflict
of interest between the Donor Class and the Voting Class has become too large to contain within
a single party. It must split.
A second-ballot super-delegate scenario would mean that we are once again in for a second
Trump term. That option was supported by five of the six presidential contenders on stage in
Nevada on Wednesday, February 20. When Chuck Todd asked whether Michael Bloomberg, Elizabeth
Warren, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar would support the candidate who received
the most votes in the primaries (now obviously Bernie Sanders), or throw the nomination to the
super-delegates held over from the Obama-Clinton neoliberals (75 of whom already are said to
have pledged their support to Bloomberg), each advocated "letting the process play out." That
was a euphemism for leaving the choice to the Tony-Blair style leadership that have made the
Democrats the servants' entrance to the Republican Party. Like the British Labour Party behind
Blair and Gordon Brown, its role is to block any left-wing alternative to the Republican
program on behalf of the One Percent.
"... This is the PLAN for all WHITE anglo saxon deplorables goyim Illiterate, Unemployed, violent and give them all the (tax subsidized) drugs opiods, pornography, that their subhuman hallow souls desired white genocide/ ..."
"... There is no quandary. The US democracy has long become "one dollar – one vote". Those who still believe that Dems represent working people should not take IQ test to avoid being deeply disappointed. ..."
Ironically the DEM party has become the Oligarchs party the DEMs debased themselves
abandoning the WORKING class long time ago. The DEM recipe for WHITE conservative deplorables
is something like DETROIT model a former city the cradle of the Auto/industrial manufacturing
is now a desolated city bankrupt, violence, dilapidated etc.
This is the PLAN for all WHITE anglo saxon deplorables goyim Illiterate, Unemployed,
violent and give them all the (tax subsidized) drugs opiods, pornography, that their subhuman
hallow souls desired white genocide/
There is no quandary. The US democracy has long become "one dollar – one vote". Those
who still believe that Dems represent working people should not take IQ test to avoid being
deeply disappointed.
Our
source for this thought is Glen Ford at Black Agenda Report . Ford is one of the
more vitriolic defenders of radical change in America, but in this analysis I don't think he's
wrong, at least in making the case that Bloomberg is giving himself that option. But do decide
for yourself.
Here's his case:
Bloomberg Wants to Swallow the Democrats and Spit Out the Sandernistas
If, somehow, Bernie Sanders is allowed to win the nomination, Michael Bloomberg and other
plutocrats will have created a Democratic Party machinery purpose-built to defy Sanders -- as
nominee, and even as president.
The details of his argument are here (emphasis added):
Bloomberg has already laid the groundwork to directly seize the party machinery, the old
fashioned way: by buying it and stacking it with his own, paid operatives, with a
war-against-the-left budget far bigger than the existing Democratic operation. Bloomberg's
participation in Wednesday's debate, against all the rules, is proof-of-purchase.
In addition to the nearly million dollar down payment to the party in November that sealed
the deal for the debate rules change, Bloomberg has already pledged to pay the
full salaries of 500 political staffers for the Democratic National Committee all the way
through the November election, no matter who wins the nomination. Essentially, Bloomberg
will be running the election for the corporate wing of the party, even if Sanders is the
nominee .
In an interview with PBS's Christiane Amanpour on Tuesday night, senior Bloomberg advisor
Timothy O'Brien made it clear that the DNC is in no condition to refuse being devoured by
Bloomberg, even if they wanted to. O'brien predicted the Republicans will spend at least
$900 million on the election, while the DNC has only about $8 million on hand. Even the
oligarch's underlings are telegraphing the takeover game plan .
Bloomberg is not so much running for president as making sure that the Democrats don't go
"rogue" anti-corporate to accommodate the Sandernistas. He is ensuring that the Democratic
Party will be an even more hostile environment for anti-austerity politics than in the past
– not in spite of the phenomenal success of the Sanders project, but because of it.
Ford has not much love for Bernie Sanders, as he finds Sanders (and his supporters) weak for
sticking with the Democrats. Ford thinks Sanders should go "third party" in his opposition to
the corrupt duopoly that owns our politics. That's a point on which we can disagree without
disagreeing that the duopoly is indeed corrupt, or that Bloomberg is setting himself up for
post-electoral mischief.
Ford also thinks the Party will split in the face of this anti-Sanders resistance,
especially if the counter-resistance continues after a President Sanders is inaugurated.
We'll see about all that. Ford may be right in his estimate of Bloomberg's intentions. He
may also be right in Bloomberg's ability to carry through if his intentions are indeed as
Machiavellian as he says.
On the other hand, Sanders may gather to himself enough control of the DNC and other Party
machinery that he does indeed transform it, and with it, slowly, the Party itself. That's
certainly been his game plan, and if he does indeed have a movement behind him -- a really big
one -- I wouldn't bet against him being right. I myself don't see a way for a third party to
succeed in the U.S. unless it's a "virtual third party" -- but more on that at another
time.
The Larger Point
So this is our smaller point, that Mike Bloomberg may be positioning himself to "own" the
DNC, and with it enough of the Democratic Party, so that he can himself rein in a President
Sanders. Is that his goal? It certainly seems possible. "Mini-Mike" is certainly
Machiavellian.
Which leads to the larger point: How much rebellion, within the DNC and elsewhere, with or
without Bloomberg's interference, will someone like President Sanders encounter and how long
will it last? If it lasts throughout his presidency, that's a horse of a different color -- a
much darker one.
In fact, the dark horse of today's American politics is the entrenched, corrupt (and
frankly, pathological) über-rich and their death grip on all of our governing
institutions, including the press. Will that death grip tighten as the Sanders movement grows?
And will they continue to squeeze the throats of the working class, even as the victims find
their own throats and tighten in response?
Would you bet, in other words, that the rich who rule us wouldn't kill the country that
feeds their wealth -- wouldn't spark such a confused and violent rebellion that even they would be forced at last to
flee -- won't do all all this out of animus, pique and world-historical hubris?
That bet is even money all the way. They just might try it, just might be willing to
strangle the body itself, the political body, just to see how far it they can get by doing
it.
"... By Michael Hudson, a research professor of Economics at University of Missouri, Kansas City, and a research associate at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. His latest book is "and forgive them their debts": Lending, Foreclosure and Redemption from Bronze Age Finance to the Jubilee Year ..."
"... Until Nevada, all the presidential candidates except for Bernie Sanders were playing for a brokered convention. The party's candidates seemed likely to be chosen by the Donor Class, the One Percent and its proxies, not the voting class (the 99 Percent). If, as Mayor Bloomberg has assumed, the DNC will sell the presidency to the highest bidder, this poses the great question: Can the myth that the Democrats represent the working/middle class survive? Or, will the Donor Class trump the voting class? ..."
"... This could be thought of as "election interference" – not from Russia but from the DNC on behalf of its Donor Class. That scenario would make the Democrats' slogan for 2020 "No Hope or Change." That is, no from today's economic trends that are sweeping wealth up to the One Percent. ..."
"... But in the wake of Sanders' landslide victory in Nevada, a brokered convention would mean the end of the Democrat Party pretense to represent the 99 Percent. The American voting system would be seen to be as oligarchic as that of Rome on the eve of the infighting that ended with Augustus becoming Emperor in 27 BC. ..."
"... Today's pro-One Percent media – CNN, MSNBC and The New York Times ..."
"... History of Rome ..."
"... History of Rome ..."
"... Some on Resistance Twitter claim that if Sanders is the nominee, Trump will win a 48 sweep. Possible, but very unlikely. But if it did happen, the MSM would once again dismiss his program as being completely unacceptable to the voting class, and Sanders would trudge back to Vermont never to be heard from again. ..."
"... So if his program requires a decade long follow through, what are the least bad outcomes? If the D's deprive him of the nomination at the convention, even though he has far and away more pledged delegates, the MSM cannot dismiss his program as it would in the two previous scenarios, and his program would live to fight another day. ..."
"... Trump may or may not win. But if he does, the best he can hope for is a skin-of-his-teeth victory. Seriously, he lost the popular vote by a ton to Hillary freaking Clinton. ..."
"... And stuff is beginning to crumble around him on the Right. The Dow drops. Oops Richie Rich gets uneasy. ..."
"... I was more than a little honked when Sanders appeared to roll over and support HRC in 2016 in spite of the obvious fraud perpetrated on him and his supporters, not to mention the subsequent treatment they received at the hands of the DNC and Tom Perez. ..."
"... I find myself wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea for Sanders and his supporters to make it absolutely clear their attempts to work within 'the system' are finished if they are robbed again; maybe even starting work immediately on establishing a party not controlled by Wall Street lickspittle or knuckle-dragging no-nothings? ..."
To hear the candidates debate, you would think that their fight was over who could best beat
Trump. But when Trump's billionaire twin Mike Bloomberg throws a quarter-billion dollars into
an ad campaign to bypass the candidates actually running for votes in Iowa, New Hampshire and
Nevada, it's obvious that what really is at issue is the future of the Democrat Party.
Bloomberg is banking on a brokered convention held by the Democratic National Committee (DNC)
in which money votes. (If "corporations are people," so is money in today's political
world.)
Until Nevada, all the presidential candidates except for Bernie Sanders were playing for
a brokered convention. The party's candidates seemed likely to be chosen by the Donor Class,
the One Percent and its proxies, not the voting class (the 99 Percent). If, as Mayor Bloomberg
has assumed, the DNC will sell the presidency to the highest bidder, this poses the great
question: Can the myth that the Democrats represent the working/middle class survive? Or, will
the Donor Class trump the voting class?
This could be thought of as "election interference" – not from Russia but from the
DNC on behalf of its Donor Class. That scenario would make the Democrats' slogan for 2020 "No
Hope or Change." That is, no from today's economic trends that are sweeping wealth up to the
One Percent.
All this sounds like Rome at the end of the Republic in the 1st century BC.
The way Rome's constitution was set up, candidates for the position of consul had to pay their
way through a series of offices. The process started by going deeply into debt to get elected
to the position of aedile, in charge of staging public games and entertainments. Rome's
neoliberal fiscal policy did not tax or spend, and there was little public administrative
bureaucracy, so all such spending had to be made out of the pockets of the oligarchy. That was
a way of keeping decisions about how to spend out of the hands of democratic politics. Julius
Caesar and others borrowed from the richest Bloomberg of their day, Crassus, to pay for staging
games that would demonstrate their public spirit to voters (and also demonstrate their
financial liability to their backers among Rome's One Percent). Keeping election financing
private enabled the leading oligarchs to select who would be able to run as viable candidates.
That was Rome's version of Citizens United.
But in the wake of Sanders' landslide victory in Nevada, a brokered convention
would mean the end of the Democrat Party pretense to represent the 99 Percent. The American
voting system would be seen to be as oligarchic as that of Rome on the eve of the infighting
that ended with Augustus becoming Emperor in 27 BC.
Today's pro-One Percent media – CNN, MSNBC and The New York Times
have been busy spreading their venom against Sanders. On Sunday, February 23, CNN ran a slot,
"Bloomberg needs to take down Sanders, immediately."[1]Given Sanders' heavy national lead, CNN
warned, the race suddenly is almost beyond the vote-fixers' ability to fiddle with the election
returns. That means that challengers to Sanders should focus their attack on him; they will
have a chance to deal with Bloomberg later (by which CNN means, when it is too late to stop
him).
The party's Clinton-Obama recipients of Donor Class largesse pretend to believe that Sanders
is not electable against Donald Trump. This tactic seeks to attack him at his strongest point.
Recent polls show that he is the only candidate who actually would defeat Trump – as they
showed that he would have done in 2016.
The DNC knew that, but preferred to lose to Trump than to win with Bernie. Will history
repeat itself? Or to put it another way, will this year's July convention become a replay of
Chicago in 1968?
A quandary, not a problem . Last year I was asked to write a scenario for what might happen
with a renewed DNC theft of the election's nomination process. To be technical, I realize, it's
not called theft when it's legal. In the aftermath of suits over the 2016 power grab, the
courts ruled that the Democrat Party is indeed controlled by the DNC members, not by the
voters. When it comes to party machinations and decision-making, voters are subsidiary to the
superdelegates in their proverbial smoke-filled room (now replaced by dollar-filled foundation
contracts).
I could not come up with a solution that does not involve dismantling and restructuring the
existing party system. We have passed beyond the point of having a solvable "problem" with the
Democratic National Committee (DNC). That is what a quandary is. A problem has a solution
– by definition. A quandary does not have a solution. There is no way out. The conflict
of interest between the Donor Class and the Voting Class has become too large to contain within
a single party. It must split.
A second-ballot super-delegate scenario would mean that we are once again in for a second
Trump term. That option was supported by five of the six presidential contenders on stage in
Nevada on Wednesday, February 20. When Chuck Todd asked whether Michael Bloomberg, Elizabeth
Warren, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar would support the candidate who received
the most votes in the primaries (now obviously Bernie Sanders), or throw the nomination to the
super-delegates held over from the Obama-Clinton neoliberals (75 of whom already are said to
have pledged their support to Bloomberg), each advocated "letting the process play out." That
was a euphemism for leaving the choice to the Tony-Blair style leadership that have made the
Democrats the servants' entrance to the Republican Party. Like the British Labour Party behind
Blair and Gordon Brown, its role is to block any left-wing alternative to the Republican
program on behalf of the One Percent.
This problem would not exist if the United States had a European-style parliamentary system
that would enable a third party to obtain space on the ballots in all 50 states. If this were
Europe, the new party of Bernie Sanders, AOC et al. would exceed 50 percent of the
votes, leaving the Wall Street democrats with about the same 8 percent share that similar
neoliberal democratic parties have in Europe ( e.g ., Germany's hapless neoliberalized
Social Democrats), that is, Klobocop territory as voters moved to the left. The "voting
Democrats," the 99 Percent, would win a majority leaving the Old Neoliberal Democrats in the
dust.
The DNC's role is to prevent any such challenge. The United States has an effective
political duopoly, as both parties have created such burdensome third-party access to the
ballot box in state after state that Bernie Sanders decided long ago that he had little
alternative but to run as a Democrat.
The problem is that the Democrat Party does not seem to be reformable. That means that
voters still may simply abandon it – but that will simply re-elect the Democrats' de
facto 2020 candidate, Donald Trump. The only hope would be to shrink the party into a shell,
enabling the old guard to go way so that the party could be rebuilt from the ground up.
But the two parties have created a legal duopoly reinforced with so many technical barriers
that a repeat of Ross Perot's third party (not to mention the old Socialist Party, or the Whigs
in 1854) would take more than one election cycle to put in place. For the time being, we may
expect another few months of dirty political tricks to rival those of 2016 as Obama appointee
Tom Perez is simply the most recent version of Florida fixer Debbie Schultz-Wasserman (who gave
a new meaning to the Wasserman Test).
So we are in for another four years of Donald Trump. But by 2024, how tightly will the U.S.
economy find itself tied in knots?
The Democrats' Vocabulary of Deception
How I would explain Bernie's program. Every economy is a mixed economy. But to hear Michael
Bloomberg and his fellow rivals to Bernie Sanders explain the coming presidential election, one
would think that an economy must be either capitalist or, as Bloomberg put it, Communist. There
is no middle ground, no recognition that capitalist economies have a government sector, which
typically is called the "socialist" sector – Social Security, Medicare, public schooling,
roads, anti-monopoly regulation, and public infrastructure as an alternative to privatized
monopolies extracting economic rent.
What Mr. Bloomberg means by insisting that it's either capitalism or communism is an absence
of government social spending and regulation. In practice this means oligarchic financial
control, because every economy is planned by some sector. The key is, who will do the planning?
If government refrains from taking the lead in shaping markets, then Wall Street takes over
– or the City in London, Frankfurt in Germany, and the Bourse in France.
Most of all, the aim of the One Percent is to distract attention from the fact that the
economy is polarizing – and is doing so at an accelerating rate. National income
statistics are rigged to show that "the economy" is expanding. The pretense is that everyone is
getting richer and living better, not more strapped. But the reality is that all the growth in
GDP has accrued to the wealthiest 5 Percent since the Obama Recession began in 2008. Obama
bailed out the banks instead of the 10 million victimized junk-mortgage holders. The 95
Percent's share of GDP has shrunk.
The GDP statistics do not show is that "capital gains" – the market price of stocks,
bonds and real estate owned mainly by the One to Five Percent – has soared, thanks to
Obama's $4.6 trillion Quantitative Easing pumped into the financial markets instead of into the
"real" economy in which wage-earners produce goods and services.
How does one "stay the course" in an economy that is polarizing? Staying the course means
continuing the existing trends that are concentrating more and more wealth in the hands of the
One Percent, that is, the Donor Class – while loading down the 99 Percent with more debt,
paid to the One Percent (euphemized as the economy's "savers"). All "saving" is at the top of
the pyramid. The 99 Percent can't afford to save much after paying their monthly "nut" to the
One Percent.
If this economic polarization is impoverishing most of the population while sucking wealth
and income and political power up to the One Percent, then to be a centrist is to be the
candidate of oligarchy. It means not challenging the economy's structure.
Language is being crafted to confuse voters into imagining that their interest is the same
as that of the Donor Class of rentiers , creditors and financialized corporate
businesses and rent-extracting monopolies. The aim is to divert attention from voters' their
own economic interest as wage-earners, debtors and consumers. It is to confuse voters not to
recognize that without structural reform, today's "business as usual" leaves the One Percent in
control.
So to call oneself a "centrist" is simply a euphemism for acting as a lobbyist for siphoning
up income and wealth to the One Percent. In an economy that is polarizing, the choice is either
to favor them instead of the 99 Percent.
That certainly is not the same thing as stability. Centrism sustains the polarizing dynamic
of financialization, private equity, and the Biden-sponsored bankruptcy "reform" written by his
backers of the credit-card companies and other financial entities incorporated in his state of
Delaware. He was the senator for the that state's Credit Card industry, much as former
Democratic VP candidate Joe Lieberman was the senator from Connecticut's Insurance
Industry.
A related centrist demand is that of Buttigieg's and Biden's aim to balance the federal
budget. This turns out to be a euphemism for cutting back Social Security, Medicare and relate
social spending ("socialism") to pay for America's increasing militarization, subsidies and tax
cuts for the One Percent. Sanders rightly calls this "socialism for the rich." The usual word
for this is oligarchy . That seems to be a missing word in today's mainstream
vocabulary.
The alternative to democracy is oligarchy. As Aristotle noted already in the 4 th
Confusion over the word "socialism" may be cleared up by recognizing that every economy
is mixed, and every economy is planned – by someone. If not the government in the public
interest, then by Wall Street and other financial centers in their interest. They
fought against an expanding government sector in every economy today, calling it socialism
– without acknowledging that the alternative, as Rosa Luxemburg put it, is
barbarism.
I think that Sanders is using the red-letter word "socialism" and calling himself a
"democratic socialist" to throw down the ideological gauntlet and plug himself into the long
and powerful tradition of socialist politics. Paul Krugman would like him to call himself a
social democrat. But the European parties of this name have discredited this label as being
centrist and neoliberal. Sanders wants to emphasize that a quantum leap, a phase change is in
order.
If he can be criticized for waving a needlessly red flag, it is his repeated statement
that his program is designed for the "working class." What he means are wage-earners and this
includes the middle class. Even those who make over $100,000 a year are still wage earners, and
typically are being squeezed by a predatory financial sector, a predatory medical insurance
sector, drug companies and other monopolies.
The danger in this terminology is that most workers like to think of themselves as
middle class, because that is what they would like to rise into. That is especially he case for
workers who own their own home (even if mortgage represents most of the value, so that most of
the home's rental value is paid to banks, not to themselves as part of the "landlord class"),
and have an education (even if most of their added income is paid out as student debt service),
and their own car to get to work (involving automobile debt).
The fact is that even $100,000 executives have difficulty living within the limits of
their paycheck, after paying their monthly nut of home mortgage or rent, medical care, student
loan debt, credit-card debt and automobile debt, not to mention 15% FICA paycheck withholding
and state and local tax withholding.
Of course, Sanders' terminology is much more readily accepted by wage-earners as the
voters whom Hillary called "Deplorables" and Obama called "the mob with pitchforks," from whom
he was protecting his Wall Street donors whom he invited to the White House in 2009. But I
think there is a much more appropriate term: the 99 Percent, made popular by Occupy Wall
Street. That is Bernie's natural constituency. It serves to throw down the gauntlet between
democracy and oligarchy, and between socialism and barbarism, by juxtaposing the 99 Percent to
the One Percent.
The Democratic presidential debate on February 25 will set the stage for Super
Tuesday's "beauty contest" to gauge what voters want. The degree of Sanders' win will help
determine whether the byzantine Democrat party apparatus that actually will be able to decide
on the Party's candidate. The expected strong Sanders win is will make the choice stark: either
to accept who the voters choose – namely, Bernie Sanders – or to pick a candidate
whom voters already have rejected, and is certain to lose to Donald Trump in
November.
If that occurs, the Democrat Party will evaporate as its old Clinton-Obama guard is no
longer able to protect its donor class on Wall Street and corporate America. Too many Sanders
voters would stay home or vote for the Greens. That would enable the Republicans to maintain
control of the Senate and perhaps even grab back the House of Representatives.
But it would be dangerous to assume that the DNC will be reasonable. Once again, Roman
history provides a "business as usual" scenario. The liberal German politician Theodor Mommsen
published his History of Rome in 1854-56, warning against letting an aristocracy block
reform by controlling the upper house of government (Rome's Senate, or Britain House of Lords).
The leading families who overthrew the last king in 509 BC created a Senate chronically prone
to being stifled by its leaders' "narrowness of mind and short-sightedness that are the proper
and inalienable privileges of all genuine patricianism."[2]
These qualities also are the distinguishing features of the DNC. Sanders had better win
big!
I wonder how much of the rot at the top of the Dem party is simple dementia. By
the age of 70, half of people have some level of dementia. Consider Joe Biden – is
anyone in the public sphere going to state the obvious – that he has dementia and as
such is unfit for office?
First, my priors. I voted for Sanders in 2016, will vote for him in 2020, and
expect him to be elected president. Further I believe that where we find ourselves today is
the result of at least 40 years of intentional bi-partisan policies. Both parties are
responsible.
If Sanders, upon being elected, were able to snap his fingers and call into
existence his entire program, it would immediately face a bi-partisan opposition that would
be funded by billions of dollars, which would be willing to take as long as necessary, even
decades, to roll it back.
Just electing Sanders is only the first step. There must be a committed,
determined follow through that must be willing to last decades as well for his program to
stick. And there will be defeats along the way.
Several observations. If Hillary had beaten Trump, Sanders would have trudged
back to Vermont and would never have been heard from again. The MSM would have dismissed his
program as being completely unacceptable to the voting class. But she didn't, so here we are,
which is fantastic.
Some on Resistance Twitter claim that if Sanders is the nominee, Trump will
win a 48 sweep. Possible, but very unlikely. But if it did happen, the MSM would once again
dismiss his program as being completely unacceptable to the voting class, and Sanders would
trudge back to Vermont never to be heard from again.
So if his program requires a decade long follow through, what are the least
bad outcomes? If the D's deprive him of the nomination at the convention, even though he has
far and away more pledged delegates, the MSM cannot dismiss his program as it would in the
two previous scenarios, and his program would live to fight another
day.
If he loses to Trump, but closely, which can mean a lot of different things,
his program would live to fight another day. Moreover, if the D's are seen to actively
collude with Trump, this less bad outcome would be even better.
I am an old geezer and don't expect to live long enough to see how all of this
plays out. But I am very optimistic about his program's long term prospects. There is only
one bad outcome, a Trump 48 state sweep, which I consider very unlikely. But most
importantly, the best outcome, his election, and the two least bad outcomes, the D's stealing
the nomination from him or his losing a close general election, all still will require a
decades long commitment to make his program permanent.
Where do people get this? Take a deep breath. Trump may or may not win. But if
he does, the best he can hope for is a skin-of-his-teeth victory. Seriously, he lost the
popular vote by a ton to Hillary freaking Clinton.
And stuff is beginning to crumble around him on the Right. The Dow drops. Oops
Richie Rich gets uneasy.
Hammered by a 5 star general. The Deplorables kids were raised to look up to
generals, not New Yawk dandys. How does this affect them? And it's still
February.
Just an FYI: The five-volume Mommsen "History of Rome" referenced in the text
is available in English on Project Gutenberg, free and legal to download. Probably everyone
here knows this, but just in case
How about Bernie call himself "Roosevelt Democrat" instead of "Democratic
Socialist". It would give all those in the senior demographic a better understanding of what
Sander's policies mean to them as opposed to the scary prospect of the "Socialist"
label.
The Democrats should have been slowly disarming the word "socialist" for at
least the last decade. In principle, it's not difficult – as Michael Hudson says
– "Every economy is a mixed economy" – and in a very real sense everyone's a
socialist (even if only unconsciously). I'm not saying that bit of rhetorical jujitsu would
magically turn conservative voters progressive but you'll never get to the point where you
can defend socialist programs on the merits if you always dodge that fight. It's just a shame
that Bernie Sanders has to do it all in a single election cycle and I don't think choosing a
different label now would help him much.
He could even compare himself to the earlier Roosevelt: Teddy
Roosevelt.
By 1900 the old bourbon Dem party was deeply split between its old, big
business and banking wing – the bourbons – and the rising progressive/populist
wing. It was GOP pres Roosevelt who first pushed through progressive programs like breaking
up railroad and commodity monopolies, investigating and regulating meat packing and
fraudulent patent medicines, etc. Imagine that.
I just finished Stoller's book Goliath and according to him, Teddy
wasn't quite as progressive as we are often led to believe. He wasn't so much opposed to
those with enormous wealth – he just wanted them to answer to him. He did do the things
you mentioned, but after sending the message to the oligarchs, he then became friendly with
them once he felt he'd brought them to heel. He developed quite the soft spot for JP Morgan,
according to Stoller.
TR wanted to be the Boss, the center of attention with everyone looking up to
him. As one of his relatives said, he wanted to be the baby at every christening and the
corpse at every funeral.
I have a sense that changing his party affiliation label at any point in time
since Sanders began running for president in 2016 would be a godsend to his enemies in both
hands of the Duopoly. They'd tar him loudly as a hypocrite without an ounce of integrity,
using personal politics to distract from the issues.
Meanwhile, we can expect to see the Socialist (and Communist, and
Russia-Russia-Russia) nonsense reiterated as long as Sanders has strong visibility. He's
extremely dangerous to both parties and their owners. I don't' believe the DNC will let him
take the convention, but if he does, I'll bet the Dems give him minimal support and hope he
fails–better the devil you know, etc.
It's time to put your money in reality futures by putting all that you can into
supporting Bernie, AOC, etc. and all your local candidates that support at least democratic
socialism and ourrevolution the DSA Justice Dems or other groups that have people but need
money. I was having a conversation with a friend who was complaining that he was getting too
many emails from Bernie asking for money after he had given the campaign a "modest amount".
My suggestion was in honor of his children and grandchildren he should instead GIVE 'TIL IT
FEELS GOOD. My spouse and I, I told him, gave the max to Bernie and now we don't give upset
when he asks for more. There will likely never be a moment like this in history and there may
not be much of a history if things go the wrong way now. He agreed.
Exactly right. I gave Bernie the max in 2019 and will keep giving throughout
2020. This campaign is about not just me, but all of us. It's now. We must fight for this
change as has always been the historical precedent.
I was more than a little honked when Sanders appeared to roll over and
support HRC in 2016 in spite of the obvious fraud perpetrated on him and his supporters, not
to mention the subsequent treatment they received at the hands of the DNC and Tom
Perez.
I am coming to understand that might have been necessary within the context of
one last desperate attempt to work with the Democratic party. But now I find myself
wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea for Sanders and his supporters to make it absolutely
clear their attempts to work within 'the system' are finished if they are robbed again; maybe
even starting work immediately on establishing a party not controlled by Wall Street
lickspittle or knuckle-dragging no-nothings?
Little as it has been the answer has a lot to do with my willingness to pour
more money into repetitively self-defeating behavior.
I am a somewhat old geezer, too, who caucused for Bernie in 2016 and 2020. This
article is very good and helps me understand why I feel the way I do. I was disappointed in
Obama, who didn't follow through on the things I cared about, and I was devastated when
Clinton was crowned the Democratic nominee well before the Convention, all the while holding
onto a smidgen of hope that somehow Bernie would pull through as the
nominee.
I was ecstatic when Bernie announced his candidacy for 2020. He is our only
hope, and now we have a second chance. But now I am spending half my time screaming at people
on tv and online who can't even hear me, and even if they could, they don't give a s–t
what I think. It's Clinton 2.0–same thing all over again, four years later. Just who do
these people (DNC, MSM, and others with a voice) think they are, to decide for the Democratic
voters which candidate will be the nominee, who won't be the nominee, without regard to what
the voters want? They are a bunch of pompous as–s who have some other motive that I am
not savvy enough to understand. Is it about money in their pockets or what?
It should be as simple as this–Bernie is leading in the polls, if they
are to be believed, and good people of all demographics want him to be our next President. He
is a serious contender for the nomination. Show the man some much-earned respect and put
people on MSM and publish articles by writers who help us understand what the anti-Bernie
panic is about and why we shouldn't panic. Help us to explain his plans if he hasn't
explained it thoroughly enough instead of calling him crazy. But to dismiss him as if he has
the plague is not furthering the truth, and it is a serious injustice to the voting public.
Naked Capitalism can't do it alone.
There is a lot of good analysis out there, mainly on Youtube. I particularly
like The Hill's Rising. A young progressive Democrat and a young progressive Republican (who
even knew there was such a thing!) 'splain a lot of the antipathy. Another good source is
Nomiki Konst, who is working on reforming the Dem party from within. Here she talks to RJ
Eskow about how the DNC is structured and how she hopes to provide tools for rank-and-file
Dems to wrest the levers of power from the establishment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ7wm6DCPV4
Private sector cannot operate without same. Harrold
The problem is that the population, including FDR in his time, have been duped
into believing that the private sector REQUIRES government privileges for private depository
institutions, aka "the banks."
So currently we have no truly private sector to speak of but businesses and
industry using the public's credit but for private gain.
Last night's Democracy Now was interesting. Amy seems to be less of a commie
hater than she recently was with her participation in the Russia-Russia-Russia smears against
Trump. She held court last night with Paul Krugman and Richard Wolff discussing just exactly
what "socialism" means. It was a great performance.
Krug seemed a little shellshocked about the whole discussion and he said we
shouldn't even use the term "socialism" at all because all the things Bernie wants are just
as capitalist – that capitalism encompasses socialism. But he stuttered when he
discussed "single-payer" which he claimed he supported – his single payer is like Pete
Buttigieg's single-payer-eventually. He tried to change the subject and Amy brought him
straight back.
Then Wolff, who was in excellent form, informed the table that "socialism" is a
moveable feast because it can be and has been many things for the advancement of societies,
etc. But the term always means the advancement of society. Then Krug dropped a real bomb
– he actually said (this is almost a quote) that recently he had been informed by
Powell that debt isn't really all that important.
Really, Krug said that. And he tried to exetend that thought to the argument
that anybody can provide social benefits – it doesn't require a self-proclaimed
"socialist".
Richard Wolff confronted that slide with pointing out that it hasn't happened
yet – and he left Krug with no excuses. It was quite the showdown. Nice Richard Wolff
is so firmly in Bernie's camp.
Krug looked evasive – and I kept wishing they had invited Steve Keen to
participate.
In the language of the American Oligarchy and it's tame and owned presstitutes on the MSM,
any country targeted for destabilisation, destruction and rape – either because it
doesn't do what America tells it do (Russia), because it has rich natural resources or has a
'socialist' state (Venezuela) or because lunatic neo-cons and even more lunatic Christian
Evangelicals (hoping to provoke The End Times ) want it to happen (Syria and Iran) – is
first labelled as a 'regime'.
That's because the word 'regime' is associated with dictatorships and human rights abuses
and establishing a non-compliant country as a 'regime' is the US government's and MSM's first
step at manufacturing public consent for that country's destruction.
Unfortunately if you sit back and talk a cool-headed, factual look at actions and attitudes
that we're told constitute a regime then you have to conclude that America itself is 'a
regime'.
So, here's why America is a regime:
Regimes disobey international law. Like America's habit of blowing up wedding parties
with drones or the illegal presence of its troops in Syria, Iraq and God knows where
else.
Regimes carry out illegal assassination programs – I need say no more here than
Qasem Soleimani.
Regimes use their economic power to bully and impose their will – sanctioning
countries even when they know those sanctions will, for example, be responsible for the death
of 500,000 Iraqi children (the 'price worth paying', remember?).
Regimes renege on international treaties – like Iran nuclear treaty, for
example.
Regimes imprison and hound whistle-blowers – like Chelsea manning and Julian
Assange.
Regimes imprison people. America is the world leader in incarceration. It has 2.2 million
people in its prisons (more than China which has 5 times the US's population), that's 25% of
the world's prison population for 5% of the world's population, Why does America need so many
prisoners? Because it has a massive, prison-based, slave labour business that is hugely
profitable for the oligarchy.
Regimes censor free speech. Just recently, we've seen numerous non-narrative following
journalists and organisations kicked off numerous social media platforms. I didn't see lots
of US senators standing up and saying 'I disagree completely with what you say but I will
fight to the death to preserve your right to say it'. Did you?
Regimes are ruled by cliques. I don't need to tell you that America is kakistocratic
Oligarchy ruled by a tiny group of evil, rich, Old Men, do I?
Regimes keep bad company. Their allies are other 'regimes', and they're often lumped
together by using another favourite presstitute term – 'axis of evil'. America has its
own little axis of evil. It's two main allies are Saudi Arabia – a homophobic, women
hating, head chopping, terrorist financing state currently engaged in a war of genocide
(assisted by the US) in Yemen – and the racist, genocidal undeclared nuclear power
state of Israel.
Regimes commit human rights abuses. Here we could talk about ooh let's think. Last year's
treatment of child refugees from Latin America, the execution of African Americans for
'walking whilst black' by America's militarized, criminal police force or the millions of
dollars in cash and property seized from entirely innocent Americans by that same police
force under 'civil forfeiture' laws or maybe we could mention huge American corporations
getting tax refunds whilst ordinary Americans can't afford decent, effective healthcare.
Regimes finance terrorism. Mmmm .just like America financed terrorists to help destroy
Syria and Libya and invested $5 billion dollars to install another regime – the one of
anti-Semites and Nazis in Ukraine
Yup – America passes the 'sniff test' for Regime status.
If you're sick of being ruled by lying, psychopathic wankers then imagine a world,
much like this one but subtly different where, instead of always getting away with it all
the time, our psychopathic rulers occasionally got what they really, really deserved.
4
hours ago
America's Military is Killing – Americans!
In 2018, Republicans (AND Democrats) voted to cut $23 billion dollars from the budget
for food stamps (42 million Americans currently receive them).
Fats forward to 21 December 2019 and Donald Trump signed off on a US defense budget of a
mind boggling $738 billion dollars.
To put that in context -- the annual US government Education budget is
sround $68 billion dollars.
Did you get that -- $738 billion on defense, $68 billion on education?
That means the government spends more than ten times on preparations to kill people than
it does on preparing children for life in the adult world.
Wow!
How ******* psychotic and death-affirming is that? It gets even worse when you consider
that that $716 billion dollars is only the headline figure – it doesn't include
whatever the Deep State siphons away into black-ops and kick backs. And .America's military
isn't even very good – it's hasn't 'won' a conflict since the second world war, it's
proud (and horrifically expensive) aircraft carriers have been rendered obsolete by Chinese
and Russian hypersonic missiles and its 'cutting edge' weapons are so good (not) that
everyone wants to buy the cheaper and better Russian versions: classic example – the
F-35 jet program will screw $1.5 TRILLION (yes, TRILLION) dollars out of US taxpayers but
but it's a piece of **** plane that doesn't work properly which the Russians laughingly
refer to as 'a flying piano'.
In contrast to America's free money for the military industrial complex defense budget,
China spends $165 billion and Russia spends $61 billion on defense and I don't see anyone
attacking them (well, except America, that is be it only by proxy for now).
Or, put things another way. The United Kingdom spent £110 billion on it's National
Health Service in 2017. That means, if you get sick in England, you can see a doctor for
free. If you need drugs you pay a prescription charge of around $11.50(nothing, if
unemployed, a child or elderly), whatever the market price of the drugs. If you need to see
a consultant or medical specialist, you'll see one for free. If you need an operation,
you'll get one for free. If you need on-going care for a chronic illness, you'll get it for
free.
Fully socialised, free at the point of access, healthcare for all. How good is that?
US citizens could have that, too.
Allowing for the US's larger population, the UK National Health Service transplanted to
America could cost about $650 billion a year. That would still leave $66 billion dollars
left over from the proposed defense budget of $716 billion to finance weapons of death and
destruction -- more than those 'evil Ruskies' spend.
The US has now been at war, somewhere in the world (i.e in someone elses' country where
the US doesn't have any business being) continuously for 28 years. Those 28 years have
coincided with (for the 'ordinary people', anyway) declining living standards, declining
real wages, increased police violence, more repression and surveillance, declining
lifespans, declining educational and health outcomes, more every day misery in other words,
America's military is killing Americans. Oh, and millions of people in far away countries
(although, obviously, those deaths are in far away countries and they are of
brown-skinned people so they don't really count, do they?).
From comments (Is the USA government now a "regime"): In 2018, Republicans (AND Democrats) voted to cut $23 billion dollars from
the budget for food stamps (42 million Americans currently receive them). Regimes disobey international law. Like America's habit of
blowing up wedding parties with drones or the illegal presence of its troops in Syria, Iraq and God knows where else. Regimes carry
out illegal assassination programs – I need say no more here than Qasem Soleimani. Regimes use their economic power to bully and
impose their will – sanctioning countries even when they know those sanctions will, for example, be responsible for the death of
500,000 Iraqi children (the 'price worth paying', remember?). Regimes renege on international treaties – like Iran nuclear treaty,
for example. Regimes imprison and hound whistle-blowers – like Chelsea manning and Julian Assange. Regimes imprison people. America
is the world leader in incarceration. It has 2.2 million people in its prisons (more than China which has 5 times the US's
population), that's 25% of the world's prison population for 5% of the world's population, Why does America need so many prisoners?
Because it has a massive, prison-based, slave labour business that is hugely profitable for the oligarchy.
Regimes censor free speech. Just recently, we've seen numerous non-narrative following journalists and organisations kicked off
numerous social media platforms. I didn't see lots of US senators standing up and saying 'I disagree completely with what you say
but I will fight to the death to preserve your right to say it'. Did you?
Regimes are ruled by cliques. I don't need to tell you that America is kakistocratic Oligarchy ruled by a tiny group of evil,
rich, Old Men, do I?
Regimes keep bad company. Their allies are other 'regimes', and they're often lumped together by using another favourite presstitute
term – 'axis of evil'. America has its own little axis of evil. It's two main allies are Saudi Arabia – a homophobic, women hating,
head chopping, terrorist financing state currently engaged in a war of genocide (assisted by the US) in Yemen – and the racist,
genocidal undeclared nuclear power state of Israel.
Regimes commit human rights abuses. Here we could talk about…ooh…let's think. Last year's treatment of child refugees from Latin
America, the execution of African Americans for 'walking whilst black' by America's militarized, criminal police force or the
millions of dollars in cash and property seized from entirely innocent Americans by that same police force under 'civil forfeiture'
laws or maybe we could mention huge American corporations getting tax refunds whilst ordinary Americans can't afford decent,
effective healthcare.
Regimes finance terrorism. Mmmm….just like America financed terrorists to help destroy Syria and Libya and invested $5 billion
dollars to install another regime – the one of anti-Semites and Nazis in Ukraine…
Highly recommended!
Some comments edited for clarity...
Notable quotes:
"... But after retirement, Smedley Butler changed his tune. ..."
"... "I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service... And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street, and for the Bankers." ..."
"... Smedley Butler's Marine Corps and the military of his day was, in certain ways, a different sort of organization than today's highly professionalized armed forces. History rarely repeats itself, not in a literal sense anyway. Still, there are some disturbing similarities between the careers of Butler and today's generation of forever-war fighters. All of them served repeated tours of duty in (mostly) unsanctioned wars around the world. Butler's conflicts may have stretched west from Haiti across the oceans to China, whereas today's generals mostly lead missions from West Africa east to Central Asia, but both sets of conflicts seemed perpetual in their day and were motivated by barely concealed economic and imperial interests. ..."
"... When Smedley Butler retired in 1931, he was one of three Marine Corps major generals holding a rank just below that of only the Marine commandant and the Army chief of staff. Today, with about 900 generals and admirals currently serving on active duty, including 24 major generals in the Marine Corps alone, and with scores of flag officers retiring annually, not a single one has offered genuine public opposition to almost 19 years worth of ill-advised, remarkably unsuccessful American wars . As for the most senior officers, the 40 four-star generals and admirals whose vocal antimilitarism might make the biggest splash, there are more of them today than there were even at the height of the Vietnam War, although the active military is now about half the size it was then. Adulated as many of them may be, however, not one qualifies as a public critic of today's failing wars. ..."
"... The big three are Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of staff, retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson ; Vietnam veteran and onetime West Point history instructor, retired Colonel Andrew Bacevich ; and Iraq veteran and Afghan War whistleblower , retired Lieutenant Colonel Danny Davis . All three have proven to be genuine public servants, poignant voices, and -- on some level -- cherished personal mentors. For better or worse, however, none carry the potential clout of a retired senior theater commander or prominent four-star general offering the same critiques. ..."
"... Consider it an irony of sorts that this system first received criticism in our era of forever wars when General David Petraeus, then commanding the highly publicized " surge " in Iraq, had to leave that theater of war in 2007 to serve as the chair of that selection committee. The reason: he wanted to ensure that a twice passed-over colonel, a protégé of his -- future Trump National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster -- earned his star. ..."
"... At the roots of this system lay the obsession of the American officer corps with " professionalization " after the Vietnam War debacle. This first manifested itself in a decision to ditch the citizen-soldier tradition, end the draft, and create an "all-volunteer force." The elimination of conscription, as predicted by critics at the time, created an ever-growing civil-military divide, even as it increased public apathy regarding America's wars by erasing whatever " skin in the game " most citizens had. ..."
"... One group of generals, however, reportedly now does have it out for President Trump -- but not because they're opposed to endless war. Rather, they reportedly think that The Donald doesn't "listen enough to military advice" on, you know, how to wage war forever and a day. ..."
"... That beast, first identified by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, is now on steroids as American commanders in retirement regularly move directly from the military onto the boards of the giant defense contractors, a reality which only contributes to the dearth of Butlers in the military retiree community. For all the corruption of his time, the Pentagon didn't yet exist and the path from the military to, say, United Fruit Company, Standard Oil, or other typical corporate giants of that moment had yet to be normalized for retiring generals and admirals. Imagine what Butler would have had to say about the modern phenomenon of the " revolving door " in Washington. ..."
"... Today, generals don't seem to have a thought of their own even in retirement. And more's the pity... ..."
"... Am I the only one to notice that Hollywood and it's film distributors have gone full bore on "war" productions, glorifying these historical events while using poetic license to rewrite history. Prepping the numbheads. ..."
"... Forget rank. As Mr Sjursen implies, dissidents are no longer allowed in the higher ranks. "They" made sure to fix this as Mr Butler had too much of a mind of his own (US education system also programmed against creative, charismatic thinkers, btw). ..."
"... Today, the "Masters of the Permawars" refer to the international extortion, MIC, racket as "Defending American Interests"! .....With never any explanation to the public/American taxpayer just what "American Interests" the incredible expenditures of American lives, blood, and treasure are being defended! ..."
"... "The Americans follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." - Jospeh Goebbels ..."
"... The greatest anti-imperialist of our times is Michael Parenti: ..."
"... The obvious types of American fascists are dealt with on the air and in the press. These demagogues and stooges are fronts for others. Dangerous as these people may be, they are not so significant as thousands of other people who have never been mentioned. The really dangerous American fascists are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power. ..."
"... If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. Most American fascists are enthusiastically supporting the war effort. ..."
There once lived an odd little man - five feet nine inches tall and barely 140 pounds
sopping wet - who rocked the lecture circuit and the nation itself. For all but a few activist
insiders and scholars, U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Darlington Butler is now lost to
history. Yet more than a century ago, this strange contradiction
of a man would become a national war hero, celebrated in pulp adventure novels, and then, 30
years later, as one of this country's most prominent antiwar and anti-imperialist
dissidents.
Raised in West Chester, Pennsylvania, and educated in Quaker (pacifist) schools, the son of
an influential congressman, he would end up serving in nearly all of America's " Banana Wars " from 1898 to
1931. Wounded in combat and a rare recipient of two Congressional Medals of Honor, he would
retire as the youngest, most decorated major general in the Marines.
A teenage officer and a certified hero during an international intervention in the Chinese
Boxer Rebellion
of 1900, he would later become a constabulary leader of the Haitian gendarme, the police chief
of Philadelphia (while on an approved absence from the military), and a proponent of Marine
Corps football. In more standard fashion, he would serve in battle as well as in what might
today be labeled peacekeeping , counterinsurgency , and
advise-and-assist missions in Cuba, China, the Philippines, Panama, Nicaragua, Mexico,
Haiti, France, and China (again). While he showed early signs of skepticism about some of those
imperial campaigns or, as they were sardonically called by critics at the time, " Dollar Diplomacy "
operations -- that is, military campaigns waged on behalf of U.S. corporate business interests
-- until he retired he remained the prototypical loyal Marine.
But after retirement, Smedley Butler changed his tune. He began to blast the
imperialist foreign policy and interventionist bullying in which he'd only recently played such
a prominent part. Eventually, in 1935 during the Great Depression, in what became a classic
passage in his memoir, which he
titled "War Is a Racket," he wrote:
"I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service... And during
that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall
Street, and for the Bankers."
Seemingly overnight, the famous war hero transformed himself into an equally acclaimed
antiwar speaker and activist in a politically turbulent era. Those were, admittedly, uncommonly
anti-interventionist years, in which veterans and politicians alike promoted what (for America,
at least) had been fringe ideas. This was, after all, the height of what later pro-war
interventionists would pejoratively label American " isolationism ."
Nonetheless, Butler was unique (for that moment and certainly for our own) in his
unapologetic amenability to left-wing domestic politics and materialist critiques of American
militarism. In the last years of his life, he would face increasing criticism from his former
admirer, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the military establishment, and the interventionist
press. This was particularly true after Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany invaded Poland and later
France. Given the severity of the Nazi threat to mankind, hindsight undoubtedly proved Butler's
virulent opposition to U.S. intervention in World War II wrong.
Nevertheless, the long-term erasure of his decade of antiwar and anti-imperialist activism
and the assumption that all his assertions were irrelevant has proven historically deeply
misguided. In the wake of America's brief but bloody entry into the First World War, the
skepticism of Butler (and a significant part of an entire generation of veterans) about
intervention in a new European bloodbath should have been understandable. Above all, however,
his critique of American militarism of an earlier imperial era in the Pacific and in Latin
America remains prescient and all too timely today, especially coming as it did from one of the
most decorated and high-ranking general officers of his time. (In the era of the never-ending
war on terror, such a phenomenon is quite literally inconceivable.)
Smedley Butler's Marine Corps and the military of his day was, in certain ways, a different
sort of organization than today's highly professionalized armed forces. History rarely repeats
itself, not in a literal sense anyway. Still, there are some disturbing similarities between
the careers of Butler and today's generation of
forever-war fighters. All of them served repeated tours of duty in (mostly) unsanctioned
wars around the world. Butler's conflicts may have stretched west from Haiti across the oceans
to China, whereas today's generals mostly lead missions from West Africa east to Central Asia,
but both sets of conflicts seemed perpetual in their day and were motivated by barely concealed
economic and imperial interests.
Nonetheless, whereas this country's imperial campaigns of the first third of the twentieth
century generated a Smedley Butler, the hyper-interventionism of the first decades of this
century hasn't produced a single even faintly comparable figure. Not one. Zero. Zilch. Why that
is matters and illustrates much about the U.S. military establishment and contemporary national
culture, none of it particularly encouraging.
Why No Antiwar Generals
When Smedley Butler retired in 1931, he was one of three Marine Corps major generals holding
a rank just below that of only the Marine commandant and the Army chief of staff. Today, with
about 900 generals and admirals currently serving on active duty, including 24 major
generals in the Marine Corps alone, and with scores of flag officers retiring annually, not a
single one has offered genuine public opposition to almost 19 years worth of ill-advised,
remarkably unsuccessful American wars . As for the most senior officers, the 40 four-star
generals and admirals whose vocal antimilitarism might make the biggest splash, there are
more of them today than
there were even at the height of the Vietnam War, although the active military is now about
half the size it was then. Adulated as many of them may be, however, not one qualifies as a
public critic of today's failing wars.
Instead, the principal patriotic dissent against those terror wars has come from retired
colonels, lieutenant colonels, and occasionally more junior officers (like me), as well as
enlisted service members. Not that there are many of us to speak of either. I consider it
disturbing (and so should you) that I personally know just about every one of the retired
military figures who has spoken out against America's forever wars.
The big three are Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of staff, retired Colonel
Lawrence Wilkerson ;
Vietnam veteran and onetime West Point history instructor, retired Colonel Andrew Bacevich ; and Iraq veteran and
Afghan War
whistleblower , retired Lieutenant Colonel Danny Davis . All three have
proven to be genuine public servants, poignant voices, and -- on some level -- cherished
personal mentors. For better or worse, however, none carry the potential clout of a retired
senior theater commander or prominent four-star general offering the same critiques.
Something must account for veteran dissenters topping out at the level of colonel.
Obviously, there are personal reasons why individual officers chose early retirement or didn't
make general or admiral. Still, the system for selecting flag officers should raise at least a
few questions when it comes to the lack of antiwar voices among retired commanders. In fact, a
selection committee of top generals and admirals is appointed each year to choose the next
colonels to earn their first star. And perhaps you won't be surprised to learn that, according
to numerous reports , "the
members of this board are inclined, if not explicitly motivated, to seek candidates in their
own image -- officers whose careers look like theirs." At a minimal level, such a system is
hardly built to foster free thinkers, no less breed potential dissidents.
Consider it an irony of sorts that this system first received
criticism in our era of forever wars when General David Petraeus, then commanding the
highly publicized " surge " in Iraq, had to leave that
theater of war in 2007 to serve as the chair of that selection committee. The reason: he wanted
to ensure that a twice passed-over colonel, a protégé of his -- future Trump
National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster -- earned his star.
Mainstream national security analysts reported on this affair at the time as if it were a
major scandal, since most of them were convinced that Petraeus and his vaunted
counterinsurgency or " COINdinista "
protégés and their " new " war-fighting doctrine had the
magic touch that would turn around the failing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, Petraeus
tried to apply those very tactics twice -- once in each country -- as did acolytes of his
later, and you know the results
of that.
But here's the point: it took an eleventh-hour intervention by America's most acclaimed
general of that moment to get new stars handed out to prominent colonels who had, until then,
been stonewalled by Cold War-bred flag officers because they were promoting different (but also
strangely familiar) tactics in this country's wars. Imagine, then, how likely it would be for
such a leadership system to produce genuine dissenters with stars of any serious sort, no less
a crew of future Smedley Butlers.
At the roots of this system lay the obsession of the American officer corps with "
professionalization
" after the Vietnam War debacle. This first manifested itself in a decision to ditch the
citizen-soldier tradition, end the draft,
and create an "all-volunteer force." The elimination of conscription, as predicted
by critics at the time,
created an ever-growing civil-military divide, even as it increased public apathy regarding
America's wars by erasing whatever " skin in the game " most
citizens had.
More than just helping to squelch civilian antiwar activism, though, the professionalization
of the military, and of the officer corps in particular, ensured that any future Smedley
Butlers would be left in the dust (or in retirement at the level of lieutenant colonel or
colonel) by a system geared to producing faux warrior-monks. Typical of such figures is current
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army General Mark Milley. He may speak
gruffly and look like a man with a head of his own, but typically he's turned out to be
just another yes-man
for another
war-power -hungry president.
One group of generals, however,
reportedly now does have it out for President Trump -- but not because they're opposed to
endless war. Rather, they reportedly think that The Donald doesn't "listen enough to military
advice" on, you know, how to wage war forever and a day.
What Would Smedley Butler Think
Today?
In his years of retirement, Smedley Butler regularly focused on the economic component of
America's imperial war policies. He saw clearly that the conflicts he had fought in, the
elections he had helped rig, the coups he had supported, and the constabularies he had formed
and empowered in faraway lands had all served the interests of U.S. corporate investors. Though
less overtly the case today, this still remains a reality in America's post-9/11 conflicts,
even on occasion embarrassingly so (as when the Iraqi ministry of oil was essentially the
only public building protected by American troops as looters tore apart the Iraqi capital,
Baghdad, in the post-invasion chaos of April 2003). Mostly, however, such influence plays out
far more
subtly than that, both
abroad and here at home where those wars help maintain the record profits of the top
weapons makers of the military-industrial complex.
That beast, first identified by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, is now on
steroids as American commanders in retirement regularly
move directly from the military onto the boards of the giant defense contractors, a reality
which only contributes to the dearth of Butlers in the military retiree community. For all the
corruption of his time, the Pentagon didn't yet exist and the path from the military to, say,
United Fruit Company, Standard Oil, or other typical corporate giants of that moment had yet to
be normalized for retiring generals and admirals. Imagine what Butler would have had to say
about the modern phenomenon of the "
revolving door " in Washington.
Of course, he served in a very different moment, one in which military funding and troop
levels were still contested in Congress. As a longtime critic of capitalist excesses who wrote
for leftist publications and supported
the Socialist Party candidate in the 1936 presidential elections, Butler would have found
today's
nearly trillion-dollar annual defense budgets beyond belief. What the grizzled former
Marine long ago identified as a treacherous
nexus between warfare and capital "in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses
in lives" seems to have reached its natural end point in the twenty-first century. Case in
point: the record (and still
rising ) "defense" spending of the present moment, including -- to please a president --
the creation of a whole new military service aimed at the full-scale militarization of
space .
Sadly enough, in the age of Trump, as numerous
polls demonstrate, the U.S. military is the only public institution Americans still truly
trust. Under the circumstances, how useful it would be to have a high-ranking, highly
decorated, charismatic retired general in the Butler mold galvanize an apathetic public around
those forever wars of ours. Unfortunately, the likelihood of that is practically nil, given the
military system of our moment.
Of course, Butler didn't exactly end his life triumphantly. In late May 1940, having lost 25
pounds due to illness and exhaustion -- and demonized as a leftist, isolationist crank but
still maintaining a whirlwind speaking schedule -- he checked himself into the Philadelphia
Navy Yard Hospital for a "rest." He died there, probably of some sort of cancer, four weeks
later. Working himself to death in his 10-year retirement and second career as a born-again
antiwar activist, however, might just have constituted the very best service that the two-time
Medal of Honor winner could have given the nation he loved to the very end.
Someone of his credibility, character, and candor is needed more than ever today.
Unfortunately, this military generation is unlikely to produce such a figure. In retirement,
Butler himself boldly
confessed that, "like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of
my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I
obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical..."
Today, generals don't seem to have a thought of their own even in retirement. And more's
the pity...
2 minutes ago
Am I the only one to notice that Hollywood and it's film
distributors have gone full bore on "war" productions, glorifying these historical events while
using poetic license to rewrite history. Prepping the numbheads.
14 minutes ago
TULSI GABBARD.
Forget rank. As Mr Sjursen implies, dissidents are no longer allowed in the higher ranks.
"They" made sure to fix this as Mr Butler had too much of a mind of his own (US education
system also programmed against creative, charismatic thinkers, btw).
The US Space Force has been created as part of a plan to disclose the deep state's Secret
Space Program (SSP), which has been active for decades, and which has utilized, and repressed,
advanced technologies that would provide free, unlimited renewable energy, and thus eliminate
hunger and poverty on a planetary scale.
14 minutes ago
What imperialism?
We are spreading freedumb and dumbocracy.
We are saving the world from socialism and communism.
We are energy independent, with innate exceptionalism and #MAGA# will usher in a new era
of American prosperity.
Any and all accusations of USSA imperialism, are made by the "woke" and those jealous of
the greatest Capitalist system in the world.
The swamp is being drained as I speak, and therefore will continue with unwavering
support for my 5x draft dodging, Zionist supporting, multiple times bankrupt, keeper of
broken promises POTUS.
Smedley Butler's book is not worthy of reading once you have the seminal work known as
"The Art Of The Deal"
Sadly enough, in the age of Trump, as numerous
polls demonstrate, the U.S. military is the only public institution
Americans still truly trust. Under the circumstances, how useful it would be
to have a high-ranking, highly decorated, charismatic retired general in the
Butler mold galvanize an apathetic public around those forever wars of ours.
Unfortunately, the likelihood of that is practically nil, given the military
system of our moment.
This is why I feel an oath keeping constitutionally oriented American
general is what we need in power, clear out all 545 criminals in office now,
review their finances (and most of them will roll over on the others) and
punish accordingly, then the lobbyist, how many of them worked against the
country? You know what we do with those.
And then, finally, Hollywood, oh yes I long to see that **** hole burn with
everyone in it.
30 minutes ago
Republicrat: the two faces of the moar war whore.
32 minutes ago
Given the severity of the Nazi threat to mankind
Do tell, from what I've read the Nazis were really only a threat to a few
groups, the rest of us didn't need to worry.
35 minutes ago
Today, the "Masters
of the Permawars" refer to the international extortion, MIC, racket as
"Defending American Interests"! .....With never any explanation to the
public/American taxpayer just what "American Interests" the incredible
expenditures of American lives, blood, and treasure are being defended!
Why are we sending our children out into the hellholes of the world to be
maimed and killed in the fauxjew banksters' quest for world domination.
How stupid can we be!
41 minutes ago
(Edited) "Smedley Butler"... The last
time the UCMJ was actually used before being permanently turned into a "door
stop"!
49 minutes ago
He was correct about our staying out of WWII. Which, BTW,
would have never happened if we had stayed out of WWI.
22 minutes ago
(Edited)
Both wars were about the international fauxjew imposition of debt-money central
bankstering.
Both wars were promulgated by the Financial oligarchyof New York. The communist Red Army
of Russia was funded and supplied by the Financial oligarchyof New York. It was American Financial oligarchythat built the Russian Red Army that vexed the world and created the Cold War.
How many hundreds of millions of goyim were sacrificed to create both the
Russian and the Chinese Satanic behemoths.......and the communist horror that
is now embedded in American academia, publishing, American politics, so-called
news, entertainment, The worldwide Catholic religion, the Pentagon, and the
American deep state.......and more!
How stupid can we be. Every generation has the be dragged, kicking and
screaming, out of the eternal maw of historical ignorance to avoid falling back
into the myriad dark hellholes of history. As we all should know, people who
forget their own history are doomed to repeat it.
53 minutes ago
Today's
General is a robot with with a DNA.
54 minutes ago
All the General Staff is a
bunch of #asskissinglittlechickenshits
57 minutes ago
want to stop senseless
Empire wars>>well do this
War = jobs and profit..we get work "THEY" get the profit.. If we taxed all
war related profit at 99% how many wars would our rulers start? 1 hour ago
Here
is a simple straightforward trading maxim that might apply here: if it works or
is working keep doing it, but if it doesn't work or stops working, then STOP
doing it. There are plenty of people, now poorer, for not adhering to that
simple principle. Where is the Taxpayer's return on investment from the Combat
taking place on their behalf around the globe? 'Nuff said - it isn't working.
It is making a microscopic few richer & all others poorer so STOP doing it.
36 seconds ago We don't have to look far to figure out who they are that are
getting rich off the fauxjew permawars.
How can we be so stupid???
1 hour ago
See also:
TULSI GABBARD
1 hour ago
The main reason you don't see the generals
criticizing is that the current crop have not been in actual long term direct
combat with the enemy and have mostly been bureaucratic paper pushers.
Take the
Marine Major General who is the current commander of CENTCOM. By the time he
got into the Iraq/Afghanistan war he was already a Lieutenant Colonel and far
removed from direct action.
He was only there on and off for a few years. Here
are some of his other career highlights aft as they appear on his official
bio:
2006-07: he served as the Military Secretary to the 33rd and 34th
Commandants of the Marine Corps
2008: he was selected by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to be the
Director of the Chairman's New Administration Transition Team (CNATT)
2009: he reported to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in
Kabul, Afghanistan to serve as the Deputy to the Deputy Chief of Staff (DCOS)
for Stability. ..... Deputy to the Deputy for Stability ???? WTF is that?
2010: he was assigned as the Director, Strategy, Plans, and Policy (J-5) for
the U.S. Central Command
2012: he reported to Headquarters Marine Corps to serve as the Marine Corps
Representative to the Quadrennial Defense Review
In short, these top guys aren't warriors they're bureaucrats so why would we
expect them to be honest brokers of the truth?
51 minutes ago
are U saying
Chesty Puller he's NOT? 1 hour ago
(Edited) The purpose of war is to ensure
that the
Federal Reserve Note remains the world reserve paper currency of choice by
keeping it relevant and in demand across the globe by forcing pesky energy
producing nations to trade with it exclusively.
It is a 49 year old policy created by the private owners of quasi public
institutions called
central banks to ensure they remain the Wizards of Oz
doing gods work conjuring magic paper into existence with a secret
spell known as issuing credit.
How else is a technologically advanced society of billions of people
supposed to function w/out this
divinely inspired paper?
1 hour ago
Goebbels in "Churchill's Lie Factory"
where he said: "The Americans follow the principle that when one lies, one
should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of
looking ridiculous." - Jospeh Goebbels, "Aus Churchills Lügenfabrik,"
12. january 1941, Die Zeit ohne Beispiel
1 hour ago
The greatest
anti-imperialist of our times is Michael Parenti:
Imperialism has been the most powerful force in world history over the last
four or five centuries, carving up whole continents while oppressing indigenous
peoples and obliterating entire civilizations. Yet, it is seldom accorded any
serious attention by our academics, media commentators, and political leaders.
When not ignored outright, the subject of imperialism has been sanitized, so
that empires become "commonwealths," and colonies become "territories" or
"dominions" (or, as in the case of Puerto Rico, "commonwealths" too).
Imperialist military interventions become matters of "national defense,"
"national security," and maintaining "stability" in one or another region. In
this book I want to look at imperialism for what it really is.
"Imperialism has been the most powerful force in world
history over the last four or five centuries, carving up whole continents while
oppressing indigenous peoples and obliterating entire civilizations. Yet, it is
seldom accorded any serious attention by our academics, media commentators, and
political leaders."
Why would it when they who control academia, media and most of our
politicians are our enemies.
1 hour ago
"The big three are Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of
staff, retired Colonel
Lawrence
Wilkerson ; ..."
Yep, Wilkerson, who leaked Valerie Plame's name, not that it was a leak, to
Novak, and then stood by to watch the grand jury fry Scooter Libby. Wilkerson,
that paragon of moral rectitude. Wilkerson the silent, that *******.
sheesh,
1 hour ago
(Edited)
" A standing military force, with an overgrown
Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence
against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.
Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was
apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of
defending, have enslaved the people."
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a
standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the
rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia,
in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of
Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [I Annals
of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789])
A particularly pernicious example of intra-European
imperialism was the Nazi aggression during World War II, which gave the German
business cartels and the Nazi state an opportunity to plunder the resources and
exploit the labor of occupied Europe, including the slave labor of
concentration camps. - M. PARENTI, Against empire
See Alexander Parvus
1 hour ago
Collapse is the cure. It's
too far gone.
1 hour ago
Russia Wants to 'Jam' F-22 and F-35s in the Middle
East: Report
ZH retards think that the American mic is bad and all other mics are
good or don't exist. That's the power of brainwashing. Humans understand that
war in general is bad, but humans are becoming increasingly rare in this world.
1 hour ago
The obvious types of American fascists are dealt with on the air and
in the press. These demagogues and stooges are fronts for others. Dangerous as
these people may be, they are not so significant as thousands of other people
who have never been mentioned. The really dangerous American fascists are not
those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its
finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in
the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian
way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to
poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never
how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to
deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more
power.
If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and
power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million
fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if
we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money
and power are ruthless and deceitful. Most American fascists are
enthusiastically supporting the war effort.
The swamp is bigger than the military alone. Substitute Bureaucrat,
Statesman, or Beltway Bandit for General and Colonel in your writing above and
you've got a whole new article to post that is just as true.
2 hours ago
(Edited) War = jobs and profit..we get work "THEY" get the profit..If we taxed
all war related profit at 99% how many wars would our rulers start?
2 hours ago [edited for clarity]
War is a racket. And nobody loves a
racket more than Financial oligarchy. Americans come close though, that's why Financial oligarchy use them to
project their own rackets and provide protection reprisals.
"... A combat veteran and major in the U.S. National Guard, Gabbard has made ending America's policy of "regime change wars" the core of her campaign platform. "She puts peace over war profiteering," said Carl Holland, introducing the candidate to unanimous applause. But on this occasion, foreign policy was not the focus of her stump speech. ..."
"... After her first debate, I watched CNN coverage of that debate on YouTube and noted the amount of coverage devoted to her. I was struck by how little was said about her. The story included her in a clip of candidates deriding Trump but gave her NO coverage of her other views, in spite of the fact that she did well in the debate and made some sound-byte worthy statements. In contrast, the mainstream candidates got lots of coverage. ..."
"... She completely botched the Assad - poison gas issue. She swallowed the propaganda whole cloth, and when it was proven she was just wrong she huffed off in denial. ..."
"... Actually, it appears that Americans and Western media bought the propaganda on alleged Assad use of poison gas (vice the al-Qaeda linked "rebels"): https://thegrayzone.com/202... ..."
"... Undoubtedly the finest candidate for president in the race. And by far the most presidential. Her campaign deserves more. ..."
"... HER core issue -- anti-foreign intervention, ending forever wars -- remain resoundingly popular. However, her relative low-profile as a Hawaiian congresswoman (compare her favorable support vis-a-vis Julian Castro, for instance), the constant mainstream media attacks (compare her to the Mayor Pete love-fest), and most importantly, her unwillingness to be reflexively anti-Trump, is costing her the support of a feverish, vengeful Democratic primary base. ..."
"... Hi, the main reason the major media went out to try to stop Tulsi's campaign: From the Dem leadership like Pelosi and Schumer, to the folks at CNN, MSNBC and all the network 'news' shows, they worked to stop her because: They are neocons! And she's talking ending wars over there and there! ..."
"... That goes against hardliners like AIPAC, and in mentioning CNN, for example, Blitzer is a neocon guy and he is foremost an Israeli supporter and so on. What, are we just gonna keep kidding ourselves? ..."
Is there a better time for a presidential townhall than
on President's Day? And is there a better place than the Old Town Hall in the heart of Fairfax,
Virginia? Built in 1900, this small, neoclassical-styled building, with wood pillars sprouting
from floor to ceiling in the middle of its main room, brings to mind the same communal
assemblies that the Old Dominion was founded on 400 years ago.
It was here that Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii spoke Monday to over 200 supporters
gathered ahead of the March 3 Democratic primary.
And gather they did. An hour before she was supposed to speak, a line was already forming
down the sidewalk. A man near the front door held a "Tulsi 2020" sign out towards the road.
When asked if he was on her staff, he responded that he wasn't even a volunteer for the event;
he had brought the sign from home. The other attendees were similarly clad in Tulsi gear,
holding signs, wearing shirts, and sporting "Veterans for Gabbard" hats. These were not
undecided voters on a curiosity trip, but the enthusiastic base of a candidate most of the
people driving past wouldn't even recognize.
A combat veteran and major in the U.S. National Guard, Gabbard has made ending America's
policy of "regime change wars" the core of her campaign platform. "She puts peace over war
profiteering," said Carl Holland, introducing the candidate to unanimous applause. But on this
occasion, foreign policy was not the focus of her stump speech.
"What is it that makes people hate politics?" she asked the crowd after her customary
"aloha" greeting. She believes it's the same reasons that she finds it off-putting: "I hate the
pay-to-play politics that rules the day in Washington." She hates the hyper-partisanship, the
politicians "who love to talk a lot but refuse to actually listen," and the leaders who
carelessly "send our nation's sons and daughters off to fight in wars that have nothing to do
with our country's national security."
Taking advantage of the holiday, she spoke about being inspired by Abraham Lincoln and his
1858 "House Divided" speech. She described a country still divided today, on matters of
politics, race, gender, and even "what cable news channel you watch."
Briefly contrasting what she hates with what she loves, Gabbard said unreservedly, "I love
our country. I love the people of this country." Multiple times she used the phrase "Country
First" to describe her policies and her movement. The difference in intentions between her
slogan and Donald Trump's "America First" would be hard to parse.
Gabbard's example of putting Country First was the First Step Act, a criminal justice bill
passed by large bipartisan majorities in December 2018. The law enacted new dignity provisions
for prisoners and resulted in the release of 7,000 people. Gabbard described members of her
party who "did not want to give Trump a win, who stood in the way of this legislation passing."
To those legislators who "put politics ahead of people, shame on you," she said.
For Gabbard, the corruption in the system doesn't stop with her fellow elected officials or
the "high-powered lobbyists [who] stack the odds against the people." It includes those in "the
corporate media trying to silence our voices because we dare speak the truth" about regime
change wars. Like clockwork, when a woman in the audience asked about the
OPCW whistleblower who has challenged the United Nations' conclusions about the alleged
Douma chemical attack in Syria, members of the print media darted their heads up and scurried
closer to the stage to try to get a potentially scandalous soundbite .
Gabbard responded by saying she has sent multiple letters to the OPCW inquiring about the
whistleblower situation, but had not yet received satisfactory answers. She promised to keep
trying.
The candidate closed her speech by telling the crowd, "You have my personal commitment that
as your president, my sole mission every single day will be serving you and only
you ." Her strategy for winning the White House would be "not taking people for granted,
reaching out, and treating every American with respect."
After answering questions about health care, small business, and climate change, Gabbard
stepped away from the podium and her fans lined up for pictures and a handshake. Meanwhile, her
husband Abraham walked the room, chatting with people and recording the event on his phone.
In the unscientific poll of raised hands, the attendees were one third Democrat, one third
Republican, and one third "independent, Libertarian, or Green." They were overwhelmingly from
Northern Virginia or Maryland, with very few from Washington, D.C. Multiple families attended,
some of whose kids presented Tulsi with homemade drawings. One family, with their two
adolescent children present and husky dog tied up outside, drove all the way from West
Virginia.
When everyone had dispersed, The American Conservative was given an opportunity to
ask a question. Gabbard has been explicit in her condemnations of "radical Islam," and she's
referred to the war
on terror as an ideological war as much as a military one. When asked to specify whether she
believes the terrorism against the West is the result of religious extremism or if it's a
consequence of foreign military interventions and their subsequent blowback, she appeared to
lean more to the latter.
"It's a combination of the radical, Wahhabi-Salafist ideology that serves as the fuel and
the recruiting ground for terrorist organizations like ISIS and al-Qaeda, that motivates them
in their terror actions." Gabbard told TAC , "But it's also when you see how our regime
change wars have had a direct impact. Not in going in and defeating terrorist groups like ISIS
and al-Qaeda, but actually serving to only strengthen them."
A Monmouth poll released
the day after her townhall listed Gabbard's support in Virginia at 1 percent. This is similar
to the national
polls where she places last among the eight candidates still running for the Democratic
nomination. Gabbard has previously announced that she's declining to run for reelection to the
House (after four terms) and that she's taking her presidential campaign all the way to the
Democratic convention in June. Where this will put the 38-year-old come January 2021 is
anyone's guess. But whether in the White House or retired from politics, Tulsi Gabbard plans to
continue putting Country First.
Hunter DeRensis is a reporter with The National Interest and a regular contributor to
The American Conservative. Follow him on Twitter @HunterDeRensis .
You are raising a valid question about why she is not doing better in the polls. While I
have not done a statistical analysis of her press coverage, it appeared to me that the
networks have largely shut her out.
After her first debate, I watched CNN coverage of that debate on YouTube and noted the
amount of coverage devoted to her. I was struck by how little was said about her. The story
included her in a clip of candidates deriding Trump but gave her NO coverage of her other
views, in spite of the fact that she did well in the debate and made some sound-byte worthy
statements. In contrast, the mainstream candidates got lots of coverage.
It is my impression that this trend has continued throughout the primaries.
It is reminiscent of the ways the networks treat other strong opponents of war. 1,
Dennis Kucinich, NBC had a rule that to be on one of their debates-in 2004 if I remember
correctly--a candidate had to finish in the top three in a primary. Kucinich finished third
in Nevada. NBC changed the rules on him. He took them to court. The court ruled that NBC
was a private business and could set their own rules. 2. Bernie Sanders in 2016. The CNN
website largely ignored his candidacy until he started winning primaries. When they
couldn't ignore him anymore, they ran unflattering photos of him with his mouth open--how
else could he talk?-but did not do so for Clinton.
I think the lack of press coverage is part of it. She is also demonized by most liberals
and even some leftists. I say “ demonized” because I think at least some of the
criticisms are false, but I am not sure about the others.
And I think you seriously underestimate the share of antiwar voters nationwide and
overestimate the importance of those whom you, inexplicably from the Marxist point of view,
call "left". Tulsi now holds a wild card.
She's still under forty, which is almost a senior
teenager by modern standards, and already on her way to becoming a kingmaker through being
able to guarantee either party's candidates the support of a serious share of voters from
both and of independents for years to come.
I do think she would appeal to just the type of person the Dems want to peel away from
Trump.
I would agree only, from what I have seen thus far, her appeal to a possibly significant
number of previous Trump voters is seen as a negative in the eyes of Dem activists,
pundits, other candidates, etc. The Dems don't seem to have any interest in winning over
previous Trump voters, no matter what the reason was for their 2016 Trump vote.
I think a more accurate phrasing of the sentence above would be, "I do think she would
appeal to just the type of person the Dems should want to peel away from
Trump."
The only bridges she burned were those with the Democratic establishment, which is out of
touch with reality and is doomed to soon repeat its Republican counterpart's inglorious
end. Thus the fact that she burned those bridges actually shows that she, unlike so many
other politicians, is capable of, at least, midterm planning. Not to mention that, as I've
already said, she, given her strong cross-partisan appeal, can easily become a Republican
now.
1) Did Sanders meet UN-recognized leaders of countries, against whom the neocon/neolib
clique was waging illegal wars?
2) And that campaigning for Clinton cost Democrats the defection of many Sanders's voters
to Trump's camp. Long-term planning, right.
3) 55% under a system which has recently shown how the votes are counted in all of its
glory? Impressive.
I applaud Tulsi's anti-war comments and have observed that the establishment media shut her
out of meaningful coverage. But there is no reason to think that she can influence any
large block of voters and influence them enough to be a kingmaker. Not even close.
Andrew Yang, by contrast, could have some influence, though probably more in pushing the
universal basic income idea than in inducing a particularly large number of voters to vote
for this candidate or that. But he has achieved more influence than Tulsi for sure.
Can you imagine the look on the face of AOC, Bernie's ambitious surrogate, if Bernie chose
Tulsi for VP? IMO, Bernie has hitched his wagon to AOC's rock-star magnetism and Our
Revolution's multicultural foot soldiers. No room for Tulsi, who favors closed borders and
open discussions in contrast to open borders and PC lectures.
She completely botched the Assad - poison gas issue. She swallowed the propaganda whole
cloth, and when it was proven she was just wrong she huffed off in denial.
Actually, it appears that Americans and Western media bought the propaganda on alleged
Assad use of poison gas (vice the al-Qaeda linked "rebels"):
https://thegrayzone.com/202...
Neoconservatives' wars for their own ideologies have exhausted most Americans.
They want to stop wars, regardless. In coming economic depression, this view will
rampant Eventually, appeasement will happen again.
Neconservatives and their supporters (regardless reasons) deserve this result but how
about other Americans?
If, still a large if, Sanders gets the nomination Gabbard makes a lot of sense as running
mate. She appeals to the very votes needed to defeat Trump. Antiwar, libertarian oriented
moderates. Any VP candidate with ties to the DNC will work against Sanders.
????? Gabbard is getting 2 -3% polls in the Democratic Primary and is sort of a candidate
who is winning with Democrats that don't like the Party. Frankly I was Gabbard suspect
early 2020 but I also realistic enough to know below 40 year candidate with little name
recognition tend not to win Primaries their first try. And for a young Gabbard her true
goal should have building her name in the current Primary that 20 other candidates. (And
given that often incumbents win the Presidency, 2024 could have been a competitive
Primary.)
1) Originally I thought her biggest problem was past positions on gay rights and she was
definitely behind curve on that one. And getting this weakness out of the way in 'trial
test Primary' isn't the worst goal for young House member.
2) Sanders has much more anti-war candidate in 2020 than he was in 2016 so Gabbard message
was not a lone voice here.
3) The dumbest thing Gabbard has done is give up her House seat in the completely D safe
district in Hawaii. So why would the Sunday shows book an ex-House member in 2021? And the
liberal punditry network is not as nearly as strong (or well paying) as the conservative
pundits.
I am a former Democrat, grew up lower middle class, and a legal immigrant. While I don't
agree with all of her policy positions, I find Tulsi Gabbard's single-minded focus on the
costs of foreign intervention THE most resonant/substantive topic for the United States,
especially in a political system where Congress/Courts pass domestic legislation, and
presidents only have absolute control of foreign policy.
What sets Tulsi a rare breed apart from other progressive Democrats is that she's
unwilling to do 180s on core convictions as a reactionary take on Trump. The "whatever
Trump is for, I'm against" transformation of Democratic lawmakers and media wonks has led
them to support prolonging wars (Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq); red-baiting nuclear stand-offs
with Russia; sudden embrace of corporatist "free trade" like TPP; silcening any criticism
of anti-women Islamic customs; and even libertarian wet dreams of effectively open borders.
Even Bernie is wavering in his long-held convictions.
In response to why Tulsi's campaign hasn't resonated to higher polls, it's important to
remember that HER core issue -- anti-foreign intervention, ending forever wars -- remain
resoundingly popular. However, her relative low-profile as a Hawaiian congresswoman
(compare her favorable support vis-a-vis Julian Castro, for instance), the constant
mainstream media attacks (compare her to the Mayor Pete love-fest), and most importantly,
her unwillingness to be reflexively anti-Trump, is costing her the support of a feverish,
vengeful Democratic primary base.
She's a fool for giving up her Congressional seat. She would do better to win re-election
to the House, make a national name for herself as the anti-war anti-military-profiteering
voice in the Dem Party, and then run for the US Senate when one of the current white-hating
establishment scum in the Hawaii Senate delegation finally retires.
Hirono and Schatz took their Senate seats only in 2012 and 2013 and aren't old,
unfortunately, but Tulsi is younger at only 38. She can become a fairly senior member of
Congress and run to succeed Hirono in say, 2030. Tulsi will then still be only 48.
Hi, the main reason the major media went out to try to stop Tulsi's campaign: From the Dem leadership like Pelosi and
Schumer, to the folks at CNN, MSNBC and all the
network 'news' shows, they worked to stop her because:
They are neocons! And she's talking ending wars over there and there!
That goes against hardliners like AIPAC, and in mentioning
CNN, for example, Blitzer is a
neocon guy and he
is foremost an Israeli supporter and so on. What, are we just gonna keep kidding
ourselves?
(he came from the Jerusalem Post, was a member of AIPAC.)
What, something's wrong with pointing out facts? Shouldn't be.
In her fourth book Mayer draws on court records, extensive
interviews, and many private archives to examine the growing political influence of extreme libertarians among the one percent,
such as the Koch brothers, tracing their ideas about taxation and government regulation and their savvy use of lobbyists to
further an agenda that advances their own interests at the expense of meaningful economic, environmental, and labor reform. Mayer
is in conversation with James Bennet, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic.
People elected a
billionaire that is appointing other billionaires to fix the system that made them billionaires .... thats a special kind
of stupid !!!
Neoliberalism
opened the public sector up to the predatory capitalists. Financial markets love sick and violent people to increase
healthcare profits and keep the slave wage prison factories pumping. This is why Thatcher had to say "there's no such thing
as society" so she could embark on this fascist agenda to decimate the middle class. Fast forward 40 years, we now have
tent villages, medical bankruptcies, opioid suicides, increased school shootings, mass incarceration, media consolidated
Pentagon mouthpieces, educational corrosion and "market ideology" professors, fracking, poisoned aquifers, a defunct voting
system, career politicians who no longer write legislation, a bloated administrative unelected bureaucracy of agencies
addicted to the MIC budget. The Kochs choked democracy, nearly drowned government in the bathtub, as was their wish.
i've often
wondered how certain memes seem to pop up out of thin air and take on a life of their own, ever notice when a democrat
is in the white house the biggest concern is the debt and federal budget? republicans use this non-stop rhetoric to
stop any social programs, even gut them. this stuff goes back a while like the "liberal media", this election cycle i
was repeatedly confronted with "taxes are theft" when defending social programs, and during the health care debate there
was this "ayn rand" renaissance of "greed is good" taking hold. mayer is dead on with the corporate elites buying our
government, it's nothing less than a coup of our democracy, and they are shredding it to pieces.
Why haven't the
Kochs been arrested yet? They've been prosecuted dozens of times for violating government regulations and
pollution requirements. It does explain their economic libertarianism though, the sociopathic businessmen like the
Koch's want to get away with unreasonable pollution and paying workers 3 dollars an hour.
Earned income and capital gains should be taxed at the same
MUCH MORE PROGRESSIVE RATE, and at this point in our monstrous debt we need to consider a surcharge on huge wealth.
This situation has been brought about by the extreme right wingers like the Koch Brothers to try to bandrupt the
country into shutting down the whole social spending aspect of government ... which is basically fascist and
anti-democratic. Want to do the right thing. I think you create a list of human rights, and back up it but a UBI
Universal Basic Income, and then get rid of the minimum wage and let people find out where they stand in the economy
on their own merits. BUT, they also need free education and an infrastructure of government jobs to offer some
competition and experience to people so they can if they want and show the aptitude for private for-profit work.
Very interesting that you say that the Devos family is very
much involved in changing the education system to a right wing system... And Trump has Betsy Devos as his education
head. But I would say that public schooling has been degraded and moved to privately owned and run Charter Schools
since the first Bush President - and continued under Bill Clinton, Bush II and Obama. Both Democrats and Republicans
have been pushing the agenda to the right - where education is concerned. It is an illusion to believe that the
Democrats would move the needle in the opposite direction. The goal is to enslave all middle and working class people
with student debt. Student debt is the only debt you cannot extinguish through bankruptcy... it stays with you until
death. This debt enslavement then creates a society of desperate and compliant workers. This is the goal and it is an
agenda that corporations want - served by both democrats and republicans. And for most part it the agenda has been
achieved. So the dark money does coalesce for certain agendas. But the Devos's have a religious agenda where
education is concerned... they want to make sure Genesis is taught as science and ban the teaching of evolution and
things like that.
1984. Truly the symbolic year that the Orwellian
neoliberal war on Americans began. Why? To "lower our expectations" of the 60's decade. Democracy is fine until
it's been activated. Then the hammer comes down. But other countries enjoy a high quality of life, no threats of
revolt or overthrow, so why does this unnecessarily continue? It must just be greed. Exploiting the public sector
for profit.
I think the key
strategic 'leverage point' is the money, specifically the money system. We need to elect a Congress and President
ethical enough to pass the NEED Act which would create a public for-care money system, stop banks from creating
our money for profit and establish a monetary authority that would only be tasked with determining the amount of
new money required each year to support public objectives determined by Congress, like healthcare, education,
infrastructure and a citizen's dividend.
Excellent review
and information on KOCH BROS. Enjoyed. Thank you. Hope more people listen MORE about these Brothers (2) knowing
how they have infiltrated into our GOVT and now own GOP Congress/PENCE (lobbied for them w/Manafort) and TRUMP.
The are also friends w/Bush. Hence, Kavanaugh was put in as SCOTUS. Citizens United MUST BE REMOVED! Our democracy
is in danger. Hope it's not too late. I want my country back.
"To allow the market mechanism to be the sole director of
the fate of human beings and their natural environment ...would result in the demolition of society." ~ Karl
Polanyi, 1944 We've had a President Koch for 40 years now. This book explains their takeover of government so that
predatory capitalists could turn social services into financial markets for exploitation and profit. This destroys
society but they didn't care.
Fred Koch made
his money building an oil industry for Stalin, then became anti-communist after returning with the money? Sounds like
guilt to me. Then Fred Koch worked for Hitler's war efforts. Fred became a John Bircher and his money went to his
four trust fund sons, the Koch Bros. who now stealth control U.S. politics and Republican politicians from the Cato
Institute, Heritage Foundation, Tea Party with black money support, including funding rightwing chairs and think
tanks .at all the Ivy League universities.They have much, much, much too much money. it's time to tax their pants off
so they understand what work. is.
- Koch brothers
story is hillarious , just for example Charles Koch got Defender of Justice award from the National Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers , LOL
- Koch brothers
story is hillarious , just for example Charles Koch got Defender of Justice award from the National Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers , LOL
It's fascinating
the Koch Brothers do not truly believe their own philosophy, because if they did they would go all the way in and
champion worker cooperatives = complete freedom, freedom from government and freedom from a dictator boss. Like
all ideologues with a quasi-engineering view of human relations and a Freudian fear of communism, they are blinded
by the merits of anything that sounds remotely like socialism even when it logically matches their more reasonable
libertarian ideals. In other words, they are fake libertarians, they are rank abusive authoritarian oligarchs,
wannabe plutocrats. Ironically the Koch Bros are closer to Stalin in their ideology than they are to Reagan.
Albert Morris, 1 year ago
Jane Mayer is in a class all her own as a journalist. God bless her. I hope her next project is on the corporate media itself
and its shameful railroading of Julian Assange. We need all the good journalism we can get.
James Gillis, 2 years ago
"Free Market is a utopia". I'm glad you said that so I can read your book knowing your political philosophy...
...He is an Epstein like operation without the sex. A guy seeded with money and helped on
the path of success to spend his money on an operation like this when needed. There is no
guessing where his sympathies lie as the Post 911 NY mayor.
I suspect he is an arm of the Mega Group working behind the scenes to subvert our
election. They cover their tracks by blaming the Russians and the populace eats it up.
Meanwhile the real manipulators laugh all the way to the bank.
Capital, woke or not, has woken up. Woken up, in fact, inside the Democratic Party, once the
House of Labor. And the lead Woke Capitalist, of course, is Michael Bloomberg. So will this
"awokening" -- this capitalist counter-revolution -- prove to be a tragedy for labor, and the
left? Or will it be a farce for Capital, and for Bloomberg? As we shall see, this sort of
question has been asked before. Bloomberg had a rocky time in the Las Vegas debate last night
-- some say he crapped out -- and yet Bloomberg, and his money, won't give up so easily. After
all, one doesn't build a $62 billion fortune by being a quitter. So if Bloomberg spends another
$10 million, or $100 million today, and tomorrow, and tomorrow -- and works a little harder at
pretending to be a good Democrat -- he still has a good chance; the next debate, after all, is
on February 25, and many more debates after that. So there's plenty of chance for the Bloomberg
Campaign, LLC, to stage a triumph for the Comeback Plutocrat. Because, without a doubt, the
surge of Bernie Sanders has provoked the plutocracy -- mostly clustered these days in the
Democratic Party -- to take up arms against the democratic socialist. So now it's Michael
Bloomberg, his money, his fans -- and his hired guns -- in league against the hard left. Why,
it's a veritable counter-revolution from above, aimed at crushing revolution from below.
We might consider these recent headlines.
The New York Times : "Bloomberg's Billions: How the Candidate Built an Empire of
Influence"; CNBC : "Mike Bloomberg builds
an 'army' of elite business leaders to act as surrogates for his campaign."
The ultimate counter-revolutionary headline comes in the form of a scoop from across the
Atlantic: The Daily Mail banners, "Mike Bloomberg 'is considering picking Hillary Clinton as
his running mate .'"
We can recall, of course, that Clinton was Sanders' great antagonist in 2016, and four years
later, that antagonism still
burns fiercely . So whether or not she is under any sort of vice-presidential
consideration, the reminder that Bloomberg and Clinton -- two New Yorkers, representing two key
groups in the Democratic Party, billionaires and millionaires -- are so linked together is a
further way of showing that Bloomberg has sewn up the Democratic establishment.
In fact, according to the betting site Predictit , Bloomberg is now in second place, behind Sanders
but well ahead of Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, and all the rest. Indeed, Bill Maher said on his
HBO show on February 14, "We have a new front-runner, Michael Bloomberg."
Meanwhile, the bigfoot media endorsements (or close enough to endorsements) are now pouring
in.
Sam Donaldson , of course, finally dropped the pretense. And The New York Times '
Thomas Friedman
cheered, "Bloomberg has the right stuff -- a moderate progressive with a heart of gold but the
toughness of a rattlesnake -- for what is going to be an incredibly big, brutal task: making
Donald Trump a one-term president." For her part, The Wall Street Journal 's
Peggy Noonan was merely friendly and optimistic on behalf of her friend: "Mike Bloomberg
Could Pull It Off."
So yes, maybe the ninth richest man in the world really could pull it off. Bloomberg, who
spent much of his career as a Republican -- and who has, at least until recently, embraced
distinctly Republican views on such issues as crime ,
education
,
regressive taxes , and
wealth taxes, as well as profoundly neoconservative views on the Middle East -- has a real shot at
being the Democratic nominee.
And to think, it seems like only yesterday -- February 11, in fact -- that Gallup
found that 76 percent of Democrats would be willing to vote for a socialist. Would they now be
willing to vote for an arch-capitalist? To be sure, Bloomberg, like many
billionaires these days, is plenty "woke" on social and cultural issues such as guns and
gays, yet in the view of Representative Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez , his wokeness is "just a billionaire trying to cover up authoritarian &
racist policy."
Yet that plutocratic cover-upping might be working. That is, if the rise of Sanders and AOC
shows that the old left still has punch, the Bloombergian neoliberals could yet be punching it
out.
To put the matter mildly, this prospect is disturbing to many. On February 14, progressive
journalist Michael Tracey tweeted : "Mike Bloomberg's
candidacy is so obviously the type of thing that would be covered with condescending moralism
if it occurred in another country. 'Top Bulgarian oligarch tries to buy nomination of political
party! Very disturbing development for Bulgarian democracy.'"
So one wonders: where in history has a left-wing insurgency been bested by a right-leaning
counter-insurgency? If such a gear-stripping switch has happened elsewhere, could it happen
here?
All we know for sure is that it did happen in France, during the years 1848 to 1851. What
started out as a left-wing revolution against a king ended up with the rule of a center-right
leader -- who then crowned himself emperor.
That adroit -- some would say treacherous -- political figure, of course, was Louis Napoleon
Bonaparte, remembered as Napoleon III.
The best-known account of this historical sequence comes from Karl Marx in his 1852
pamphlet, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte . "Eighteenth Brumaire," we might
note, is a sly reference to an earlier French coup d'état, led by Napoleon Bonaparte,
uncle of Louis. (In those days, the French revolutionaries had changed the national calendar:
"Eighteenth Brumaire" was November 9, 1799.)
Fast-forwarding a half-century -- through Napoleon's Waterloo in 1815, the unsteady
restoration of the Bourbon monarchy (1814-30), and the June Rebellion of 1832 that inspired
Victor Hugo's Les Misérables -- we come to February 1848, when the Paris
proletariat finally swept away the remnants of the ancien régime, thereby establishing
the Second Republic (the First Republic having been established, of course, in 1789, until it
was snuffed out by Napoleon).
During its few months in power, the new regime launched some truly radical measures, such as
the establishment of Ateliers Nationaux (national workshops) to put the unemployed to
work -- and imposed the taxes to pay for it.
In other words, the French nation got a taste of profound economic redistributionism -- and
the wealthy, of course, didn't like it one bit. As Marx wrote, "The French bourgeoisie balked
at the domination of the working proletariat."
Thus horrified at what the left was doing with its power, the right sought to make itself
even more powerful. Interestingly, one of the political vehicles of reaction was candidly named
Parti de l'Ordre (Party of Order). And in June 1848, amid street-fighting violence, the
right wing gained the upper hand.
Marx, displaying the tragic militance and mystical teleology that has characterized so much
left-wing chronicling, added, "The social republic appeared as a phrase, as a prophecy, on the
threshold of the February Revolution. In the June days of 1848, it was drowned in the blood of
the Paris proletariat, but it haunts the subsequent acts of the drama like a ghost."
Soon, the young Louis Napoleon stepped forward to be installed as a center-right president.
From that high post, in December 1851, he staged a coup d'état -- his own
recapitulation of his uncle's coup five decades earlier -- crowning himself as Emperor Napoleon
III. Thus we might recall the most famous quote from Marx's essay: "Hegel remarks somewhere
that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to
add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."
Napoleon's actions might have been farcical, but to many they were also infuriating. Victor
Hugo, having fled to Belgium, penned an essay, "Napoleon the Little," in which he jibed,
"Monsieur Louis Bonaparte has succeeded. From this forth he has on his side money, the Bank,
the Bourse, the stock-market, the counting-house ." Hugo added bitingly that the supporters of
Napoleon III included "all those who pass so easily from one shore to the other when they have
only to stride over shame."
For his part, Marx recalled that back in 1789, the bourgeoisie had been at the vanguard of
the revolution; if the issue was getting rid of the aristocrats' stranglehold on the economy,
the capitalists, nascent class that they were in the 18th century, were all for it. Yet by the
mid-19th century, the situation had changed. The capitalists, now far more capitalized with the
coming of the industrial revolution to France, were no longer fearful of the royals. Instead,
they were fearful of their own workers -- and so a counter-proletarian autocrat such as
Napoleon III was fine by them.
But now back to today: the class-conscious left-wing revival within the Democratic Party has
stirred the fears of more than just the fat cats. For instance, bespeaking the new mode of
ideological production, Ocasio-Cortez recently tweeted : "War is a class
conflict, too." Such far-reaching formulations, of course, might be too blunt for the
sensibilities of some -- like, for instance, all those suburbanites who have been happy to vote
Democrat to advance the Planned Parenthood agenda but not the class warfare agenda.
Yet those same suburbanites and other Democratic moderates might not have fully comprehended
what their party would be like were the billionaires to displace the Bidens and the Buttigiegs.
That is, if the gods of plutocracy
climb down from Mount Olympus to wield worldly power directly, it's likely their theophany
here on earth will come in a form that mere mortals won't appreciate: less of a president,
perhaps, and more of an emperor.
And somewhere, Marx is having a grim chuckle, as history repeats itself yet again. But as
tragedy? Or farce? That's the question for the age. about the author James P. Pinkerton
is a contributor to the Fox News Channel and a regular panelist on the Fox "News Watch" show,
the highest-rated media-critique show on television. He is a former columnist for Newsday, and
is the editor of SeriousMedicineStrategy.org. He has written for publications ranging from
The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, USA
Today, National Review, The New Republic, Foreign Affairs, Fortune, The Huffington Post ,
and The Jerusalem Post . He is the author of What Comes Next: The End of Big
Government--and the New Paradigm Ahead (Hyperion: 1995). He worked in the White House
domestic policy offices of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and in the 1980, 1984,
1988 and 1992 presidential campaigns. In 2008 he served as a senior adviser to the Mike
Huckabee for President Campaign. Married to the former Elizabeth Dial, he is a graduate of
Stanford University.
The fact that Michael Bloomberg's campaign wasn't declared dead on arrival after his
pics with Ghislaine Maxwell and his name being in Epstein's little black book tells you a
lot about the state of media and politics in the US right now.
Responses are great too. Pics of Bloomberg with Ghislane Maxwell, Trump, Bill Clinton, and
Weinstein.
I learned that Eptein's black book included 5 numbers for Bloomberg.
Bernie would prove to be such a disappointment. The other parrots on the perch not so much as
they have brought nothing and will offer the same.
Tulsi was not invited. She has been denied oxygen in the press, denied a platform in the
debates and generally airbrushed out of the picture. No surprise there. By speaking out
against the forever-wars and against the prison gulag she committed the cardinal sin in US
politics: You don't rock the boat, especially when pretending to do so! But how refreshing
has her presence been in an otherwise dreary, dreary and predictable, landscape.
Thanks for your comment and question. Within US History, there are several such changes of
direction, the first coming with the elections that ratified the 1787 Constitution. Second
would be the 1800 election that elected Jefferson and ended what's known as the Federalist
Era; it's extremely unlikely the Federalists would have made the Louisiana Purchase because
of their enmity toward France. In 1828, General Jackson gained the White House amidst the
Battle of the Bank, the importance of which is touched on in most survey US History classes
but never examined as deeply as it demands. 1844 brought in Polk dedicated to expanding
slavery who showed Congress couldn't stop the executive thus showing the vast--and
foreseen--problems of an unregulated president as he provoked Mexico and stole 1/2 its
territory; Polk was clearly the model for GW Bush. The 4-way election of 1860 showcased the
break-up of the National Democratic Party into two factions; brought Lincoln, and the nascent
Republican Party, who goaded the South's Fire Eaters to commence the Civil War. The 13-15th
amendments greatly altered the national social fabric. In 1896, D-Party candidate WJ Bryan's
"Cross of Gold" speech elaborated the concept of Trickle-down Economics and firmly placed the
D-Party as the party of the working-classes, which further compounded the D-Party's internal
strife between its Northern urban political machines and Southern Segregationist politicos.
1912 again saw a 4-way race as T Roosevelt's split of the R-Party allowed Wilson to win and
transfer the management of the government's financial affairs from the Treasury where they
belonged to the privately controlled misnamed Federal Reserve Board, the woes of which we
feel daily. 1920 saw the reversion from Wilsonian Internationalism to "Normalcy" as
traditional US unilateralism regained ascendency with the rejection of the League of Nations.
Although not perceived during the 1932 campaign since FDR didn't really know what he was
going to do, a return to the social democratic republic commenced with the New Deal Era. 1944
didn't see an immediate change in policy course, but by June 1945 it was clear Truman was no
FDR or Wallace; and by October, the Outlaw US Empire was born when the UN Charter came into
force which was already being violated by Truman's government--we most certainly wouldn't
have the CIA as a result of the 1947 National Security Act if Wallace had continued FDR's
term, nor would there have been a Cold War. The only other change in direction (if it can be
called that) was the adoption of Neoliberalism by Carter in 1978 and its rapid acceleration
by Reagan/Bush which resulted in the Outlaw US Empire being even more aggressive than it was
previously, a pace kept alive by the ascension of the Neocons in 2000.
Some of the directional changes occurred due to economic or social strife, but not all,
nor arguably were they most important, IMO--1800, 1828, 1860, 1912, 1944. In 1932, if Hoover
had regained his office, he would have had to get experimental just like FDR, and the
evidence shows he was trying to get things to improve; it's been acknowledged by historians
that neither had the intellectual tools required to fix the Depression. Here's a basic
listing of the POTUS and there years in office. I should add 1876 as that election marked
the end of Reconstruction and the beginning of big money corruption of the federal
government. The loss by Bryan and the fused D- and Peoples Party in 1896 informed
Conservatives like T Roosevelt and Taft that they had to listen to the people's demands for
at least basic regulation of American Capitalism--remember, the first Progressives were
Republicans, not Democrats.
Given more time to meditate on the question, I could probably cite further diversions in
policy from one administration to the next. But the above provides a good overview. I should
highlight Fedrick Jackson Turner's 1893 elucidation of his Frontier Thesis--
"The Significance of the Frontier in American History" --before the American Historical
Association at Chicago's Colombian Exhibition since it made a huge impression on that era's
elite and certainly prompted policy changes. A week's usually spent in grad seminar's
discussing Turner's thesis.
"Bernie Sanders belonged on that stage with the other pro-war imperialists. With him,
we get affordable healthcare, while millions of people around the world will suffer through
coups, invasions, bombings, mass murder, and mass displacement. There is absolutely
NOTHING (nothing) for an anti-war advocate to get excited about with a Sanders
Presidency."
Exactly! I'm surprise even Tulsi Gabbard not invited to the debate many here still wanna
her for VP. I an't voting for anyone but Tulsi Gabbard, I hates the Democratic more than
Trump and will vote for Trump if necessary.
Frankly some people here seem to be living in la-la-land where impossible dreams come true.
How about some realpolitik as practiced by both halves of the amerikan empire party
when the VP decision time comes around. Does anyone imagine Kennedy wanted Johnson as VP or
Bush I, Dan Quayle or Oblamblam the crookedest man in the senate, Joe Biden?
Of course not they were told to take these hacks as a way for 'the party' to keep the
hairy eyeball on 'their' Prez.
Let's just pretend for a moment that Sanders came to conference with sufficient delegates
that the hope of the DNC to override Sanders with superdelegates was simply too much for the
dem party to achieve without alienating a sizable chunk of potential dem voters for life (the
odds of that occurring are slimmer than a 2 year old Yemeni, but let's pretend).
Even if Sanders had sufficient delegates to obviate a brokered conference, it wouldn't
matter, the DNC would still insist on a 'sit down' with the Sanders crew and insist he took a
particular person as his VP. Sanders could refuse, in which case he could expect zero $$$'s
for his campaign from the dems and worse the DNC would tell him that the party money, in many
cases donated to the DNC by naifs who 'wanted to give Bernie a hand', was going to be spent
'down ticket' assisting all the dem pols up for re-election who were committed to opposing
Bernie's favourite policies such as single payer healthcare.
Bernie would be screwed as even if he beat orange moron as he wouldn't stand a shitshow in
hell of getting any of these "radical pinko policies" through, which would be justified by
the rightist dem senators & congress-creeps saying "Democrat voters, voted for a
democratic president not a Marxist president" over and over until the idiots among the public
had been sufficiently indoctrinated to believe that tosh. There is no way Gabbard will be
permitted as Sanders' running-mate unless she has totally sold out already.
Maybe Sanders should open the bidding with Gabbard, after which the DNC might offer up
'Pete the cheat' to ensure Bernie is defeated, or some other less power-hungry, more
malleable dem lick-spittle.
If Sanders is smart enough to play this game, he will already have worded up one or two
slightly conservative DC hacks on the qt, then make out he's making a huge compromise by
selecting her/him.
He could conceivably get away with that as long as the DNC mobsters are blindsided -
remember most of those DC lowlifes will leap at the chance of the veep's gig since it puts
you in the inside running to be the prez after yer running 'mate'. And offering it quietly
early on would give Sanders the right to insist on blind loyalty - which he prolly wouldn't
get totally, but he would have something close to that
Trouble is I don't reckon Sanders has the smarts to pull a rort like that off - we shall
see. Whatever he does do the odds are high of him being stymied every time if he does make
it
"Actually this is not technically correct
and then you quoted Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution.
You ignored the process
I wrote on the process in which jim and jane mainstreet vote [the 2nd part of the process]
to select the State electors to the Electoral College: from Link (Archives.gov) provided @ 24
and fully detailed below:
November 3, 2020 -- Election Day
During the general election your vote helps determine your State's electors. When you
vote for a Presidential candidate, you aren't actually voting for President. You are
telling your State which candidate you want your State to vote for at the meeting of the
electors. The States use these general election results (also known as the popular vote) to
appoint their electors. The winning candidate's State political party selects the
individuals who will be the electors.[.]
Who selects the electors?
Choosing each State's electors is a two-part process. First, the political parties in
each State choose slates of potential electors sometime before the general election.
Second, during the general election, the voters in each State select their State's electors
by casting their ballots.
The first part of the process is controlled by the political parties in each State and
varies from State to State. Generally, the parties either nominate slates of potential
electors at their State party conventions or they chose them by a vote of the party's
central committee. This happens in each State for each party by whatever rules the State
party and (sometimes) the national party have for the process. This first part of the
process results in each Presidential candidate having their own unique slate of potential
electors.
Political parties often choose individuals for the slate to recognize their service and
dedication to that political party. They may be State elected officials, State party
leaders, or people in the State who have a personal or political affiliation with their
party's Presidential candidate. (For specific information about how slates of potential
electors are chosen, contact the political parties in each State.)
The second part of the process happens during the general election. When the voters
in each State cast votes for the Presidential candidate of their choice they are voting to
select their State's electors. The potential electors' names may or may not appear on
the ballot below the name of the Presidential candidates, depending on election procedures
and ballot formats in each State.
The winning Presidential candidate's slate of potential electors are appointed as the
State's electors -- except in Nebraska and Maine, which have proportional distribution of
the electors. In Nebraska and Maine, the State winner receives two electors and the winner
of each congressional district (who may be the same as the overall winner or a different
candidate) receives one elector. This system permits Nebraska and Maine to award electors
to more than one candidate.[.]
Rob @ 99 - I don't think evidence of this form has been archived anywhere on the Internet. I
would be particularly interested in seeing how much of a favorite Clinton was in 2016. I
doubt she would have been more than 2/3, and the result not as shocking an upset were Trump
actually 1/1. In any event, if the favorite an hour before the books closed always won, who
then would ever consider the price on an underdog as an overlay? I'm not addressing any
prediction of a winner; I'm observing the changes in public opinion as expressed through
those who are willing to take a money position along the way. There would be no other
prominent reason for Sanders to reclaim over Bloomberg in less than a week, the Democratic
candidate top spot in betting odds, than his strong showing Wednesday night.
All of the legal gambling outlets will tend to keep fairly close in sync with changes in
odds offered. Any one of them getting significantly out of sync is taking a position,
attracting layoff action from one of the others. When someone makes an investment in this
type of futures, it's with an eye toward spotting an overlay. That means a current line which
is offering too strong a return on the investment. The books have several ways of adjusting.
They can change the odds offered, lay off action with each other to balance their money
position, or offer early resolution to certain ticket holders. For example, Trump opened at
5/2 and toward the end of 2018 had been bet down to 3/2. He is currently 8/13 which
represents an extreme overlay if someone is holding a ticket with 3/2 odds. When this kind of
situation occurs, all of the books are likely to sustain a loss. So, they will offer early
resolution. A $2000 ticket on Trump at 3/2 will return $5000, however anyone holding this
ticket may be offered $2750 today for early resolution. That's an immediate $750 profit for
giving back their position.
Now to illustrate just how drastic
changes in the futures betting can be, a few hours ago Sanders was 7/2, he's now 10/3.
Bloomberg continues to slide, from 4/1 last week to 11/2 a few hours ago to now 7/1. Perhaps
Bloomberg will be attractive enough to become an overlay at 10/1? I would consider that price
might be worth taking a position on, if one thinks convention shenanigans will place him as
the candidate. At that point (if correct) he'll drop to say 8/5 and will return a good profit
from early resolution.
The changes in the betting lines appear more discernible to me, than a shift of a few
percentage point amongst pollsters. Notice Pence is back on the board, so obviously some
people think there's greater than a 300/1 chance Trump is deceased during this term.
Aren't you being somewhat disingenuous by selectively nitpicking a few sentences out of
Bernie's speech that merely express an opinion, not a declaration of political meddling,
intervention or war, while leaving out the positive 90%, like his criticism of Bolsanaro,
Netanyahu and Israel's racist unjust policies and his concern for the dire situation in Gaza?
He rails against Saudi Arabia and MBS and the war on Yemen. He's critical of Sheldon
Adelson's influence, the Koch brothers and Mercer and the corruption of goverment and the
greed they represent. He's critical of the massive amounts of funding spent on the military.
That's great, no?
He's sympathetic to the unjust imprisonment of Lula da Silva and talks about the necessity
of addressing climate change and poverty and much more. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT??? There's a
Ziofascist in the White House right now who just brought on board Richard Grenell for DNI,
(ironically mentioned in Bernie's speech last October... prophetic? Yes.), yet another
Iranophobe! So you can guess what direction we're headed in?
Out of all the good that Bernie spoke you gripe about that small paragraph and use it to
distort as still too aggressive his entire foreign policy vision and pov on issues few
in Congress have the spine to address?
You think I'm just going to let slide this perversion of his message?
Just see how so many comments reek with that same type of distortion parotting YOUR CUE.
Do you not feel any responsibilty to the truth and to the power your word may have to
influence others to misjudge Bernie Sanders unfairly through your distorted lens?
I am sickened reading the comments that emanated from your small paragraph and bet you NO
ONE BOTHERED TO READ THE ENTIRE SPEECH IN THE LINK AND RELIED INSTEAD ON THAT DROP FROM
POISON PEN TO FORM A TOTALLY IGNORANT, BIASED OPINION.
I'm glad you at least gave him credit for defending well his positions in the midst of
multiple attacks in the debate.
If Bernie can withstand the onslaught of unfair, disproportionate establishment and media
attacks (your's included) and win the Nomination, it won't be thanks to the majority of you,
but you will all in some way benefit from an improvement in foreign policy under a Sanders
administration. OR DO YOU ACTUALLY PREFER TO DISCUSS WAR AND ATROCITY AND CONSPIRACY
MACHINATIONS HERE ALL DAY, EVERY DAY IN PERPETUITY? Maybe that's the problem, maybe with
Bernie as President you'll be less involved as armchair generals and have to settle for
criticizing boring diplomacy for a change!
I don't know about you, but I really welcome most of what Bernie talked about and his
vision for the future on this planet much more than discussing war with Iran, famine and
climate disaster.
Bernie will make it in spite of haters, never Sanders, maligners, and distorters of the
truth.
Oh, and he'll DESTROY Trump in November.
▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪
Jared suggests Bloomberg/Gabbard.
Gobbledygook!
I guess you don't really know what Bloomberg's about. And you especially don't get
Gabbard! She wouldn't be caught dead working for that Neocon warmonger!
SharonM and Jackrabbit
Get a room you professional koo-koo spinbots...preferrably in another Solar System where
you can't damage impressionable minds. Ugh.
I feel bad for the Bernie Bros.
He's gonna sell them out again.
Dude has zero pull with his "party", and is facing a steamroller in Trump.
I would be happy to have a small dinner with Circe and friends after the convention.
We can commiserate over a few wodkas and goulash.
"SharonM and Jackrabbit
Get a room you professional koo-koo spinbots...preferrably in another Solar System where you
can't damage impressionable minds. Ugh."
I'm against war. You're obviously just another loser imperialist.
Since medical care figures so prominently in the election, might be a good idea to know why
it costs so much now:
The Oligarch Takeover of US Pharma and Healthcare by Jon Hellevig
"The Awara study shows https://www.awaragroup.com/blog/us-healthcare-system-in-crisis/
that in addition to the original sin of corporate greed, the exorbitant costs of the US
healthcare system stem from layers upon layers of distortions with which the system is
infested. Each part of the healthcare industry contributes to what is a giant monopoly scam:
the pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment manufacturers, drug wholesalers, drug stores,
group purchasing organizations, health insurance companies, doctors, clinics and hospitals,
and even what should be impartial university research. And on top of that, there's the
government as a giant enabler of monopolized corporations running roughshod over the American
consumer and patient.
"But it is worse than that. All the monopolists (in official parlance, oligopolies) are in
turn owned by the same set of investors in what is called horizontal shareholding. The same
some 15-20. investors have the controlling stake in all the leading companies of the entire
pharma and healthcare industry.
"That's not all. Two of the investors, BlackRock and Vanguard, are the biggest owners in
almost every single one of the leading companies.
"Furthermore, BlackRock is owned by Vanguard, BlackRock's biggest owner being a mystical
PNC Services, whose biggest owner in turn is Vanguard. Vanguard itself is recorded directly
as BlackRock's second biggest owner. Moreover, BlackRock and Vanguard are the two biggest
owners of almost all the other 15-20 biggest investors, which most are cross-owned and
together own the entire US pharma and healthcare sector. Ultimately, then we might have the
situation that the whole healthcare sector and Big Pharma are controlled by one giant
oligarch clan (and the very real people who stand behind them), one single interest group of
oligarch investors." -- http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52658.htm
Yesterday some dirty dog, Bloomberg or weasel Buttigieg, brought up the fact that Bernie has
2 million, and 3 homes, one in Washington, a house in Vermont his wife inherited from her
parents and a cabin by a lake! OMG! QUICK! Call the Socialist police! He's 78, has a career
in politics, wrote some bestsellers and he has to live like a monk otherwise, he's a
hypocrite???
The hypocrites are the ones criticizing him and not Warren who appeared in Forbes cause
she has two expensive homes, and 12 MILLION. But, at the debate she was coy and uncommonly
silent when they attacked Bernie for what is perfectly normal given his career, success as an
author and his age!
But Lizabeth, she cares so much about poor mothers and babies, and shares Bernie's
platform, and yet is too chicken to call herself a democratic socialist. Yeah, with 12 Mil in
the bank and different investments she's got a big stake in Capitalism! And someone
mentionned that during the commercial break she was getting quite friendly yacking it up with
Bloomberg, AFTER she put on the Non-disclosure artifice (watch out for hidden mics,
Mike!). And she's not big on democracy either, since she would rather go to a brokered
convention, than give Bernie the nomination when he gets the majority of pledged delegates.
Screw her!
Oh Lizzie, you showed all your true colors!
DONE, put a fork in it!
▪▪▪▪▪
SharonM
Against war and for Trump? 🤣🤣🤣
Trust me, Bernie's not starting any war at his age, and he's from a bucolic state. If you
think Bernie's for war and I'm an imperialist, then must be a real bad judge of
character.
You fool no one. You hate Bernie for some other stupid reason.
Really, the Oligarch party composed of the Republican and Democrat branches will not make any
significant changes to the status quo, even if Sanders is voted in to the presidency.
Sanders' foreign policy is the Oligarch policy; Sanders domestic policy would never get past
the Oligarch house without significant watering down to be totally irrelevant. Sanders only
"threat" to the Oligarchs is that the presidency would give him a 4-year platform to continue
to put forth his semi-socialist domestic views, seeding the brains of the ignorant masses
with dangerous thoughts.
Voting for either branch of the Oligarch party is to vote for the status quo. All that is
guaranteed are a few cosmetic changes of zero significance. Vote, but vote anyone but the
Oligarch Party!
A positive assessment of the chances of Sanders to win the nomination:
"Former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg's presidential campaign called on former
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to drop out of the Democratic presidential primary race
in a memo released on Thursday, warning that Bloomberg's presence in the race would propel
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to the Democratic nomination. "
Pete could be more incisive by pointing that unlike his much more financially successful
colleague from the race of nomination, he has no track record on making unwanted passes on
women, or jokes that cannot be revealed to the publics. More seriously, American
establishment is so vast that it is internally divided into various groups or cliques that
detest each other. Pete is a darling of CIA circles, Bloomberg is so rich that he nearly
makes an influence group by himself., but he may be popular among Wall Street denizens who
donate to Metropolitan Opera and snicker at Trump who could not tell Verdi from Barbie doll.
On political positions, I wonder if there is an ounce of difference.
There is a lot of criticism in these comments about Sanders not going all out against the
Democratic Party and playing too nice, but a counterpoint to consider is that we have a
perfect example to contrast his behavior with: Tulsi Gabbard. Tulsi was vice chair of the DNC
and considered one of their "rising stars" in part because of the elites' insipid love of
identity politics, and she is demonstrating the country what happens when you go nuclear
against the establishment. She burned her political capital to back Bernie in 2016 and went
on the attack during the debates she was able to get into. Would Sanders really get better
results doing what Tulsi is doing, and if so, why would he going that course be different?
@95 sharon.. thanks.. that sounds reasonable.. however at present either one of the war
parties is going to win.. i suppose some will think bernie i war party lite or something, but
regardless if he gets the nod - which i highly doubt - the war party is still in control..
something bigger has to happen for this to change.. collapse is a popular fantasy for some..
i am not sure if or when that could happen too.. it is hard being reasonable in this
atmosphere.. i am inclined to more radical thinking as the answer at this point..
"It's time to give the elites a bigger say in electing the President"
Under Trump Bezos lost highly profitable interests, and under a second Trump term he would
likely lose still more. If any of the elites' choices get the Dem nomination, Trump is
certain to win. Perhaps Bezos' reasoning was to try to provoke Dem supporters to reject the
elites because that is the only chance of getting back the business interests he lost.
Bezos is a nasty piece of work indeed, but to his credit, maybe he at least sees the need
of a more acceptable candidate.
"They" have thrown down everything against Sanders yet he continues to rise. His support base
is HUGE. Competition can't touch him. His victories will put him up so much that the DNC is
rendered powerless.
Of all the candidates, Tulsi Gabbard is far away the closest in ideology to Sanders. She
entered the race with Bernie's approval, before Bernie announced. Bernie knows that Tulsi is
the only one (other than Nina Turner) that would totally have his back. I actually believe
that Gabbard is the best candidate that the US has had in a LONG time. If she were selected
as VP she would get a lot more exposure; the more exposure the more support she gets. I don't
believe that Bernie needs to pick a VP in order to garner more votes; that is, it's not as
strategically necessary as other candidates have required: I repeat: Bernie's base is HUGE.
Tulsi is a BIG insurance policy. VP isn't a do-nothing position: it can cast a tie-breaking
vote in the senate; it can act as collaborator with POTUS. In a more correct positioning of
talents it would be Gabbard as POTUS and Sanders as VP. I'd be happy to see Nina Turner as VP
but am worried that the pairing with Sanders would create too stark of a picture, one open to
really ugly attacks: it's hard to attack Tulsi given her military experience (I hate that
this needs to be played, but it's the reality we face). AND there's the VP debates: Tulsi vs
Pence would be one for the history books.
Turkey closed its airspace to russian airplanes flying to Syria and slowed down the so called
Syrian Express. The straights would be closed in case of declared war but the flow can be
slowed down by other means. Hard to think that war will be officially declared with all the
joint projects in energy, but logistics would be a real problem for Russia if things get
uglier. http://www.ng.ru/politics/2020-02-20/1_7800_bosphorus.html
The second question of the 20 series to Putin is about Ukraine, as usual he comes across as
well informed and with ease of verve. https://putin.tass.ru/ru/ob-ukraine/
I guess you don't really know what Bloomberg's about. And you especially don't get
Gabbard! She wouldn't be caught dead working for that Neocon warmonger!
Please advise - What is Bloomberg about.
In my experience he is a conservative moderate.
Do we just describe everyone we dont like as zionist?
- The american writer Thomas Frank has put this way: The Democrats had every opportuniy to
win the presidential election of 2016 by focussing on the people in "fly-over land", on the
people who felt "left bhind" but instead they focussed on the "creative class" (laywers, the
"professional class", hollywood and people from the tech sector (GOOGLE, Facebook, etc.).
- It was the presidential campaign of Trump who saw the chance to win over the people from
"fly-over country".
- Yes, Bloomberg is a moderate republican but he is also an establishment figure/person.
So, he won't be the one that will bring about MAJOR changes that are going to hurt that same
establishment. Including the "zionists" (with or without quotation marks).
- The people who are commenting on this topic should take into account one thing. Over the
years the Republican party has purged the party of "moderate Republicans". As a result of
that Republican party shifted more and more to the right side of the political spectrum.
If you were running a giant organized crime group with cash flow in the hundreds of
$billions, with tentacles deeply penetrating all of the mass media, with connections at the
top of all major western multinational corporations, and you wanted to "manage" the
political system of the country that finances the military that you occasionally need, how
would you do that?
Run you own candidates, of course!
So it is 2015. You've already gotten one of your candidates elected twice, and you are
confident that mass media cultivated "identity politics" played a big part in getting
him into the White House. Because of this you are now running another "identity
politics" compliant candidate, but you have some tricks up your sleeve to guarantee she
wins. Most importantly you have an utter heel running against her who cannot possibly
win.
So you [big mafia don] are confident that you have the 2016 and 2020 elections sewn up,
but even though it is only 2015, now is the time to be thinking about 2024. You've already
used up the woman and Black man identity issues, so what next? The gay man "identity
politics" angle, of course! So now you need to introduce to the public a gay candidate
that is under your control so the public can start to get used to him and he can become
widely known by the time campaigning starts in 2023.
Remind me now when it was that Butt-gig "came out" as gay? Oh, yeah, that's right!
It was 2015. He then "married" in 2018.
"But Butt-gig is so young!"
Sure. Realize that he wasn't supposed to be running until 2024, when he would be in his
forties. 2016 and 2020 were supposed to be Clinton's turn in the White House, but things went
all sideways for some reason. Now you have to move up the timetable.
- Bernie Sanders has promised FREE education/college and FREE Healthcare. Although I have
SERIOUS doubts how he is going to pay for all that FREE stuff, the large support he enjoys
shows very well how Joe Sixpack is thinking about his own economic situation.
- There were A LOT OF voters who voted first for Sanders in the primaries. When it became
clear that Sanders wasn't going to be the Democratic candidate these voters votes for Trump
in november 2016.
Blue Dotterel is not satisfied: >>Sanders only "threat" to the Oligarchs is that the
presidency would give him a 4-year platform to continue to put forth his semi-socialist
domestic views, seeding the brains of the ignorant masses with dangerous thoughts.
Voting for either branch of the Oligarch party is to vote for the status quo. All that is
guaranteed are a few cosmetic changes of zero significance. Vote, but vote anyone but the
Oligarch Party! Sanders only "threat" to the Oligarchs is that the presidency would give him
a 4-year platform to continue to put forth his semi-socialist domestic views, seeding the
brains of the ignorant masses with dangerous thoughts.<<
But the oligarchy and sectors close to oligarchy are already worried exactly about that.
For example, certain David Brook is almost morose. A nightmare that is at least 170 years old
reappeared:
>>Bernie Sanders is also telling a successful myth: The corporate and Wall Street
elites are rapacious monsters who hoard the nation's wealth and oppress working families.
This is not an original myth, either. It's been around since the class-conflict agitators of
1848. It is also a very compelling us vs. them worldview that resonates with a lot of
people.
When you're inside the Sanders myth, you see the world through the Bernie lens.
-----
This brings memories... agitators of 1848, revolution spread around Europe, Hapsburgs
quelling a revolution in Vienna only to watch Hungary, nearly half of the empire, raising in
rebelion that lasted until Czar send help a year later, stimulating dense Romantic poetry
that till today children in Central Europe are forced to learn. Final stanza translated into
English (it has a very compelilng rhytm in the original)
[the funeral of an agitator of 1848 turns into a march of specters that disturb
comfortable city dwellers]
And we shall drag on the funeral procession, saddening sleeping cities
Banging upon gates with urns, whistling into the notches of hatchets
Until the walls of Jericho fall like logs
Fainting hearts shall be revived; nations shall clear their musty eyes
William Gruff:
So, do you basically imply that the next run, after Black, Woman and Gay, would be Latino? In
which case they actually planned well ahead and AOC could be their card for 2032? Or would
that be too far-fetched? (she seems to go a bit too far into leftism for that after all)
"SharonM
Against war and for Trump? 🤣🤣🤣
Trust me, Bernie's not starting any war at his age, and he's from a bucolic state. If you
think Bernie's for war and I'm an imperialist, then must be a real bad judge of character.
You fool no one. You hate Bernie for some other stupid reason."
Here are some relevant questions with Bernie's answers:
*Question: Would you consider military force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean
nuclear or missile test?
Sanders: Yes.
*Question: Would you consider military force for a humanitarian intervention?
Sanders: Yes.
*Question: If Russia continues on its current course in Ukraine and other former Soviet
states, should the United States regard it as an adversary, or even an enemy?
Sanders: Yes.
*Question: Should Russia be required to return Crimea to Ukraine before it is allowed back
into the G-7?
Don't care about your dumb opinion, Circe. But I don't want anyone else here to think I'm
some supporter of the U.S. regimes two war parties. Bernie is just like Trump, Obama, the
Bush and Clinton families--warmongering assholes all of them.
@113 James
I agree. An actual revolution here would probably require masses of people on the verge of
starvation. But perhaps there's a trigger event that we can't foresee?
Bernie Sanders has promised FREE education/college and FREE Healthcare. Although I have
SERIOUS doubts how he is going to pay for all that FREE stuff,...
he's not.
and there's the rub, or the common denominator between domestic policy and foreign
policy...i.e. lucre (and hellfire missiles are so much sexier , right?).
if a candidate is not clamoring loudly that the defense budget must be cut by at
least 50%, he or she is being disingenuous, if not downright deceptive, about enacting
any kind of national healthcare, education, or whatnot.
If you were an anti-war candidate running for President of a militarized security state
that is so easily brainwashed by half a billion dollars in ads run by a war-mongering
Ziofascist and one of the highest-circulated Zionist-run propaganda rags asked trap questions
to test their definition of patriotism on you, you too would go through the motions and give
them what they wanna hear so they would leave you the fock alone for the rest of the
campaign.
Now, if you're looking to blow in 15 minutes your years in the making efforts to win the
Presidency and use your power to change that security state mentality, then you would
stupidly answer what you're suggesting.
You're a Trumpbot. AND I COULD GIVE A SHET WHAT YOU THINK.
Bernie wants to restore the Iran deal, and do diplomacy with Iran, and substantially
reduce military spending. Bernie is as anti-war a politicisn as I've seen in my lifetime.
I'll bank on his wisdom over your intellectual dishonesty ANY DAY, ANY TIME, ANY WHERE.
Unlike you, a lousy judge of character, or just plain demonizing Trumpbot on a fool's
mission, I am an excellent judge of character who had Ziofascist Trump pegged from day one
and took two years of flak for it! Today, I've been vindicated in every way. Ziofascist Trump
is the agent provocateur in the Middle East unilaterally, repeatedly resorting to multiple
acts of war against the Palestinians, Syria, Iraq and Iran. If he didn't trigger war yet,
it's not for lack of trying! Everyone is wisely on hold prevailing on their cool-headedness
hoping Americans elect a SANE, and more humane President, and that President will be Bernie
Sanders.
When Bernie shuts the door on that lunatic's orange-cake face the entire planet will
breathe A COLLECTIVE SIGH.
Now go bark your fake purist bullshet at someone stupid enough to fall for it. I'm a
firewall for the truth and you're barking up the wrong tree and messing with someone berning
for justice.
If Sanders actually got into the Presidency and threatened established interests, then he
would be given a non-refusable invitation to vist Dallas and drive past the Texas Shoolbook
Depositary.
Oh sure, Bernie is just playing 4d chess, right? We've been hearing that for years about
Trump as he bombs countries, assassinates people, and overthrows governments. We'll have to
relive it all hearing about Bernie's grand scheme to undermine the MIC by doing exactly what
the MIC wants. You're just another fake following a warmonger.
"But the oligarchy and sectors close to oligarchy are already worried exactly about that.
For example, certain David Brook is almost morose. A nightmare that is at least 170 years old
reappeared"
Well if Sanders does manages to get the Dem. nomination, then go ahead and vote for him.
Just, do not expect anything to change during his administration.
Otherwise, if someone else gets it, Sanders will be put out to pasture, and no one will
hear from him again. He was pretty quiet the past three years. For Sanders, and his domestic
ideas to blossom, he needs to be able to win the presidency, not just run for it. This is why
the Oligarchy will probably tank him. Right now, very few people in the US are politically
active. It is only the primaries after all. They are mostly ignored by the vast majority of
the electorate despite CNN's propaganda polls (which read only 52% interest anyway). In fact,
US elections for pres are regularly ignored by almost half the population, anyway.
If anyone else gets the dem nomination, there is no point voting for the Oligarch
Party.
Do you realize the damage you're doing to your credibility and reputation tooting
Bloomberg's horn here?
Bloomberg is a rabid Zionist who defied a flight ban making a cruel, pompous spectacle of
himself flying into Tel Aviv during Israel's massive criminal assault on Gaza while
vociferously supporting Israel's shelling of children, schools and hospitals.
Bloomberg is a Ziofascist Israel shill Neocon BUSH jr REPUBLICAN. Complete Presidential
disqualification in one sentence.
Now run along with your leaky can of Bloomberg whitewash.
If the State legislature chooses to ignore the vote then your argument is not
valid.
Please see the US Constitution that I linked...
And you continue to ignore Process. Well, in Constitutional Law courses that very scenario
is addressed. In Law, Process matters.
if the State legislature choses to ignore the vote.."[..]
if not members of the Parties elected to the Legislature, pray tell how is the Legislature
comprised?
You do know when (ahead of the general election) the Republicans and Democratic Parties
appoint their respective representative slate of electors they take into account Party
Loyalists who are pledged to vote the presidential ticket?
On pledges of the electors: 29 states have laws forbidding the electors to violate their
pledges.
In recent history: December 2016, Trump had the required electoral votes and the Hillary
Mob attempted a full-throated campaign to have some of the Republican electors switch their
votes at the Electoral College!!
How did that work out?
There were 7 "Faithless electors" who ignored their pledges. Oeps of the 7: five defected
Democratic-loser Clinton and two the Republican president- elect. [Cases are on appeal before
the Supreme Court; to be heard in 2019-2020 term]
When the Electors' switchero campaign did not succeed, Russiagate was the lever to
frustrate Trump's presidency. Russiagate will continue as long as the orangeman occupies the
White House.
WP > "...After a senior U.S. intelligence official told lawmakers last week that Russia
wants to see President Trump reelected..."
UNZ> "...Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Vice President Biden are being
told that if they do not get out of the race and clear the lane for the mayor, they will get
a socialist as their nominee, and the party will deserve the fate November will bring -- a
second term for Trump..."
Now then, when will the intel dudes claim Buttboi and Buyiden and Klob are commie agents?
Why already Wally suspects Putin's on the secret Badenov Shoe-phone with his vast army of
verraters... I mean, there must be Some Truth, right?
And if (mirabele dictu) Burner get's 'lected and avoids Dallas... if that, then how will
they change the story and tell us Burner is a Putin controlled Putin versteher?
("We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public
believes is false." (CIA Director Casey)
Karlofi mooted Beard's "Republic"... A proud attempt by Beard, but, alas (!) it reads like
a sad comic... Painful.
Perhaps one interesting point there though > Lincoln's first inaugural.
I'll leave that for K-Man to discuss, if he likes.
I'm all for disrupting the Democratic Party by voting for Sanders in the Primary.
But anyone that thinks that Sanders will be allowed to actually win the Primary is smoking
something. And anyone that thinks that Sanders isn't working with the Democratic
establishment to accomplish their goals is snorting something.
Sanders is there as window-dressing and to lure young voters into the Democratic Party
fold as a "Democracy Works!" ploy (a form of 'stay in school' PSA) .
The Democratic Party won't actually nominate him because Americans would vote for Bernie's
anti-oligarch program in droves. Anyone with any sense knows that the oligarchs have too much
money and too much power and that government services monied interests instead of the
people.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
We are now in a new Cold War. And we are on the brink of ANOTHER major war in the Middle
East. It's long-past time to see through the bullshit propaganda, fakery, and scheming.
Copy/paste Jackrabbit who hasn't hatched an original thought in quite some time tries to
project his professional troll gig on me. Dembot? Is that all you could come up with?
As with Bernie, I might be more like, hmmm... how would I describe myself?
"...This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever
they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional
right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it..."
Wally is a bit shocked...here's Lincoln saying the Revolution is a Right... And he wuz
smokin...what?
But yes, context matters...read the entire document>
First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln
MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861
Fellow-Citizens of the United States: (avalon / yale / edu an' all of that)
All the slander being heaped upon Bernie is not going to drain one jot of energy from the
momentum of his campaign. The trolls desire above all for a tide of chaos to wash over the
country. The energy in this movement is going play out on the convention floor and beyond;
and the spirit of the people is not about to be diminished or crushed.
It is best not to give up on the struggle, especially when the stakes have been made so
clear as Bloomberg plants the flag of oligharchy in this election. Only Sanders and Warren
had the decency to react with moral vigor to this outrage.
This is far from over. This is just getting interesting.
Correct, as I see it that would be too far-fetched. I cannot see AOC being managed
opposition, even if her behavior doesn't seem very leftish sometimes. The establishment's
biggest concern with their management of the political process is to make sure that some of
the things that AOC discusses remain outside the scope of acceptable political discourse. See
Willy2 above with his "Free stuff!" narrative for how the establishment wants people
to react... the establishment wants to prevent the public from even considering reallocating
resources away from the military and corporate subsidies to so-called "Free stuff!"
While AOC's ideology and support for Pelosi and such might leave some leftists unimpressed,
the fact that she even discusses free-at-the-point-of-use healthcare and education as well as
living wages strongly suggests that she is not part of the establishment's operation.
I honestly do not think the establishment has any plans for pandering very much to Latin
American identity... there is far too much revolution in that identity. My guess is that the
plans post-Butt-gig are to mix things up... say a Black lesbian or Black transsexual, for
instance. Keep in mind this would be planned for 2028 (previously 2030) so whoever they have
in mind would only be starting to get publicly groomed for the job now. The potential
individuals may not have even had their debutante unveiling to the public yet.
The trolls desire above all for a tide of chaos to wash over the country.
Well, true, but we don't need much help. The Sanders campaign has been a gift to
socialists who can piggy-back off of his demolition of decades of John Birch Society
indoctrination against socialism. But as far as I'm concerned, that's the only good thing
he's done. Him losing will be better for socialists - who can benefit from his supporters
flocking to our organizations - rather than him winning and forcing us to take him in as "our
guy" or us being tarred with any failures of his presidency.
"[Sanders] losing will be better for socialists..." --fnord @143
Not good strategy. People are not ready to go for real revolution yet. They need to try
half measures first and see those half measures fail or be attacked and defeated by the
oligarchs. Sanders losing will cause many people to either drop out of the movement or switch
to the far right. Sanders victory is needed just to show the masses that victory is possible.
People pursue socialist revolution out of a sense of optimism and open possibilities, not
desperation. Desperation leads to fascism.
Many of Sanders supporters on Twitter will tell you that his foreign policy utterances are
what "he has to do" so that the media doesn't increase their attacks on him. They say it is a
con. A lot of others like the people at WSWS disagree completely. I don't know for sure, but
it does make sense to play along with the establishment while you don't have power. And Tulsi
is part of the Sanders Institute. As for Tulsi being VP, there would be unanimous outrage
like you have never seen from so many liberals because Hinduphobia is rampant among so many
of them. This explains how they have have been conned by a smear psy-op against Tulsi
Gabbard:
Anatomy of A Smear: How Liberals Have Become Willing Dupes of Foreign Political Psy-Ops
The most extreme thing is that Sanders would consider military force to prevent even just
a missile test.
He also says he would "consider" "humanitarian interventions" without saying anything
about those "humanitarian interventions" based on lies that led to deterioration of the
humanitarian situation.
Under normal situations, I would think that Sanders' foreign policy positions should
disqualify him. But we are talking here about the United States of America, a country with
extreme disregard for international law, and it is probably correct that all other candidates
who have a chance of being elected would be even worse (compared to the extremists Biden,
Bloomberg, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg, Sanders' hawkishness and aggressive rhetoric against
Russia seems relatively harmless). Compared to Trump, Sanders is probably the lesser
evil.
But I doubt he will be inclined to go against the neocons who dominate the foreign policy
establishment and the secret services.
I used to think that if Sanders is president, Gabbard could be Secretary of State or vice
president. But now, I think this is unlikely. First because of many jingoistic statements by
Sanders, but second also because polls show that Tulsi Gabbard seems to be quite unpopular
among the US population. It seems that, while in Sanders' case the smears in the media don't
work well because people already know Sanders well enough, in Gabbard's case, the smears seem
to have worked. Sanders probably will not want to burden his administration with someone who
is so hated by a large part of the Democratic electorate.
I think Tulsi Gabbard will be needed for something else if Sanders is elected, for
pressuring Sanders from outside the government.
The question is not if Sanders should choose Gabbard as V.P., the question is why he
wouldn't, and that my friends will tell you all you need to know about Sanders and his
genuine interest in leading this country.
If Gabbard is left off his ticket he will lose. If he chooses her, it will excite the left
like nobody's business and he will cruise to victory utilizing the antiwar vote that got
Trump into office.
But...you do have the establishment left who may not want anything to do with the antiwar
and populist conjoinment of Sanders/Gabbard. It may be too world-shaking for them and they
may throw their lot in with Trump.
Either way, I think we are in good shape, barring a full Neocon push to colonize Trump's
presidency.
It is very curious that there seems to me something approaching unanimity-among the
commenters- that Sanders is the candidate who is least trustworthy.
I note that Jackrabbit even wheels out his old "Bernie the sheepdog" routine despite the fact
that the rest of the Democrats continue to do all that they can to sabotage his campaign,
ensuring that his supporters, when cheated in Convention, are going to walk out. Which, for
those unacquainted with the logistics of pastoral agriculture, is not what sheepdogs-employed
to gather the flocks together and deliver them to be clipped or butchered-do.
Of course the issue is imperialism. But imperialism is not an ideological but a material
matter: among the material bases of the Empire is the superstition that the United States is
under constant military threat and that, unless Americans voluntarily impoverish themselves,
by giving vast sums to the MIC, they will lose everything. And the world will disintegrate.
To undermine imperialism in the United States it is necessary to empower the only forces that
can defeat the MIC-the masses, taxpayers working hours a week for the trillion dollar defense
budget and workers afraid to stop making the rich ever richer and themselves poorer, less
secure and more vulnerable.
Sanders challenges this view. And he does so from a very old-fashioned position. He is
arguing that social and economic security should be the first priorities of government and
that, in order to defend the constantly threatened benefits that exist and to extend them to
such popular areas as healthcare and free tuition, it is necessary to restore the freedom to
organise that existed before Taft Hartley.
The DNC and the anti Sanders forces are the current iteration of the coalition of Republican
reactionaries and the Tammany/Jim Crow bosses that brought about Taft Hartley and the Cold
War, the twin foundations of imperialist politics in the United States for more than seventy
years.
As to Israel Sanders' position is one that is utter anathema to the Zionists- a clue being
the enormous resources they are mobilising against him. A call for 'peace' and an end to the
'conflict' being the one policy that not only appeals to public opinion but cannot be
countenanced by any of the Israeli parties all of which have committed their all to
eradicating all traces of Palestine and dominating the middle east.
In the Nevada debate I noticed how the candidates other than Bernie at many times were
talking into the cameras and over the heads of the people in the audience while garbling out
their resumes about how they are the best candidate to beat Trump as if that was the debate
question put to them. In doing so, I think they are really out boot-licking for super
delegates.
Sanders does not seem a pro-war imperialist, and he has SOME positive statements on
foreign policy now, and according to my observations in 2016, we is not interested in foreign
policy and he wants to fight on one front. He also detests the leadership of Israel, but
given his roots etc. he did not want to say anything on that, just some isolated statement
when confronted in meetings with voters.
Now that he expected to be a front runner he hired the most progressive chaps from the
mainline Democratic think tanks, and clearly, you can take them from CAP etc. but you cannot
totally remove CAP etc. out of them. Coming from environment where "muscular liberals" keep
taunting "so do you love dictators", after few years you prepare "appropriate defenses".
"Yes" on "Would you consider military action if Iran or North Korea did X" was a typical
weaseling. "Not considering war under ANY circumstances" is still a third rail in American
policies. So one "Yes" was placed in the questionaire. But he also had a long paragraph about
diplomacy first, last resort, requesting advise and approval from Congress, so it was formal
"considering", not "willingness". Your can interpreted differently, and that was the whole
purpose.
I would ask something about economic warfare, sanctions etc., like how he would weight
"applying pressure on regimes" versus "welfare of the population", how much of deprivation is
too much. And selection criteria for the list of "regimes". Do absolute monarchies get
exemption, perhaps on the account of reigning by the grace of G..d? When do we "worry" about
events during vote counting (no worry on Honduras, grave concern on Bolivia). And so on.
Well, it's very curious that Sanders accepts the party line on Russiagate/Russian
meddling.
And it's very curious that Sanders attacks Maduro as a Dictator that must be removed.
And it's very curious that Sanders' bill to prevent US support for the war on Yemen had
big loopholes.
And Sanders' 2016 campaigning was also very curious for his amazing deference to
Hillary.
Also curious: how Sanders' candidacy is used as Democracy Works! propaganda to
shore-up a corrupt. EMPIRE-FIRST political system.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
If WE can all see that the Democratic Party is scheming to have a brokered convention, WHY
CAN'T BERNIE SEE IT? Well, of course he sees it. But he doesn't do anything about it. He
plays into it by stressing his support for 'party unity'.
Jackrabbit, are you quoting someone or yourself, you use quotation paragraphs without
attributing to anyone.
Concerning tactical advise, I do not think that you tested it on "focus groups" or in any
other way. Identity politics is a third rail in the territory to the left and center of the
political centrum. Some aspects are OK, like changing attitude to work place sexual
harassment or even demeaning. Shaming homosexual is medieaval (going back to a ancient Greek
attitudes could be a step to far).
But there is a need to avoid alienating working class people who do not ascribe to
political correctness. But what would you like to give up as an issue? The right to terminate
pregnancy? Sanders made a choice that I fully approve: prying guns from the hands of the
working people is a futile, alienating, and he did not win so many elections in a rural state
full of hunters by trying that. He is correctly accused of never advocating gun control. But
you cannot run in Democratic party AGAINST gun control, not because of DNC and other sinister
powers (although they love the issue) but there is a wide constituency for it. As a hiker, I
appreciate extensive state forests and game reserves created because of the wide support from
the hunters, and the fact that the hunting in my state is forbidden on Sunday. "And on the
seventh day thou shall hike".
Once I thought about a compromise good for running in the South, namely, why not agree to
hand some commandments in public building, say, 5 out of 10? One could make a referendum
choosing the "top 5".
Even if sanders gets the nomination (a very very big if), don 't expect him to go all
anti-systemic at all, more the opposite I would say. So Tulsi for VC is like a red herring,
he would probably choose a "moderate" for VC.
The following article is a very interesting one, showing the type of socialist sanders is.
His ideas about socialism are closer to the european socialdemocratic system after the 90s ,
and we all know what a trainwreck that is.
Tulsi won't be getting the hypothetical VP nod. Conservative voters may like her, but
true-blue Democrats absolutely despise her. (You can thank the Clinton faction for both.) If
Sanders picked her, the noisiest elements of the media would scream RUSSIA until their
throats bled.
Sanders won't move very far rightward on the policy front as the general election
approaches, which means he needs to appease the Sensible Liberals through other means.
Bellicose rhetoric w/r/t Russia serves that purpose, and allows him to push back against
insinuations that he benefited from or abetted Russia's Great Election Heist of 2016. Today's
rhetoric may not become tomorrow's policy, though I won't be holding my breath.
The Jackrabbits who think Sanders doesn't stand a chance of being nominated are
underestimating the ineptitude and unpopularity of the Democratic Party, the depth of which
may somehow overcome even the most strenuous attempts at fixing the race's outcome. Sheepdog
though he may be, I'm hoping to see Sanders herding politicians instead of voters come next
February.
I'll forever argue that the United States of America's government was designed to be a
social democratic republic. Proof of this deliberate design is found within the rationale for
the federal government as stated in the Constitution's Preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish
Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I'll argue that establishing Justice and insuring domestic Tranquility means not to
promote policies that result in economic divisiveness and massive disparities of wealth--what
that hell's tranquil or justified about Bloomberg owning as much wealth as @160 million
people: almost 1/2 of the populous?!?! How is it possible to secure the Blessings of Liberty
to ourselves and our Posterity in the face of such unjust, immoral disparities?! And I could
go on and rant a lot more, but I think my point's made. Clearly, the best political weapon
and campaign asset Sanders could deploy is the Preamble and argue that the Oligarchs and
their Establishment are UnAmerican at best and Traitors at worst.
As I wrote the other day echoing Solomon and Sanders, it's a Class War, and we need
everyone to come to the barricades and the polling stations!! And the naysayers better
get the hell out-of-the-way or be trampled underneath the masses clamoring for a huge change
in direction, which we might call back to fundamentals.
The longer this Democrat dog and pony show continues the more I have a sense that it is a
false flag operation whereby the most unelectable (Feel the Bern) is being raised while the
most competitive (Tulsi Gabbard) has been shunted aside leaving no trace.
Was privileged to attend a Tulsi Town Hall last evening in Colorado Springs.
Very impressive from start to finish. Estimate 300 attended, many young military, and many
there identified as Republicans including a former CO State Senator.
Try to catch this wonderful candidate in person. Her positions are available in
considerable detail on Wikipedia.
She may be shunted aside by the MSM, but she's leaving way more than a trace for sure -- a
redemptive force for a troubled and divided nation.
With exception of Sanders I can't imagine any candidate on the stage last night offering
Gabbards a position in their administration.
If Bernie Sanders were President of say any South American country every other Democrat on
stage last night would be delighted as president themselves to covertly and overtly destroy
him and his nation. Think Honduras, Paraguay, Venezuela and Bolivia for the most recent
examples.
This country is getting a very clear lesson in the fact not only is not a democracy, it's
anti-democratic to its core. I hope at long last it finally sinks in among the half of
eligible voters who still legitimize it with their vote.
The US of A should do as EVERY other advanced economy did - and implement single payer
healthcare and eject the profiteers from the medical system, which is a public good. Germany
has had universal medical care since Otto von Bismarck implemented in the 1870's to unify the
country - most other countries implemented it in the 20th century (UK just after WW2; Canada
in 1963' and so on). This will liberate US Americans from the advanced world's most expensive
and inefficient health insurance system, with administrative costs of over 20% compared to
Canada's 2-3% depending on province. And Bernie Sanders is the only Dem candidate who
unequivocally stands for Medicare for all - the rest are to some degree or other captured by
health industry cartel payoffs, much as the Dem party is.
Bernie or bust! He's not a commie; he's a democratic socialist, in the model of FDR's New
Deal. Yes he's bad on foreign policy - do you-all really approve of what Trump has been doing
on behalf of "client states" who really run the foreign policy show in their domains? I'm not
sure if this will ever change - no president wants to end up like JFK. But what is important
is to improve the lot of all of us poor citizens who get to pay for all these shitshow
foreign SNAFU's - will they ever end? Not while the likes of Pompeus Maximus is in
charge....
"'Mike Bloomberg owns more wealth than the bottom 125 million Americans,' said Sanders.
'That's wrong. That's immoral. That should not be the case when we got half a million people
sleeping out on the street. When we have kids who cannot afford to go to college. When we
have 45 million people dealing with student debt.'"
But the amount of disparity Sanders announced was likely overstated--reality is actually
worse:
"In the Federal Reserve's latest Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) data, Bruenig noted, '
the bottom 38 percent of American households have a collective net worth of $11.4 billion,
meaning that Michael Bloomberg owns nearly 6 times as much wealth as they do .'
"'The definition of wealth used in the official SCF publications includes cars as wealth,'
wrote Bruenig. 'But academics that study wealth inequality, like Edward Wolff, often do not
count cars as wealth because they are rapidly-depreciating consumer durables that most people
can't really sell for the practical reason that they need a car to get around and live. When
you exclude cars from the definition of wealth, what you find is that the bottom 48
percent of households have less combined wealth than Michael Bloomberg does. This is 60.4
million households or 158.9 million people .'
"'Regardless of which measure you use,' Bruenig concluded, 'the upshot is clear: the
United States is simultaneously home to some of the wealthiest people on Earth and to a large
propertyless underclass that have scarcely a penny to their names.'" [My Emphasis]
The description of Bloomberg as an Oligarch is correct. That he's also a kleptocrat is
also likely true. What's certain is he didn't "work hard" to attain his loot; he's a
Rentier just like Trump.
In a related development, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden has proposed to change the tax codes to
"Treat Wealth Like Wages" , something strongly advocated by economists like Hudson, Keen,
and Wolff and would start to slowly change the disparity.
George Will wrote a column about it yesterday . And although he's mistaken about that
wealth being turned into productive (entrepreneurial) Capitalism as proven by Hudson, Keen,
Wolff, and others, he does agree that something must be done about the problem.
I don't think we should be delving on Sanders' foreign policy too much.
Obama was elected on a "hope and change" platform - mentioning removing troops from Iraq,
Afghanistan, closing Guantanamo etc. and then, boom, Libya, drones, private contractors and
Syria happened.
Also, we have the Deep State, which is the true dictator of American foreign policy. This
is the team of "experts" and "advisers" who will "educate" whoever is newly elected to the
WH. So it doesn't really matter what the candidates state about foreign policy at this
point.
It really doesn't matter what Sanders says on the FP front.
And Sanders' 2016 campaigning was also very curious for his amazing deference to
Hillary .
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Feb 20 2020 20:05 utc | 36
I will not defend Sanders from basing his foreign policy on the progressive outliers of
reactionary CAP. There is a distinct danger that he would be malleable on foreign policy, but
also a hope... The hope is that he collected a lot of supporters who are less deferential to
DC consensus than himself.
The deference to Hillary was a good tactical choice in my humble opinion. He leads the
insurgents who do not favor the current DNC and party apparatus. To win a national elections
he does need cooperation across party spectrum. PUMA is a real danger against that (search
PUMA 2008 election). So he can (a) challenge and shame possible repeaters of PUMA (b) give
good example (c) rely on his feared supporters who are guaranteed to be suspicious and
grumpy.
Bloomberg as the champion of moderate democrats reminds me the candidate for Polish
presidency that Nationalists put forth in 1922. He was the top aristocrat, with vast
holdings. Nationalists had hopes of attracting the larger and very moderate peasant party,
but moderate as they were, they just could not vote for Aristocrat Number One. A lot of
Democrats prefer Sanders over Bloomberg, even the moderate ones. If Sanders becomes top in
delegate count and Bloomberg second, brokering the convention against Sanders will be
hard.
I started out to say that Sanders can't compete in the American Political sham reality if he
goes ball to the wall against Israel's aggression's and totally illegal behaviour which is
supported by Democrats and Republican's alike because of the monetary power the Zionist fifth
column in America wields with their "Benjamins"
Hat tip to that tiny girl born in Somalia for calling a spade a spade. Courage should be
rewarded, not attacked by those who disrespect truth and decency.
On Sanders' foreign policy: we shouldn't forget that democracies are belligerent, that the
link between war and high citizen participation in decision-making was the hallmark of
classical antiquity. More recently, the icing on FDR's New Deal was ww2. It doesn't surprise
me that a shift to social democracy does not imply a decrease in external belligerence. In
fact moderate right-wing libertarians tend on the whole to be the least fond of war, unless
it's about protecting their interests. But when the interests at stake are understood by the
deliberative citizen body (e.g. SPQR or ὁ δῆμος) to be
those of the collective citizen body, then war is endemic. I am reminded too that one of the
most left-wing institutions (in spirit at least) in the US is the Marine Corps: the
polis is a warrior-guild (Max Weber)
Even if sanders gets the nomination (a very very big if), don 't expect him to go all
anti-systemic at all, more the opposite I would say. So Tulsi for VC is like a red herring,
he would probably choose a "moderate" for VC.
The following article is a very interesting one, showing the type of socialist sanders is.
His ideas about socialism are closer to the european socialdemocratic system after the 90s ,
and we all know what a trainwreck that is.
Whether he realizes it or not, karlof1 is exposing a version of the establishment-friendly
"best of all worlds" (BOAW) political theory
BOAW was popular when Obama the deceiver was President. It fits well with his neoliberal
hucksterism aka "social choice theory".
BOAW says that if something is wrong or can be improved, it will get attention and be
addressed because people will get behind the change necessary to make it happen.
But the Empire and great wealth disparity has distorted democratic processes into
something garish - like fun house mirrors. BOAW is now recognized as simply hopium propaganda
and is hardly ever even mentioned anymore.
Thank God for former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg. Where would we be without him?
Probably all smoking in bars, as opposed to the much healthier things we do there now, like
stare at our smartphones and not talk to each other. And of course, we all know someone who was
subsisting solely on canned soup until Bloomberg blessed us with his public health
campaign against salt .
Now Bloomberg is running for president, and his years of behaving like a crossing guard
drunk on the power of his reversible stop sign have come back to haunt him. The stupid and
demeaning remarks unearthed from the Bloomberg vault in recent days include attacks
on African Americans ,
attacks on the elderly ,
attacks on gun owners , attacks on civil libertarians,
attacks on women ,
more attacks on women , and
attacks on farmers . What these comments have in common is that they're elitist. And not
just elitist, but purest-grade, paternalistically elitist, unchecked by the usual manners and
political correctness that are supposed to govern Upper East Side prejudices. Bloomberg just
says this stuff, then sets about codifying it through petty rules. He's the mirror image
of Donald Trump, only whereas Trump is our most unfiltered voice of populism, Bloomberg is the
smirking id of our imperious elites.
Bloomberg is best known for that aforementioned ban on smoking in bars, and since government
can never just stop on square one, New York promptly followed it up with a
raise in the smoking age , a ban on smoking in all parks and
beaches , and
a ban on flavored e-cigarettes . This crusade, Bloomberg assured us back in 2002, would be
lightly felt, since
80 percent of New Yorkers didn't smoke. Still, that leaves the other 20 percent, and a
stroll through Manhattan at dusk reveals their demographic: poor, largely immigrant, bartenders
and servers and dishwashers, people who have tougher job descriptions than "mumbling, lace
curtain-born billionaire." Bloomberg's paternalism holds that these people are too stupid to
decide for themselves whether to light up. He's like Alderman Cute in Dickens' story The
Chimes , pompously lecturing the lower orders about the empirical hazards of eating
tripe.
Bloomberg holds many trademarks, but his most familiar one is his almost child-like regard
for himself. He's impossible to picture without a Simpsons -style "MAYOR" sash slung
across his chest. An ego of that size was never going to be satisfied just dictating to
smokers. And so among the endless other things that Bloomberg banned as mayor, according to
a list
compiled by Gizmodo , were trans-fats, Big Gulps, Styrofoam food packaging, collecting
grass clippings at certain times of the year, black roofs, and non-energy-efficient taxis.
Naturally he
lowered the speed limit in some parts of the city. Naturally, too, his administration
contemplated cracking down on bars and liquor stores (having been robbed of smoke breaks,
service workers must also be deprived of jobs), only to magnanimously back off that
initiative .
All of this was done in the name of "public health," that gelatinous euphemism under which
can fall everything from bans on private rhinoceros ownership to forced labor camps. Yet whose
health was being protected exactly? That depends, as always, on the caprices of the man in
charge. So while the respiratory health of bartenders was deemed a crisis, the mental health of
those living near East 34th Street in Manhattan was less important. That was where Bloomberg
was caught violating noise regulations by landing his private helicopter in the middle of the
day. Repeatedly. Eight
times in one weekend. After he'd already made a point of cracking down on noise pollution .
That's all the proof you need that Bloomberg's reign was more about class snobbery than the
rule of law. The rules apply only to the little people, not the embryo-potentate sniggering
while he eases off the throttle.
In order to (inconsistently) enforce this labyrinth of red tape, Bloomberg effectively
turned the police into a task force on petty vice, sending them to write up people for harmless
offenses ( a move their
union loudly protested ). In a 2004 piece for Vanity Fair
, Christopher Hitchens set out on a crime spree across New York where he tried to break as many
of these enforced regulations as possible. This meant not just lighting up in a bar, but
sitting on a milk crate ($105 fine for a Bronx man), feeding pigeons (summons for an
86-year-old), and riding a bike without both feet on the pedals. Strangely, though considered
crimes against humanity in Bloombergistan, these particular infractions had nothing to do with
public health. What they did have to do with was fines, which were then used to fill city
coffers, authoritarianism in the service of deficit cutting. This enabled Bloomberg to boast
about his fiscal responsibility even as he presided over a hefty expansion of the
city's budget.
And it's here that we approach the heart of the Bloomberg ethos, as well as a crucial
distinction in our politics. Bloomberg is the opposite of a libertarian, yet
he defines himself as a "fiscal conservative and social liberal." Often confused, these two
terms are fundamentally different. Libertarianism is concerned with the liberty and dignity of
the individual, whereas "fiscal conservative and social liberal" has less philosophical
connective tissue. Under its shotgun marriage of terms, "social liberal" can mean, as Bloomberg
once told a pregnant subordinate, "kill
it," while "fiscal conservative" can mean reducing people to piggy banks in order to feed
finances. What links them is the flowchart. Children are bad for efficiency; so are smokers,
drinkers, and fast food diners. This is the ideology of the corporate boardroom. It's
dehumanizing, in that it flattens people into mere budget figures and values of life
expectancy.
Bloomberg's politics, then, aren't concerned with tradition or liberty or autonomy or
community. What matters is that you sit up straight, put down the Big Mac, and get ready to
maximize your contribution to the GDP, your own circumstances and desires be damned. The fiscal
becomes the moral. Thus does Bloomberg
defend Wall Street because it's "our tax base." Thus does he
support new taxes on the poor precisely because it will change their behavior. Thus
does he think we
ought to deny urgent medical care to the elderly because it's too expensive. And we haven't
even gotten to his other infringements on those with less power than he, like the African
Americans who were
stopped and frisked over a hundred times under his mayorship (worthy of a piece all its
own) or the protesters illegally rounded up at the 2004 Republican National Convention.
Now another target has fallen into Bloomberg's sights: coal workers. Here in my home market
of Washington, D.C., Bloomberg is running commercials in which he boasts about his plan to shut
down every coal plant in the country. A brief snippet from the ad shows Trump at a rally
wearing a miner's helmet and making a goofy face while a crowd cheers him on. The implication
is clear: coal is backwards and those who embrace it are suckers and rubes.
Most progressives who rail against fossil fuels at least make some attempt to empathize with
the laborers their schemes would displace (think the Obama-era attempt at a "blue-green
alliance," for example). Not Bloomberg. It's that callous indifference that makes him truly
unique. I'd sooner vote for a stalk of celery with googly-eyes attached (not that one would be
able to tell the difference). Here's a question: can those of us who think the national debt is
a genuine problem find a way to curtail it without becoming similarly cold-blooded? And another
one: are the Democrats really so desperate to beat Trump that they would nominate this little
mechanical pencil of a man?
I am a deplorable. I live in the middle of the country. I watch jets fly over. I believe
that illegal immigrates should be deported. I own a gun. I read the bible. I salute the
flag. But most importantly, I vote in every election.
I, too, am deplorable. I am a math professor at a research I university, I listen to the
simpering social scientists ridicule our President and it makes me furious. I know illegal
immigrants should be deported. I own lots of guns. I am an atheist, I salute the flag. I am
old. I am patriotic and so very proud to be an American. I loath when liberals refer to
Trump supporters are uneducated, because I know that my mathematics degrees give me logical
insights that their sociology/English/history/gender studies degrees will never be able to
match....AND I ALWAYS vote in every election too!
"Libertarianism is concerned with the liberty and dignity of the individual". More
accurately, libertarianism is the philosophy of Anton Lavey and represents the enslavement
and dehumanization of the individual.
" And another one: are the Democrats really so desperate to beat Trump that they would
nominate this little mechanical pencil of a man?"
Judging from comment threads at the NYT, yes they are. Of course you Republicans picked
Trump. So why shouldn't Democrats openly flush all their professed principles down the
toilet? Which is what they will do if they pick Bloomberg as their standard bearer.
Bloomberg is better on some issues by liberal/left standards. But all the criticisms we
lefties make of Trump's crudity, arrogance, bigotry, narcissism and sense of entitlement?
His lack of respect for basic human rights? Um, nevermind.
Well, Trump's character flaws aren't able to be written into law, law that you and I must
then follow. Bloomberg's various obsessions are to be written directly into the code book
and you and I will be expected to live as Bloomberg wants us to live.
Trump's crudity, arrogance, bigotry, narcissism and sense of entitlement?
Leftists always project their flaws onto others. All of those things are on display with
Democrats, and not with Trump. Trump built his wealth himself and has never displayed a
sense of entitlement. Oh, and basic human rights like LIFE?... as you support the party of
CHILD SACRIFICE? Nice try.
Idiot. Trump only received a loan, which he paid back to his father. He has never displayed
an entitlement mindset. But thank you for proving my comments about the idiocy of the Left.
You nailed it!
A 1 million dollar loan, in let's say 1970 dollars. I don't know about you, but where I
live, that's something that's out of reach for 99 % of the population today. If Trump
speaks the truth about this, of course.
There's also the observation that while Bloomberg quintupled his estimated net worth to
$60 billion in the past ten years, Trump's net worth seems to have dropped from $8 billion
to $3 billion in the same timeframe. In a neverending bull market. That takes real business
acumen.
I think that you focus on the loan too much.. He had a trust fund for 400 million dollars.
However none of those details mater. Trump simply is not a self made man as that concept is
understood. He just is not. If that myth were all that what is wrong with this fellow, we
should be so lucky.
Trump is a populist, he respects and admires the working class.
Bloomberg is an elitist. The working class is unfit to govern and must be ruled-for their
own good. It shows in all his speeches and interactions. The media and Democrat Part
leaders feel the same way, that's why they like him when most people despise him.
What's funny about your response is that I was attacking liberals who have spent years
attacking Trump's massive character flaws and then they turn around and support someone
with essentially the same flaws.
Is there another NYT? You could wallpaper your bathroom with the Op Eds against Bloomberg
and the Democrats who agree. That being said, I could think of worse things than Bloomberg.
Well, if nothing else Bloomberg vs Trump would be the perfect election for Hillary. Clinton
puppet vs Clinton puppet. The mob wins both ways. Bloomberg wouldn't be quite as much fun
because he wouldn't be usable as an Official Hate Target, so Hillary couldn't pretend to
dissociate herself from her actions.
According to what I've heard, Bloomberg's base is heavily high school educated whites.
Which sounds a lot like Trump's base. It's like if Trump stayed a Democrat basically.
Yeah, when the alternatives are Trump, buttigieg, and this thing you'll forgive me if
I would rather spend the next four years figuring out how to pay for free tuition. It's not
like any of the others are going to be less expensive and free college and doctor visits
beats walls that don't stop illegals, wars for no reason, and cops trying to find
"unethical things" to fine me with.
If you have a better candidate than Bernie go vote for them. If you actually like one
of those types go vote for that. If none are linkable just find the least hated. Vote third
party if that's seriously your thing.
Just for all that which is good don't vote None.
Though I'll be honest if it's Trump vs bloom I can see myself picking the orange guy
at the moment. That might change but really Bloom is looking THAT bad.
I suspect high school educated whites are more vulnerable to mass media influence. They
wouldn't have time and energy to go too deep into candidates and their politics, so their
opinions are more likely to be formed by political ads alone. And if it's 24 hours of
Bloomberg ads, well, if you repeat the same thing long enough, even sceptics may start to
believe.
Right now in Georgia almost all of the info I have on who to vote for is due to me
being politically active. I visit here, npr, the news section of Google, Bloomberg's (for
the corporate side), and recently videos from The Hill and Some More News.
If I wasn't active like that and did something else the literal ONLY info I would
have would come from Bloomberg ads that show on YouTube and TV. I wouldn't even know how
many people are running or most anyoneexcept Bernie.
If you are trying to make a living with a HS diploma you don't havetime for more than
that.
People mock "low information voters" as if most people are sitting on hours of free
time going "I could go read TAC but picking my nose is so fun. I'll just Vote
randomly".
When you don't have time for deep politics "get it done and stop Trump" is
appealing
Not sure this is entirely right. If you read NYT comment threads there are a
depressingly large number of Bloomberg apologists. They brush off everything in his record
( like the civil rights violations) that they would condemn as massive human rights
violations if Trump were responsible. I think these are your typical upper middle class
college educated liberals.
Though he might have a base among high school educated whites. I don't know. If so,
some of that should evaporate if some of his snooty comments become more widely
known.
Bloomberg's base is rich white urban leftists with college or advanced degrees. Judge
Judy. Media figures on CNN. Print media figures. His kind. He's insufferable to most
people.
He generally wouldn't give a non college graduate the time of day.
It has been said you can tell the measure of a man by how he treats those that can do
absolutely nothing for him.
In this regard Bloomberg is a monster..
I read this article several times looking for what actually it is that is so terrible
about Bloomberg that his personal traits are disqualifying. What about his views on climate
change , Iran and the like. The health regulations in and of themselves are what I would do
voluntarily. I don't smoke for example and second hand smoke has crippled a friend who was
a airplane stewardess back when smoking was permitted. Solving the homeless problem has
never been possible and is too complicated to ever solve. The coal industry is dying on its
own and accounts for what, less than a 100 thousands jobs. We lost that many from
department store closings in a year or two. In summary the rub of Bloomberg to mr. Purple
seems petty. His entitlement comes with the territory. I would suspect that each of us when
we are in a position to grant ourselves a privilege we are not above doing so. Think of the
small town mayor whose street in front of his house is cleared first after a snow storm. I
lived next to a mayor once and did not complain although the people in the block next to me
did. Does anyone think that a fairly normal person can run and be elected. There is
something deeply unique about a successful politician at the highest level of power in the
world. Let that sink in. " the world". Yes our politicians are very weird, kooky,
imperfect, narcissistic and cads most times. One does not become a world class politician
without engaging in some pretty unusual, and self serving activity. These politicians just
have more opportunities to do things that are near and dear to their personal quirks. But
look at the whole person. He is short in a tall man's world. He is a jew in a Christian
world. He is an elite businessman in a poor man's world( not literally) and so on.
Shouldn't we compare him to Trump, because that could be the choice. Seriously, can Mr.
Purple do so with out vomiting? Yes I would gladly vote for a stock of celery when compared
to Trump. Hell I would vote for a lump of coal assiming that there was someone still around
who could mine for it.
I do love me a good hatchet piece on a deserving target. Bloomberg is a male version of
Leona Helmsley (look her up, Millennials). Too bad he isn't primarying Trump instead. They
could vie to show who's a meaner SOB.
This is a really great article, and I'm no fan of Bloomberg, but I couldn't help but
think the ending about fossil fuels ran counter to the overall thesis that for Bloomberg
and other "fiscal conservative/social liberals," "the fiscal becomes the moral."
If fossil fuels are the least costly, most efficient means to "maximize contribution
to the GDP" why wouldn't a FC/SL support them?
Leading this article with nonstop snark on smoking was a mistake. Smoking is bad,
generally speaking, but it's not driving voters. In the days of Trump, inveighing against
ego is equally ineffectual. Criticizing public health in the age of COVID-19 -- are you
serious? Speed limits in NYC? Really, who cares? Bicyclists, yes. Me personally, yes.
Voters generally? No.
The reader is sorely challenged to find any meat in this article. Bloomberg's alleged
violation of his own noise ordinances, if I'm reading that right, does make a point. And
yet the point is dropped. Instead, we have the fact that, yes, in a city of almost nine
million, you're going to be able to find the cop who tickets an old man for feeding
pigeons. But it's faintly absurd to argue such trivia, when Trump's lawyer promoted a
"broken windows" theory that likewise targeted minor crimes.
Generally, this article comes across as completely partisan. Having just witnessed
the impeachment debacle, that seems tone-deaf. As Stephen Pickard and other commenters
observe here, there was so much weighty material that could and should have been addressed.
Purple's message, as managing editor, seems to be that TAC will stoop to anything, if it
has a chance of smearing Bloomberg. Promoting that message was poor judgment.
1. Bernie Sanders is a Marxist who is not afraid to stand up in public for himself. His
honeymoon in the USSR is not likely to be forgotten. He is a communist fellow traveler who has
become a member of the rentier class. He wants to abolish private health insurance.
Really! De Blasio and AOC, two more open Marxists are on his team? Really?
2. IMO Elizabeth Warren is an obvious serial liar who reminds me of a second grade teacher
with enthusiasms for projects that the little children had better get on board for, or else!
Another millionaire in socialist clothing.
3. And, there is Mayor Pete, the darling of the Wall Street population and all the world's
bankers. Somehow the creatures of the coastal cities don't understand that the American
electorate is not ready to elect a cute, openly homosexual man who will live in the White House
with his husband and child. It is not going to happen this time around.
4. Amy Klobuchar - An obscure Mid-Western senator who shows signs of an idealism that might
be a problem for the professional pols. She might do something not in their script.
5. Mikey Bloomberg - The People's Party is going to put forward a guy worth over $60
billion? Really? If that were not bad enough, the man has a long history of total ineptitude in
human relations involving blacks and women? Really? Watch him try to mix with ordinary people
in crowds. Sad.
6. Hillary? Old Deplorable herself? Trump beat her once already in the Electoral College,
where the fraud in California's popular vote did not matter. A lot of people loath her.
7. Tulsi Gabbard. God bless her. I would vote for her but the Gays and the Zionists are both
against her. This is not going to happen.
8. Tom Steyr - Ho hum. A taller version of Bloomberg, he made his money by investing in coal
mines and now is a fanatic "climate change" guy.
9. Joe Biden. He was asked by Jorge Ramos "why did you and Obama lock up so many illegal
kids on the border?" He replied "we were taking care of them." IMO he is and has always been a
crooked, not too smart politician from a very small state. Hell! In Delaware you can know most
of the electorate personally. He is done.
All of these folks are addicted to private jets that they hire if they do not actually own
one or two. Naughty! Naughty!
-------------
And! On the other side we have the orange man. He will be quite happy to run against these
guys. BTW I doubt that he has a billion in cash. That is probably why he doesn't want to
release his tax returns. He came into office with little understanding of the differences
between government and business and still knows little about that. He wants to believe that
everyone in the Executive Branch is his personal employee. He is wrong about that.
**********
BTW. McCabe IS NOT "off the hook." The particular charge DoJ is not going to try him for is
the least of his problems.
"BTW. McCabe IS NOT "off the hook." The particular charge DoJ is not going to try him for is
the least of his problems."
So true...and he knows it. You'll notice they haven't yet indicted the FBI lawyer who made a
material misrepresentation on the Page FISC affidavit either. Comey, McCabe, Clapper, Brennan
are being investigated for their roles in having blown up the Presidential electoral process
in the United States. The DoJ is not about to make itself up front look petty, vindictive,
and stupid by indicting McCabe for spitting on the sidewalk. The Democrats would love to take
advantage of that opportunity.
For those paying attention, this provides a welcome contrast to the way the political
jihadists under Mueller conducted themselves - Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Papanobody. Ditto the
Schiff impeachment debacle. Pure chickenshit made into red meat by an obliging institutional
media.
It's heartening to see some evidence of judgement has returned to the Department.
Sir - if Bernie Sanders is a Marxist so was FDR. They are both New Deal Democrats,
representing the working people against the rapacious oligarchs.
Further, Medicare for All is a bare minimum of what is required to uplift the citizens of
this nation. It seems increasingly that we cannot stop the warmongers in their desire to
dominate or destroy so the best policy is to improve the lot of the citizens. That's what
Bernie is about.
Incidentally, a proposed Bloomberg/Clinton ticket epitomises the corruption and stupidity
and incompetence of the Dem elite. Contemptible scum.
Oh, BS! FDR was nothing like Bernie. What, he created Social Security and that made him a
commie? Medicare for all would beggar us unless we ration care like they do in places like
Canada.
The optics of the non-prosecution of McCabe is not looking good when the DOJ have
prosecuted Stone and Flynn for the same thing. There's no doubt we have a 2-tier justice
system with a very corrupt prosecutorial system and a judiciary in lock step with them. The
FISA court exemplifies this.
As far as the Orangeman is concerned he seems not much different than all the others. At
the end of the day he hired Rosenstein, Wray, Sessions, Barr, Bolton, Kelly and Mattis. While
he's got the prerogative to declassify he shirked each time and passed the buck. His shtick
of being the representative of the Deplorables is just that. He only cares about his own
skin.
He's completely in thrall of the Saudi bonesaw and Bibi's maximalist visions.
The bottom line in my opinion is we have a broken political, media and governmental system
as the people the voters encourage to run it are as corrupt as in any tinpot banana
republic.
Personally I'd like to see Trump vs Bernie as it would implode the Democrats and show
clearly how polarized the electorate really is and how venal the media have become. What will
they do when they hate both candidates?
rationed care is better than no care at all or care that bankrupts the family. I
think most Canadian's prefer their system than ours. Having said that I don't agree with
Medicare for all but I do think that individuals and families who cannot afford medical
insurance should have affordable options available to them.
To help clarify Sander's world view, I'll present to this this snippet from a recent
interview where he brings up modern-day China:
"It wasn't so many decades ago that there was mass starvation in China. All right? There
is not mass starvation today and people have got -- the government has got to take credit for
the fact that there is now a middle class in China. No one denies that more people in China
have a higher standard of living than use to be the case. All right? That's the reality.
On the other hand, China is a dictatorship. It does not tolerate democracy, i.e., what
they're doing in Hong Kong. They do not tolerate independent trade unions and the Communist
Party rules with a pretty iron fist. So, and by the way, in recent years, Xi has made the
situation even worse. So, I mean, I'll give, you give people credit where it is due. But you
have to maintain values of democracy and human rights and certainly that does not exist in
China."
One bonfire that refuses to die and flamed up again today - Crowdstrike and the media's total
refusal to even mention its name, which was the really critical part of the Ukrainian phone
call. Not their phony quid pro quo.
All Democrat candidates need to questioned about Crowdstrike, since it led to two failed
major Democrat-led actions against President Trump - The Mueller investigation and the
Democrat impeachment.
Following article underscores what Larry Johnson has been reporting for years:
Sander is a no 'Marxist' at all.
I agree with this quote
from Krugman (a Clinton guy):
The thing is, Bernie Sanders isn't actually a socialist in any normal sense of the term. He
doesn't want to nationalize our major industries and replace markets with central planning;
he has expressed admiration, not for Venezuela, but for Denmark. He's basically what
Europeans would call a social democrat -- and social democracies like Denmark are, in fact,
quite nice places to live, with societies that are, if anything, freer than our own.
The social democrat have always hated and fought against the communists who are the real
Marxists.
FDR strongly warned not to unionize government employees.
Sanders demands all workers shall be unionized, which is the backbone of the Green New
Deal - mandatory union membership, creating vast slush funds of union dues going directly to
the Democrat party.
What happened to the speculation that breaking the whole " Trump coup" conspiracy would take
down all government agencies, including the Gang of 8?
Consequently, more than the Democrats are interested in burying any loose threads that
could cause something much larger to unravel? Wolfe gets off. McCabe gets off. Page/Strozk
leer smugly over glasses of wine. Clapper-Bernnan-Comey free as birds.
The reality should not be so much about the personalities, as the processes driving them. We
have this ideal of a nation of laws, not men, but the principle doesn't run that deep.
The medical situation, for instance, is rife with fraud and abuse. While some waste is
necessary, the whole trial and error thing, our country's medical system is more about
siphoning value out of the community, than effectively understanding the necessities of
healthcare and trying to adequately provide for them, to the extent possible.
Which is not so much a healthcare issue, as it is a financial system issue. Here is a very
insightful essay from Naked Capitalism, that could be applied across many fields;
Good luck getting rid of the private insurance companies, lobbies, lawyers, accountants, and
other third party beneficiaries of the private insurance market. United Healthcare has
revenues of nearly a quarter trillion dollars just by itself. It's better to focus on what is
possible instead of what is noble.
It is the same reason we won't be able to end all the wars, and simplify the tax code in a
meaningful way. Intuit (the maker of TurboTax) is one of the largest supporters of
complicating the forms and processes by which to file taxes.
The bottom line is that these are massive, structural changes that they would take
constitutional amendments to fix since every 4-8 years some carpetbagger shows up seeking to
undo what the other carpetbaggers did, and the only thing they do is create another cottage
industry regulated by an equally large bureaucracy.
If you want to champion anything, start with campaign finance reform since everything else
is just noise.
Our current system already beggars most of us. Expensive yet insecure coverage that
potentially bankrupts us all from surprise billing. Incredible time-suck to protect yourself
from such predatory practices. (Though it appears Medicare recipients are protected from such
price gouging.).
Employer-based coverage constrains job changes, and leaves people without coverage when
they get laid off because of illness. I see Medicare for All as enhancing liberty. Tying
health care to your employer is kind of feudal. Take away the tax breaks at least so the
market is fair. I wouldn't mind paying premiums and copays, with monthly maximum, but
wouldn't mind paying through taxes either.
I am sorry, but my comment to this summary of the Democratic contenders is totally facetious.
(Perhaps that is because if find all but Tulsi people who have been put forward by an
obviously facetious group of people running the Democratic Party now.
Does anyone else suspect that Elizabeth Warren is making money on the side doing the voice
for Pinocchio in the GEICO ads?
Whoa! Quite a few responses - will try to answer in order:
@turcopolier - well I have direct experience of the Canadian system and based on many
experiences, the Canadian universal single-payer system is not "rationed" in any way wrt
urgent care. Yes if you have elective surgery like an arthroscopic knee repair of which I've
had two and my choice was wait 3-5 months in Canada or pay $5,000 stateside and get it done
next week. I paid. The choice of paying for service should never go away IMHO and this is a
flaw among many which I note with Bernie's plan. Nonetheless he is articulating a bargaining
position to attain something I think essential to re-organize the US health insurance system.
WHy as a society are we paying twice as a percentage of gdp than Canada? It's profiteering.
ANd Inefficiency. Probably in reverse order of importance, but they each feed the other.
@NancyK - some mix of a universal medicaire-style system with extra insurance available
for those who want to pay for it (private room, immediate service, that kind of upgrade)
might work, don't you think?
@fred - well, since you ask, and tho I'm no expert in the history of Bernie I do know this
- he was mayor of Burlington VT for quite a while and you should take a walk around and see
how some of his intitiatives have made Burlington more livable. ALso he garnered between 20
and 40 % of the Republican vote in his long run as Congressman from VT. As Representative and
Senator he is well known for his successful amendements to the benefit of ALL
rather than for the benefit of the few, or, himself. He is only recently a millionaire, I
understand, as he wrote a very successful book which made him a couple of million. Other than
that, he owns real estate - who of his vintage who bought real estate has not made money?
I find I agree completely with all your points, except (respectfully) the intensity of
your Bernie blast. If medicare for all is such a bad idea, then I await Trump to propose
revoking ALL the communistic gov't medical care programs (including the free one congress
gets).
Spark!!! spark!!! spark!!! Third rail.
Also, I note that Tulsi's has many more enemies. I continue supporting her (she is doing
better than Steyer and Yang) in the hope that Bernie has had her as VP in mind all along or
else that she will spend the next four years building a support base for 2024.
Barring the economy cracking or a new ME mess (perhaps by an Iranian proxy in revenge), I
agree that the Dems will get trounced outside their coastal enclaves, particularly if the
Dems continue to cheat the process. Nothings says stay home like having your vote stolen.
In the economic regards, the Corona Virus is a potentially massive black swan event - the
Fed already has been printing 100 billion per month to stave off economic collapse for five
months now (socialism for the banks!!!! Get a pitchfork) and no intention to slowdown for the
foreseeable future, so it's not clear they have the bullets to deal with a, at a minimum,
Corona shutdown of US supply chains. With a up to 24 day before symptoms appear, and false
negatives of up to 80% in the very few who are tested, efforts to date by the US are just
security theater.
Even if Bernie were a communist rather than a moderate social democrat, we have checks and
balances, and the Fifth Amendment protecting property rights.
b (old adversary) You may not like to admits that I know a lot about various forms of leftism
but I (like many other former USI officers know a lot about you) I personally recruited quite
a few "Social Democrats" who were really agents of the USSR until they switched sides. They
were tested a lot. I admit that Bernie evidently never voted for the Communist Party
candidate for president as John Brennan did, but his honeymoon on an Intourist visa in the
USSR speaks volumes. As I recall you were quite pro-Warsaw Pact and anti-NATO during the Cold
War.
Denmark retains its Lutheran sensibilities, if not their daily practice. It is very strict
about immigration - very few are allowed in, closed borders, must speak Danish, turn over
assets to the government, and no complaints about pork being on the menus.
Hygge celebrates thrift, simplicity and austerity. If you want Danish social democracy,
you have to participate in the whole package. (Being of Danish heritage myself, I see nothin
wrong with this but don't see many others living up to their unique lifestyle standards -
(NB: re-read Garrison Kielor's Lake Woebegon for further insights into Scandinavian
heritage in the US - particuarly his footnoted treatise on 100 drawbacks being raised
Scandinavian - US Scandinavians will laugh in self-recognition and also sadly nod in full
agreement)
Danes laugh at our US welfare state and recognize it has nothing to do with their version
of social welfare. Danish "socialism" provides workers with buy-in medical plans for more
efficient delivery systems. It is by no means free government run health care or social
welfare for all.
Norwegians are closer to this idealized model of "free stuff", but with even stricter
about immigration controls and their system floats on massive amounts of fossil fuel
extraction cash. Sweden, Finland, Iceland -- all have uniqiness in their social welfare
systems that cannot translate to the US polyglot, poly-cultural model.
Danes also have suffered from high rates of depression and suicide. So Bernie, be sure to
sign up for the whole package, and stop glossing over the missing details of your proposal
for "Danish socialism".
Their system does work for the Danes and has a lot to like about it - but you have to plug
in all the variables, so start by undoing the US welfare state plantation first and expect
everyone to be a maker; not a taker.
Then give everyone a bike to replace their cars, and only then can you start handing out
free health care - Danish style because their far more active lifestyle will define new
models for health care needs.
"... "Michael made his fortune simply by collecting unprocessed financial information and then selling it to end users. " As pointed out in a 2014 interview with CNN he also witholds information that some, in the case of that particular interview - the Communist Chinese government, don't want aired. ..."
"... I concur. Bloomberg's own magazine ran an article a few years ago explaining that an average tractor is more computerized than a space shuttle. Farmers have to hack their tractors to get around software intended to make maintenance difficult without relying on the sellers. ..."
"... I wanted to like Bloomberg because I am beyond sick of Trump. I just can't. Can't people like him understand that their ignorance and smugness is what drives the revolt against elites? ..."
"... This is a vanity play for Bloomberg. To spend $2-3 billion on this project is investing less than 5% of his wealth. It likely was the same for Trump but since he's always been a hustler he figured even if he lost he could parlay that to more celebrity and more brand value. ..."
"... In spite of his gun control and Big Gulp stances, I used to think Bloomberg was smarter than what's been revealed recently. I'm truly shocked at the ease with which he's publicly stated such ignorant, elitist opinions. ..."
"... As someone with 30 years in IT, comments like Bloomberg's infuriate me. People seem to forget that without those who have skills like metalworking, all the physical infrastructure that makes IT possible disappears and IT work along with it. Programming is a worthless profession if the bridges collapse and the power goes out. ..."
"... A Hillary Bloomberg ticket would would despise and find 99.9% of American population contemptible. Fortunately a majority of Americans would hold a similar opinion of those two. ..."
Michael Bloomberg - Idiot By Walrus. Michael Bloomberg really did disparage farmers
and metalworkers by saying that these are just "processes" that can be taught to anyone and
then stating that information technology work requires a higher order of brainpower, implying
that farmers and metalworkers are inferior to information technology professionals. I heard it
myself.
Michael thus displays total and fundamental ignorance of both farming and metalwork but it's
worse. Michael made his fortune simply by collecting unprocessed financial information and then
selling it to end users. Farmers and metalworkers go at least one step further. They actually
use information technology not only to collect information like Michael, but act on it to
provide value - something Michael doesn't do.
Take farmers for example; they don't just "dig a hole, put seed in and wait for corn to come
up", as Michael thinks; For a start, last years corn harvest was performed by a $300,000
machine which is not only GPS enabled and automatically steered, but it logs the corn yield per
individual acre. When it's time to plant the following year, the farmer processes the yield
data using agricultural algorithms to determine the exact optimum fertilizer dosage for that
acre and another $300,000 machine applies that fertilizer and plants the seed automatically.
Then of course he monitors his crop with satellite weather and would be using an internet
enabled irrigation system to apply the optimum amount of water. Naturally she would also be
using financial systems to hedge or forward sell her crop.
A friend nearby owns a cattle property. He was looking to buy a hobby farm when a local made
a disparaging comment to him in a bar about "city slickers". He now has 6000 acres of state of
the art cattle growing property and that is so computerized that delegations come from overseas
to visit.
So much for dumb farmers.....
The story of metalwork is exactly the same. We no longer have "blueprints". We use seven
axis computerized machine tools, stereolithography, robotics, computer aided design and now
nano-scale machine systems that make the very systems of hardware that Bloombergs programs
run.
Bloomberg is an idiot. Anyone can be taught to code. Not everyone can be a farmer or a
metalworker. That requires real brainpower. The Democrat party once again shows how completely
out of touch it is by entertaining this candidacy.
"Michael made his fortune simply by collecting unprocessed financial information and then
selling it to end users. " As pointed out in a 2014 interview with CNN he also witholds
information that some, in the case of that particular interview - the Communist Chinese
government, don't want aired.
I concur. Bloomberg's own magazine ran an article a few years ago explaining that an
average tractor is more computerized than a space shuttle. Farmers have to hack their
tractors to get around software intended to make maintenance difficult without relying on the
sellers.
Richard Rhodes of "Making of the Atomic Bomb" fame wrote about how farmers are very
talented in a broad array of skills. Your point on farmers and finance is spot on. A good
farmer has a solid understanding of puts, calls, swaps, and other derivatives.
I wanted to like Bloomberg because I am beyond sick of Trump. I just can't. Can't people
like him understand that their ignorance and smugness is what drives the revolt against
elites?
This is a vanity play for Bloomberg. To spend $2-3 billion on this project is investing
less than 5% of his wealth. It likely was the same for Trump but since he's always been a
hustler he figured even if he lost he could parlay that to more celebrity and more brand
value.
Unlike Trump however who did have a message that resonated with the working class,
Bloomberg is similar to Hillary in that he's a smug elitist condescending towards the lower
middle class. There's not an ounce of humility in him.
He's attempting to buy the nomination by buying all those DNC office holders and party
establishment figures as well as the media hacks who will sing and dance for some
baksheesh.
While he struts the stage showering his billions he is just a puppet for Dear Leader Xi
and his totalitarian Communist Party.
If people want to know just how complicated farming can be, here is a short presentation
by a farmer explaining some of what he did to grow 514 bushel-per-acre corn as a
demonstration of the possible.
In spite of his gun control and Big Gulp stances, I used to think Bloomberg was smarter than
what's been revealed recently. I'm truly shocked at the ease with which he's publicly stated
such ignorant, elitist opinions.
Wait until more of the public sees his Mary Poppins skit. Oh boy.
Strange comment from a $68 billion self made man indeed. But as per script. Called 2 way
information control. By controlling the flow of information from opposing sides one can change
the facts on the ground to suit oneself
As someone with 30 years in IT, comments like Bloomberg's infuriate me. People seem to forget
that without those who have skills like metalworking, all the physical infrastructure that
makes IT possible disappears and IT work along with it. Programming is a worthless profession
if the bridges collapse and the power goes out.
A Hillary Bloomberg ticket would would despise and find 99.9% of American population
contemptible.
Fortunately a majority of Americans would hold a similar opinion of those two.
As political power has shifted from so called flyover country to Washington DC, the
bureaucracies, and the Federal Courts, the Democratic Party fattened itself up feeding in the
government trough and forgot where it came from.
The new Democrat really does deplore the working man and all his works and days.
His last remote connection with the farm was when he thought milk and meat came from the
supermarket. Now staples just appear on the shelves of his refrigerator where the Salvadoran
help has put them.
The new Democrat is one of the new Economy's big winners; and he considers himself
justified in his winnings and his loathings because he thinks good thoughts about the help.
What he pays her is not the point; and he knows a deplorable when he hears about one.
This was an outright declaration of "class war" against working-class voters by a
"university-credentialed overclass" -- "managerial elite" which changed sides and allied with
financial oligrchy. See "The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite" by
Michael Lind
Notable quotes:
"... By canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War II, the neoliberal elite saws the seed of the current populist backlash. The "soft neoliberal" backbone of the Democratic Party (Clinton wing) were incapable of coming to terms with Hillary Clinton's defeat -- the rejection of the establishment candidate by the US population and first of all by the working class. The result has been the neo-McCarthyism campaign and the attempt to derail Trump via color revolution spearheaded by Brennan-Obama factions in CIA and FBI. ..."
It looks like Bloomberg is finished. He just committed political suicide with his comments
about farmers and metal workers.
BTW Bloomberg's plan is highly hypocritical -- like is Bloomberg himself.
During the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" was
staged in the USA by "managerial elite" which like Soviet nomenklatura (which also staged a
neoliberal coup d'état) changed sides and betrayed the working class.
So those neoliberal scoundrels reversed the class compromise embodied in the New Deal.
The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the neoliberal managerial class and financial
oligarchy who got to power via the "Quiet Coup" was the global labor arbitrage in which
production is outsourced to countries with lower wage levels and laxer regulations.
So all those "improving education" plans are, to a large extent, the smoke screen over the
fact that the US workers now need to compete against highly qualified and lower cost
immigrants and outsourced workforce.
The fact is that it is very difficult to find for US graduates in STEM disciplines a
decent job, and this is by design.
Also, after the "Reagan neoliberal revolution" ( actually a coup d'état ), profits
were maximized by putting downward pressure on domestic wages through the introduction of the
immigrant workforce (the collapse of the USSR helped greatly ). They push down wages and
compete for jobs with their domestic counterparts, including the recent graduates. So the
situation since 1991 was never too bright for STEM graduates.
By canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War
II, the neoliberal elite saws the seed of the current populist backlash. The "soft
neoliberal" backbone of the Democratic Party (Clinton wing) were incapable of coming to terms
with Hillary Clinton's defeat -- the rejection of the establishment candidate by the US
population and first of all by the working class. The result has been the neo-McCarthyism
campaign and the attempt to derail Trump via color revolution spearheaded by Brennan-Obama
factions in CIA and FBI.
See also recently published "The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial
Elite" by Michael Lind.
One of his quotes:
The American oligarchy spares no pains in promoting the belief that it does not exist,
but the success of its disappearing act depends on equally strenuous efforts on the part of
an American public anxious to believe in egalitarian fictions and unwilling to see what is
hidden in plain sight.
"... To writer Michael Lind, Trump's victory, along with Brexit and other populist stirrings in Europe, was an outright declaration of "class war" by alienated working-class voters against what he calls a "university-credentialed overclass" of managerial elites. ..."
"... Lind cautions against a turn to populism, which he believes to be too personality-centered and intellectually incoherent -- not to mention, too demagogic -- to help solve the terminal crisis of "technocratic neoliberalism" with its rule by self-righteous and democratically unaccountable "experts" with hyperactive Twitter handles. Only a return to what Lind calls "democratic pluralism" will help stem the tide of the populist revolt. ..."
"... Many on the left have been incapable of coming to terms with Hillary Clinton's defeat. The result has been the stifling climate of a neo-McCarthyism, in which the only explanation for Trump's success was an unholy alliance of "Putin stooges" and unrepentant "white supremacists." ..."
"... To Lind, the case is much more straightforward: while the vast majority of Americans supports Social Security spending and containing unskilled immigration, the elites of the bipartisan swamp favor libertarian free trade policies combined with the steady influx of unskilled migrants to help suppress wage levels in the United States. Trump had outflanked his opponents in the Republican primaries and Clinton in the general election by tacking left on the economy (he refused to lay hands on Social Security) and right on immigration. ..."
"... Then, in the 1930s, while the world was writhing from the consequences of the Great Depression, a series of fascist parties took the reigns in countries from Germany to Spain. To spare the United States a similar descent into barbarism, President Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented the New Deal, in which the working class would find a seat at the bargaining table under a government-supervised tripartite system where business and organized labor met seemingly as equals and in which collective bargaining would help the working class set sector-wide wages. ..."
"... This class compromise ruled unquestioned for the first decades of the postwar era. It was made possible thanks to the system of democratic pluralism, which allowed working-class and rural constituencies to actively partake in mass-membership organizations like unions as well as civic and religious institutions that would empower these communities to shape society from the ground up. ..."
"... But then, amid the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" set in that sought to reverse the class compromise. The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the newly emboldened managerial class was "global labor arbitrage" in which production is outsourced to countries with lower wage levels and laxer regulations; alternatively, profits can be maximized by putting downward pressure on domestic wages through the introduction of an unskilled, non-unionized immigrant workforce that competes for jobs with its unionized domestic counterparts. By one-sidedly canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War II, Lind concludes, the managerial elite had brought the recent populist backlash on itself. ..."
"... American parties are not organized parties built around active members and policy platforms; they are shifting coalitions of entrepreneurial candidate campaign organizations. Hence, the Democratic and Republican Parties are not only capitalist ideologically; they are capitalistically run enterprises. ..."
"... In the epigraph to the book, Lind cites approvingly the 1949 treatise The Vital Center by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. who wrote that "class conflict, pursued to excess, may well destroy the underlying fabric of common principle which sustains free society." Schlesinger was just one among many voices who believed that Western societies after World War II were experiencing the "end of ideology." From now on, the reasoning went, the ideological battles of yesteryear were settled in favor of a more disinterested capitalist (albeit New Deal–inflected) governance. This, in turn, gave rise to the managerial forces in government, the military, and business whose unchecked hold on power Lind laments. The midcentury social-democratic thinker Michael Harrington had it right when he wrote that "[t]he end of ideology is a shorthand way of saying the end of socialism." ..."
"... A cursory glance at the recent impeachment hearings bears witness to this, as career bureaucrats complained that President Trump unjustifiably sought to change the course of an American foreign policy that had been nobly steered by them since the onset of the Cold War. In their eyes, Trump, like the Brexiteers or the French yellow vest protesters, are vulgar usurpers who threaten the stability of the vital center from polar extremes. ..."
A FEW DAYS AFTER Donald Trump's electoral upset in 2016, Club for Growth co-founder Stephen
Moore told an
audience of Republican House members that the GOP was "now officially a Trump working class
party." No longer the party of traditional Reaganite conservatism, the GOP had been converted
instead "into a populist America First party." As he uttered these words, Moore says, "the
shock was palpable" in the room.
The Club for Growth had long dominated Republican orthodoxy by promoting low tax rates and
limited government. Any conservative candidate for political office wanting to reap the
benefits of the Club's massive fundraising arm had to pay homage to this doctrine. For one of
its formerly leading voices to pronounce the transformation of this orthodoxy toward a more
populist nationalism showed just how much the ground had shifted on election night.
To writer Michael Lind, Trump's victory, along with Brexit and other populist stirrings
in Europe, was an outright declaration of "class war" by alienated working-class voters against
what he calls a "university-credentialed overclass" of managerial elites. The title of
Lind's new book, The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite ,
leaves no doubt as to where his sympathies lie, though he's adamant that he's not some sort of
guru for a " smarter
Trumpism ," as some have labeled him.
Lind cautions against a turn to populism, which he believes to be too
personality-centered and intellectually incoherent -- not to mention, too demagogic -- to help
solve the terminal crisis of "technocratic neoliberalism" with its rule by self-righteous and
democratically unaccountable "experts" with hyperactive Twitter handles. Only a return to what
Lind calls "democratic pluralism" will help stem the tide of the populist revolt.
The New Class War is a breath of fresh air. Many on the left have been incapable of
coming to terms with Hillary Clinton's defeat. The result has been the stifling climate of a
neo-McCarthyism, in which the only explanation for Trump's success was an unholy alliance of
"Putin stooges" and unrepentant "white supremacists."
To Lind, the case is much more
straightforward: while the vast majority of Americans supports Social Security spending and
containing unskilled immigration, the elites of the bipartisan swamp favor libertarian free
trade policies combined with the steady influx of unskilled migrants to help suppress wage
levels in the United States. Trump had outflanked his opponents in the Republican primaries and
Clinton in the general election by tacking left on the economy (he refused to lay hands on
Social Security) and right on immigration.
The strategy has since been successfully repeated in the United Kingdom by Boris Johnson,
and it looks, for now, like a foolproof way for conservative parties in the West to capture or
defend their majorities against center-left parties that are too beholden to wealthy,
metropolitan interests to seriously attract working-class support. Berating the latter as
irredeemably racist certainly doesn't help either.
What happened in the preceding decades to produce this divide in Western democracies? Lind's
narrative begins with the New Deal, which had brought to an end what he calls "the first class
war" in favor of a class compromise between management and labor. This first class war is the
one we are the most familiar with: originating in the Industrial Revolution, which had produced
the wretchedly poor proletariat, it soon led to the rise of competing parties of organized
workers on the one hand and the liberal bourgeoisie on the other, a clash that came to a head
in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Then, in the 1930s, while the world was writhing from the
consequences of the Great Depression, a series of fascist parties took the reigns in countries
from Germany to Spain. To spare the United States a similar descent into barbarism, President
Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented the New Deal, in which the working class would find a seat at
the bargaining table under a government-supervised tripartite system where business and
organized labor met seemingly as equals and in which collective bargaining would help the
working class set sector-wide wages.
This class compromise ruled unquestioned for the first decades of the postwar era. It was
made possible thanks to the system of democratic pluralism, which allowed working-class and
rural constituencies to actively partake in mass-membership organizations like unions as well
as civic and religious institutions that would empower these communities to shape society from
the ground up.
But then, amid the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" set
in that sought to reverse the class compromise. The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the
newly emboldened managerial class was "global labor arbitrage" in which production is
outsourced to countries with lower wage levels and laxer regulations; alternatively, profits
can be maximized by putting downward pressure on domestic wages through the introduction of an
unskilled, non-unionized immigrant workforce that competes for jobs with its unionized domestic
counterparts. By one-sidedly canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist
societies after World War II, Lind concludes, the managerial elite had brought the recent
populist backlash on itself.
Likewise, only it can contain this backlash by returning to the bargaining table and
reestablishing the tripartite system it had walked away from. According to Lind, the new class
peace can only come about on the level of the individual nation-state because transnational
treaty organizations like the EU cannot allow the various national working classes to escape
the curse of labor arbitrage. This will mean that unskilled immigration will necessarily have
to be curbed to strengthen the bargaining power of domestic workers. The free-market orthodoxy
of the Club for Growth will also have to take a backseat, to be replaced by government-promoted
industrial strategies that invest in innovation to help modernize their national economies.
Under which circumstances would the managerial elites ever return to the bargaining table?
"The answer is fear," Lind suggests -- fear of working-class resentment of hyper-woke,
authoritarian elites. Ironically, this leaves all the agency with the ruling class, who first
acceded to the class compromise, then canceled it, and is now called on to forge a new one lest
its underlings revolt.
Lind rightly complains all throughout the book that the old mass-membership based
organizations of the 20th century have collapsed. He's coy, however, about who would
reconstitute them and how. At best, Lind argues for a return to the old system where party
bosses and ward captains served their local constituencies through patronage, but once more
this leaves the agency with entities like the Republicans and Democrats who have a combined
zero members. As the third-party activist Howie Hawkins remarked cunningly elsewhere ,
American parties are not organized parties built around active members and policy platforms;
they are shifting coalitions of entrepreneurial candidate campaign organizations. Hence, the
Democratic and Republican Parties are not only capitalist ideologically; they are
capitalistically run enterprises.
Thus, they would hardly be the first options one would think of to reinvigorate the forces
of civil society toward self-rule from the bottom up.
The key to Lind's fraught logic lies hidden in plain sight -- in the book's title. Lind does
not speak of "class struggle ," the heroic Marxist narrative in which an organized
proletariat strove for global power; no, "class war " smacks of a gloomy, Hobbesian
war of all against all in which no side truly stands to win.
In the epigraph to the book, Lind cites approvingly the 1949 treatise The Vital
Center by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. who wrote that "class conflict, pursued to
excess, may well destroy the underlying fabric of common principle which sustains free
society." Schlesinger was just one among many voices who believed that Western societies after
World War II were experiencing the "end of ideology." From now on, the reasoning went, the
ideological battles of yesteryear were settled in favor of a more disinterested capitalist
(albeit New Deal–inflected) governance. This, in turn, gave rise to the managerial forces
in government, the military, and business whose unchecked hold on power Lind laments. The
midcentury social-democratic thinker Michael Harrington had it right when he wrote that "[t]he
end of ideology is a shorthand way of saying the end of socialism."
Looked at from this perspective, the break between the postwar Fordist regime and
technocratic neoliberalism isn't as massive as one would suppose. The overclass antagonists of The New Class War believe that they derive their power from the same "liberal order"
of the first-class peace that Lind upholds as a positive utopia. A cursory glance at the recent
impeachment hearings bears witness to this, as career bureaucrats complained that President
Trump unjustifiably sought to change the course of an American foreign policy that had been
nobly steered by them since the onset of the Cold War. In their eyes, Trump, like the Brexiteers or the French yellow vest protesters, are vulgar usurpers who threaten the stability
of the vital center from polar extremes.
A more honest account of capitalism would also acknowledge its natural tendencies to
persistently contract and to disrupt the social fabric. There is thus no reason to believe why
some future class compromise would once and for all quell these tendencies -- and why
nationalistically operating capitalist states would not be inclined to confront each other
again in war.
Reagan was a free-trader and a union buster. Lind's people jumped the Democratic ship
to vote for Reagan in (lemming-like) droves. As Republicans consolidated power over labor
with cheap goods from China and the meth of deficit spending Democrats struggled with
being necklaced as the party of civil rights.
The idea that people who are well-informed ought not to govern is a sad and sick cover
story that the culpable are forced to chant in their caves until their days are done, the
reckoning being too great.
The Intercept usefully preports Michael Bloomberg's proposals for higher education,
focusing on plans to upgrade workforce skills along the lines desired by employers. Here's the
selection they excerpted that covers this, worth reading carefully:
The most Bloombergian element of the plan, however, involves the former mayor's focus on
pushing colleges and universities to meld their curriculum with various industries' workforce
needs and envisions a close pairing of college with corporate training and internships. As
the plan lays out:
The U.S. invests 0.1% of GDP in workforce development , less than any
industrialized country except Mexico. Mike will restore workforce development investments
and partner with states to upgrade facilities at community and technical colleges to
prepare students for in-demand careers
Support innovative collaborations among employers , industry associations and
educational providers to develop valued credentials.
Set a goal to enroll 1 million students in work-based degree and credential
programs by 2030.
Work with states to introduce "Apprenticeship Degrees" for in-demand
careers.
Support the creation of employer-endorsed credentials , through national and
regional collaborations among industry groups, educational providers and labor groups.
Incentivize states to open competitive funds for credential-granting programs that match
classroom instruction with local industries' needs.
Double funding for the Perkins and WIOA Acts to support career readiness.
Reform the Federal Work-Study program. This includes tripling funding for
"work college" programs where students work 10-15 hours weekly with support and
development. Eligible institutions would be required to increase slots for career-
boosting work, including private-sector jobs, and ensure more benefits go to low and
moderate-income students. Employers would be required to contribute a greater share of
student wages.
Corporations over the previous decades have essentially ended their efforts
at workforce development, pawning that off on workers. Instead of offering higher wages to
encourage an increase in the supply of labor in particular fields, companies have instead
complained about a "skills gap" and pushed for the federal government to subsidize training
programs and even the wages of workers. Bloomberg's plan sympathizes with those
companies.
There's a lot here that would be useful to businesses located in the US if they want to take
advantage of it: money for vocational degrees geared to business needs, improved credentialing
for these degrees, and support for internships and similar on-the-job training programs. As the
language of the press prelease makes clear, businesses would play a determining role in
deciding what is worthy of being learned, how instruction and work experience would be carried
out, what criteria would be used to ascertain skill acquisition, and how credentials would be
standardized for use in an economy where workers primarily move horizontally across employers.
Some of this is based on a partial reading of the German apprenticeship system, where
businesses work closely with education and training institutions to promote similar types of
skills.
So far so good. At the risk of being labeled a billionaire's stooge, I think all of this is
worth doing. Societies need lots of abilities that aren't found in books, and lots of people
are more oriented to this type of learning than the standard-model higher ed classroom. Let's
do it.
But delivering an improved American workforce to business without delivering business to the
American people is pure exploitation.
Consider again how Germany does it. Most of the workers who go through the apprenticeship
system are unionized. (How does Mike feel about that?) Unions are nearly coequal partners in
establishing, overseeing and updating the apprenticeship system, like it used to be with the
skilled trades in the US when the construction sector was mostly union. Large firms in Germany
are required to allot half (minus one) of their supervisory board seats to worker
representatives; smaller firms get most of their funding from public and cooperative banks
which set limits on how exploitative they can be. All firms have works councils with
jurisdiction over issues like work organization and skill. In other words, public policy in
Germany does most of what Bloomberg is talking about, but it does the other half too, ensuring
that the use of skills by business is at least somewhat responsive to workers'
interests. In addition, enlarging worker and public influence within the firm makes it more
likely workers will be viewed as assets and not just costs, so employers will be true partners
in these public-private partnerships.
And in my view, Germany doesn't go far enough. There should be a requirement that all firms
that draw on publicly subsidized skill development also emplace publicly-appointed educational
professionals in supervisory positions, either on the board or in top management. Businesses
need to contribute to other social goals too. This is not just a matter of being regulated so
they won't do egregious harm, necessary as this is, but also taking positive steps to solve
pressing social problems. There should be representation of environmental, regional, social
equality and other interests on boards as well, something the nonprofit sector has experimented
with for decades. Like Germany we should promote public and cooperative finance and then adopt
reforms to make these bodies more democratically accountable than they are over there. Finally,
steps should be taken to gradually socialize ownership of corporations above some threshold
size; I have sketched an approach here .
Bloomberg wants Americans to serve business interests. That would be fine if business
interests also served Americans and were accountable to them.
UPDATE: David Leonhardt, who I've
disputed in the past , has a
column in today's NY Times endorsing Bloomberg's higher ed proposals. What I wrote before
still stands.
"... Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar are all now headed for the Nevada caucuses on Feb. 22, where Sanders is favored. And all three will be going on to South Carolina, a state into which billionaire Tom Steyer has poured millions of dollars. ..."
"... Not to mention Bloomberg's speech to the Team R national convention praising Dubya for starting the War on Iraq. ..."
"... Or Mayor Bloomberg's role in removing Occupy Wall Street. Wouldn't want to spook the plutocrats. ..."
"... Thing is, Bloomberg isn't campaigning to the Left. He's trying to replace Biden. Biden's voters aren't lovers of OWS and aren't that concerned about the War (or else are just hawkish). As such both of those mentions are positives in Bloomberg's camp. ..."
rom the day he entered the race, Joe Biden was the great hope of the Democratic
establishment to spare them from the horrifying prospect of a 2020 race between The Donald and
Bernie Sanders.
Today, that same establishment wants Joe out of the race.
Why has Biden suddenly become an albatross?
His feeble debate performances and fifth-place finish in New Hampshire all but ensure Joe
will not be the nominee, and if he stays in, he will siphon off votes in Nevada and South
Carolina that would go to candidates who might put together a majority and stop Sanders.
The panic of the establishment is traceable to the new political reality.
With popular-vote victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, Sanders has largely united the
left-wing of his party and displaced Biden as the front-runner and favorite for the
nomination.
Meanwhile, the non-socialist wing of the party has failed to coalesce around a champion to
stop Sanders and is becoming ever more splintered.
In Nevada, Sanders now has three moderate challengers.
Biden, "Mayor Pete" Buttigieg -- who ran second in New Hampshire -- and Sen. Amy Klobuchar,
who ran third and took votes that might have given Buttigieg a win in the Granite State.
Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar are all now headed for the Nevada caucuses on Feb. 22, where
Sanders is favored. And all three will be going on to South Carolina, a state into which
billionaire Tom Steyer has poured millions of dollars.
Sanders, however, is not without his own problems.
Not only is he anathema to the establishment, he cannot wholly unite his party's left-wing
until his senatorial soulmate Elizabeth Warren gets out. Though she ran a poor fourth in New
Hampshire, Warren is also going to Nevada to offer herself as a unity candidate.
But as Biden's hour is up, so is hers. And if she is not out of the race before Super
Tuesday on March 3, she risks being beaten in her own home state of Massachusetts.
Where does this leave the Democratic field?
Two candidacies, Warren's and Biden's, are in hospice care.
Two candidates, Buttigieg and Klobuchar, competing to be the moderate alternative to
Sanders, are in danger of canceling each other out.
Two candidates, Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer, are billionaires who will be battling on
Super Tuesday to crush the scourge of billionaires, Bernie Sanders.
Bloomberg, the three-term mayor of New York, upon whom the establishment has begun to look
like the last best hope of stopping Sanders, has already dumped a third of a billion dollars
into his campaign. His poll numbers have risen accordingly, and he is probably the strongest challenger to
Sanders now, because, with his $60 billion fortune, he can sustain himself and his organization
through the convention.
But would Sanders lose gracefully to a plutocrat who deployed his billions to deny him a
nomination Sanders has sought for half a decade?
Would Bernie Bros, who believe they were cheated out of the nomination in 2016, accept
defeat and support a billionaire they believe robbed them of a prize they thought they had won
fairly?
Bloomberg is now facing more serious matters as a candidate in a party of minorities. Here
is an excerpt from an audiotape of Mayor Mike at a 2015 conference in Aspen, Colorado,
addressing the crime-fighting tactic of stop and frisk that he used for years as mayor.
"Ninety-five percent of your murders and murderers and murder victims fit one M.O. You can
just take the description, Xerox it and pass it out to all the cops. They are male minorities,
15 to 25," said Bloomberg.
"One of the unintended consequences is people say, 'Oh, my God, you are arresting kids for
marijuana that are all minorities.' Yes, that's true. Why? Because we put all the cops in
minority neighborhoods. Why do we do it? Because that is where all the crime is. And the way
you get the guns out of the kids' hands is to throw them up against the wall and frisk
them."
Midweek, it was learned that Bloomberg, during the economic crisis in 2008, said that
getting rid of "redlining" -- a policy by which bankers routinely deny mortgages to low-income
largely minority neighborhoods circled in red as risky -- was to blame for the collapse.
In remarks at Georgetown University in 2008, Bloomberg said:
"It all started back when there was a lot of pressure on banks to make loans to everyone.
Redlining was the term where banks took whole neighborhoods and said, 'People in these
neighborhoods are poor, they're not going to be able to pay off their mortgages, tell your
salesmen don't go into those areas.'"
In presidential elections, Democratic candidates win 90-95% of the black vote. After
revelations of his candid discussions of the merits of redlining and the benefits of stop and
frisk, Bloomberg may have a tough time climbing that hill.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever .
Thing is, Bloomberg isn't campaigning to the Left. He's trying to replace Biden. Biden's
voters aren't lovers of OWS and aren't that concerned about the War (or else are just
hawkish). As such both of those mentions are positives in Bloomberg's camp.
The minority vote, though, WILL be an issue. Biden does well with minorities that loved
Obama and wanted Obama 3rd term. Amy and Buttigieg do not which should ruin them pretty
soon.
You, as ever, raise good points. The average American wants to know for example why we are
funding religious settlements in Palestine and at the same time turning off potable water
to impoverished citizens in Detroit. How would Mikey and the other motley crew approach
that situation? Donald would probably say "Let them drink coke." What has happened to our
core values when such clowns arise to national prominence?
The basic problem with Trump is "New York" and "billionaire". Everybody knows it, and
everybody knows you don't fix it by electing another New York billionaire. I don't know
what people like Trump and Bloomberg really are, but they aren't Americans, and we need to
get them out of our government.
An essential element is missing in this otherwise well done article: We on the Left are*
united in wanting Trump out of office.
Every single Democrat I volunteer with is determined to support whomever we give the
nomination.
This is something Republicans with their Soviet level support of their leaders see as
normal. For us, to set one overriding goal is unheard of.
Even Wisconsin is no longer a certain Republican win.
*Yes, some Berniebros., blah, blah,blah.
IMO, people will not vote to elect billionaires that essentially buy their own way into
public office.
If the Dems put forth a candidate that was moderate on abortion - one that explicitly
condemned abortion up to the moment of birth - they would probably win the election.
Abortion is a much bigger problem for Dems than they will admit. The general public do not
support the infanticide policy of the current major candidates.
The surge of popular support for Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, now the clear front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination,
has touched off frantic retaliation by the Democratic Party establishment and the corporate media.
While Sanders himself is a known quantity in capitalist politics, with a 30-year career as a loyal supporter of the Democratic
Party and American imperialism, there is consternation in the ruling class over the shift to the left among workers and young people
that underlies the strength of his campaign.
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders arrives to speak to supporters at a primary night election rally in Manchester,
N.H., Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2020 [Credit: AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais]
Sanders won the most votes in both the February 3 Iowa caucuses and the February 11 New Hampshire primary. He has taken a wide
lead in polls of prospective Democratic primary voters both nationally and in many of the states scheduled to vote over the next
month, which will select two-thirds of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention.
A Morning Consult poll published Thursday found Sanders with a double-digit lead among likely Democratic voters nationwide. Sanders
was at 29 percent, followed by former Vice President Joe Biden at 19 percent and the billionaire former mayor of New York City, Michael
Bloomberg, at 18 percent. Former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who finished second in both Iowa and New Hampshire, was
in fourth place nationally at 11 percent. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts was at 10 percent, while Senator Amy Klobuchar
of Minnesota was at 5 percent.
The support for Sanders reflects shifts to the left in the working class and among young people. Exit polls in New Hampshire showed
Sanders leading by a wide margin among working-class voters, both those with incomes below $50,000 a year, and those without a college
education. He had 51 percent support among young people under 30, compared to 4 percent each for Klobuchar and Biden.
Nationally, half of US college students support Sanders, according to a poll from Chegg/College Pulse, which surveyed 1,500 full
and part-time students attending both four-year and two-year colleges. The students named climate change and income inequality as
their top issues. Warren came far back in second at 18 percent.
The widening support for Sanders, along with the apparent demise of Biden's campaign, after a fourth-place finish in Iowa and
fifth place in New Hampshire, has provoked angry denunciations of the Vermont senator from the Democratic Party establishment and
the corporate media.
The Biden campaign led the way, with its campaign co-chairman, Representative Cedric Richmond of Louisiana, telling a conference
call with reporters that there would be "down-ballot carnage" for the Democrats if Sanders won the nomination. "If Bernie Sanders
were atop of the ticket, we would be in jeopardy of losing the House, we would not win the Senate back," he said.
Two right-wing Democrats in the Senate openly denounced Sanders for his claim to be a democratic socialist. Senator Doug Jones
of Alabama said, "I don't agree with the socialism label." Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia said, "If Bernie ends up being one
of these frontrunners, he'll have to moderate. I'm not going socialist. Never been a socialist."
Campaign consultant James Carville, a fixture in Democratic politics for three decades, was more vituperative, making repeated
television appearances this week to denounce Sanders as an easy target for the Republican right, and at one point directly echoing
Trump in calling Sanders a "communist."
The corporate media was filled with anti-Sanders commentary, ranging from laments (Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times
), to cynical sneers (Paul Krugman in the Times ) to outright denunciations (Chuck Todd on MSNBC).
Krugman's column, under the headline, "Bernie Sanders Isn't a Socialist," makes the correct observation that "Bernie Sanders isn't
actually a socialist in any normal sense of the term. He doesn't want to nationalize our major industries and replace markets with
central planning," and suggests that Sanders would be better described as a European-style social democrat.
The column goes on to echo the warnings of the Democratic establishment that if Sanders is nominated, Trump would win an easy
victory, concluding "I do wish that Sanders weren't so determined to make himself an easy target for right-wing smears." Krugman
says nothing about the fact that the "right-wing smears" have already begun from the Democrats.
As for Todd, during MSNBC's coverage of the New Hampshire primary Tuesday, he quoted from a diatribe against Sanders by Jonathan
Last of Bulwark , who wrote: "No other candidate has anything like this digital brownshirt brigade. I mean, except for Donald
Trump. The question no one is asking is this, what if you can't win the presidency without an online mob?"
This comparison of supporters of Sanders -- who is Jewish -- with the fascist thugs of Hitler and Mussolini is typical of the
smear tactics by the corporate media against anyone who criticizes the super-rich. Todd's commentary was reposted by the Sanders
campaign, where it was viewed nearly a million times, no doubt adding to Sanders' support.
The consternation over Sanders' rise in the polls has already led to calls for the consolidation of the "moderate" (i.e., openly
right-wing) forces in the Democratic Party against him. A focal point of these appeals is billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who entered
the race for the nomination in November and will be on the ballot for the first time in the March 3 Super Tuesday states.
Bloomberg has poured $100 million into advertising just in those 14 states, a major part of the $300 million he has already invested
in winning the Democratic nomination. His campaign has rolled out endorsements from congressmen and local government officials, particularly
mayors of cities where Bloomberg has long used his gargantuan fortune to buy influence.
Rather than risk a four-way split among Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg and Klobuchar, to Sanders' advantage, there have been multiple
suggestions in the media of various combinations -- a Bloomberg-Klobuchar tie-up, for example.
More likely than an open alliance is a splintering of the delegates among five or six candidates, that would preclude any one
candidate gaining an absolute majority, leading to a brokered convention in which the various right-wing candidates would combine
to block a Sanders' nomination.
Sanders directly addressed this possibility in an appearance on MSNBC. "The convention would have to explain to the American people,
'Hey, candidate X got the most votes and won the most delegates at the primary process, but we're not going to give him or her the
nomination,'" he told host Chris Hayes. "I think that would be a divisive moment for the Democratic Party."
While his opponents are implacably determined to prevent his nomination, Sanders himself has repeatedly reiterated his determination
to support whoever the convention chooses and oppose at all costs any break by his supporters from the Democratic Party.
At his campaign rallies, Sanders makes a rhetorical appeal to opposition to social inequality and war. However, he is also making
a case to the political establishment that he can be trusted to defend the interests of the ruling class.
In a recent interview with the New
York Times , Sanders said that he would consider using military force in a preemptive war against Iran or North Korea. He also
fully endorsed the anti-Russia campaign of the Democratic Party, agreeing that it should be considered "an adversary, or even an
enemy" if it continues on its current course in Ukraine.
"... The herd likes to be led. Food and entertainment is all they want. Politics is sports entertainment. They get to pick a team (or fake wrestler) and cheer. They will be manipulated to pick only those preselected by the elites. Any of them will do. All are controllable and will follow their scripts. ..."
"... If Hillary is on the ticket, that is all I need to know. I'd vote against it, even if against means Trump. They can't use the threat of Trump as an excuse to get away with just any abuse they like. ..."
"... Much noise has been made about Trump being elected due to anti-establishment sentiment. While certainly true, Trump's election is just one in a long line of seemingly anti-establishment candidates elected, after which it's more or less "business as usual". Clearly the establishment has long since caught on to the fact that "the masses" dislike it, hence why they concentrate on the appearance of being anti-establishment. Sadly, "the masses" get fooled time and time again. One can only marvel at how it keeps happening. ..."
"... Bloomberg is out to get Sanders, not Trump. He talks Trump BS out of jealousy and so he can stay in the in crowd in NY. In reality, they are a coin with the same face on both sides. ..."
"... I'm surprised people here are surprised. The USA was always governed by a capitalist oligarchy. This was specially evident after Thomas Jefferson (the last descendent of Washington) until the birth of the Republican Party (Lincoln). ..."
"... After FDR and the birth of a real existential threat (the USSR), the American oligarchy sobered up a little bit and begun to govern from behind the curtains, behind professional politicians (in order to not lose the ideological war in the Cold War). ..."
"... All the evidence points out the USA was always like this. Bloomberg is not the anomaly, but the normal. Bernie Sanders is the anomaly, which must be eliminated from the American organism. As such, it is also an illusion to think the American system (and, indeed, the western democratic system) can ever be reformed. ..."
Mike Bloomberg is the world's ninth richest person. An oligarch known for strong racism and insulting
sexism who once was the Republican mayor of New York City. He since decided that he wants
to become president.
As he saw no chance to run for a Republican party that is happy with Trump he filed to run
as a Democratic candidate. Bloomberg has since bought
the Democratic Party in every state as well as the DNC :
The DNC told Mike Gravel they wouldn't change the debate rules for any candidate. "That's our
#1 rule - we can't change the rules for anybody."
A few months later, they changed the debate rules to let oligarch Bloomberg into the
debates... after he gave the DNC $300K.
He's dropping huge sums of money: on
staff and resources , on TV
advertisements , and on
Facebook ads , where Trump has long dominated. And he's attempting to overcome his stodgy
public image with the help of a meme
army and through well-catered campaign events seemingly designed to convince voters that
life under a wealthy technocrat might not be so bad. "I think it's classy," one supporter
told the
Times at a Philadelphia campaign rally complete drink station and a selection of
cheesesteaks, hoagies, and brie-and-fig appetizers. "I feel like it's a nightclub in here.
This is what he needs to get people going."
To this date Bloomberg has spent more than $350 million for his campaign. He is willing and
can afford to put several billions into it. Over the years Bloomberg has given more than $10
billion to build a political and philanthropical empire. He used that money to suppress
voices critical of him:
In 2015, Center for American Progress researchers wrote a report on U.S. Islamophobia, w/a
4300-word chapter on the Bloomberg-era NYPD.
When the report was published, the chapter was gone.
By then, Bloomberg had given CAP ~$1.5mm. That number has grown.
3 months ago, polls found Mike Bloomberg "widely disliked" with the highest negatives in the
race. Now he's a top 3 contender for the Democratic nomination. One of the richest humans
ever is trying to upend every part of the process. And this is just the stuff we know about.
The Democratic Party and lots of its bought off functionaries seem to be happy with this.
They do not mind that it makes the U.S. look worse than the Ukraine. Yes, U.S. politics are
always corrupt. But outright buying one's way into office is exceeding the usual stench.
But would Bloomberg, with Hillary Clinton
as running mate , really be able to bring out the votes that are needed to beat Trump? I
for one doubt it.
Atrios is appalled by the whole
scheme but still falls for it:
Bloomberg is bad for lots of reasons, and one of them is PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE SO WILLING TO
EMBRACE A BILLIONAIRE WHO IS BUYING (not just ads, but people) THE ELECTION WITH HIS ABSURD
FORTUNE. I mean, ok, sure, if it's BLOOMBERG OR TRUMP I'll choose Bloomberg, but why are
people establishing this as the choice? It's absurd. The only person who can beat an asshole
(fake, I know) billionaire is another asshole billionaire? Broken brains everywhere.
"[I]f it's BLOOMBERG OR TRUMP I'll choose Bloomberg" is, in my view, exactly the wrong
response to this hijacking of a party and election. It is this behavior that makes Bloomberg's
move possible in the first place.
Any good response to billionaires hijacking elections must demonstrate that campaigns by
rich people have a high risk to fail. To vote for a third party or to abstain is the only
responsible reaction to it.
Posted by b on February 15, 2020 at 18:28 UTC |
Permalink
Bloomberg's racism and "stop and frisk" harassment of a whole generation of kids, when he was
New York mayor, will surely come back to bite him in the upcoming debate. So many ghosts of
our haunted past. I can't believe he could become the complete figurehead of the 1%. I don't
think he can make the cut, and land in the White House.
Bloomberg could be characterized, whether fairly or unfairly, as just another billionaire
from New York in the process of attempting to buy a public office and if he has to buy the
"leadership" of a political party as a prerequisite that's okay.
The Mike and Don show.
Billionaires that share this--they are not producers of things ala Henry Ford but financialistas rentiers ala Michael Milliken. On issues that affect oligarchy wealth, it is
not unreasonable to suspect no difference nada.
On other matters say environmental matters but not on working class matters, Mike will make
'nicer' noises. Mikes pronouncements on marijuana and his bigoted and discriminatory law
enforcement policies suggest he is closer to Don than me. In 2016 a vulture capitalist former
Democrat money captured the morally bankrupt Republican Party and bought an Emperorships err
I mean "Presidency". In 2020, a vulture capitalist, former Republican is plagiarizing him to
money capture the morally bankrupt Democratic Party in order to attempt to buy an Emperorship
err I mean "Presidency".
Trumpberg or Blump--no real difference-- except that Mike keeps the
mask on his inner class warfare wolf more firmly. Credit to Don for dropping the mask so that
everyone can see how "business" really governs what was once one of humanity's better shots
at a functioning large population democracy.
In more than a few ways this is Oligarch Street's err I mean "Wall Street's" final
takeover of both parties.
It used to own, 1 and a half political parties, now it will have two.
A Constitutional Republic the USA isn't. Until the U.S. Constitution is restored and the
Patriot Act gets the due diligence it deserves which includes George Bush Jr.'s shake down,
the voting is completely a sham. The Supreme Court chose the U.S. President (GWBJr) and then
there was Citizen's United via the Supremes. Corporations not People control the USA. Bother
to Vote ...!??
Excellent report as always, b. Only one paragraph in I was immediately reminded of how Roman
politicians would garner favor with "the mob;" holding public banquets and exhibiting games.
It's singularly distressing/depressing to realize that in the over 5000 year history of
organized societies, the very best humanity is able to produce is iron-age
republicanism...with the internet and dial-a-yield nuclear weapons.
More and more I begin to think that, like its German nazi predescessor, the US nazi construct
must be destroyed for the sake of peace and humanity; hopefully not at the same horrid cost
as the former's destruction required.
Bloomberg is the Better Billionaire.
Unlike Trump, he does run a Honest Business. That being said, Butti-Jig is MIC-Intel/DEA/McKinsey+Red_Queen backed.
Biden is Finished. Fauxahontas Warren is backed by Corporates. Sanders and Gabbard have Good Policies.
**********
Regarding Bloomberg+Clinton:
Everyone on ZH and Drudge's Tweet discussing the Pairing are joking that if they Win 2020,
Bloomberg will Die somewhen btwn the Post-Election Victory Lap and a Month after the
Inauguration.
The trick is Bloomberg was actually a decent and balanced mayor.
He governed effectively. He has record of acheivement.
Trumps appeal such as it is lies in his volatile behavior but kind of loses it with his
attachment to Nutinyahoos behind.
However I feel most of what is wrong stems from our country is managed for and by
oligarchs and their lackeys. But historically I believe that is how it works - chose
aristocracy, oligarchy, despot-archly, mal-archy. Those are the real choices. Communism,
socialism and democracy are concepts that dont exist in the wild.
''billionaires hijacking elections''... that sums it up well b.. thanks.. this one is going
to fail... all that ill gotten money is going back into circulation as bribery money now..
ill gotten in both directions...
Same move the Clinton foundation pulled (bought controlling interest in the paper company
that calls itself the DNC). They also wrangled at least temporary control of the corporation
which provided vote tabulation machines. Smooth fail.
As ever, liberals are incapable of thinking systemically. Whether Bloomberg would be a more
competent president or not is secondary to the fact that if he succeeds in getting the
nomination, much less wins the election, that will be another mile marker, a big one, on the
road to the total death of US democracy.
He'll have shown that a sufficiently rich person can
simply buy their way one, bribing where needed and blanketing the media with their ads.
Even Trump didn't do that. Trump spent little or none of his own money getting
elected.
I forecast earlier that Bloomberg is planning to be anointed at a brokered convention and
probably will team up with Hillary. Or, failing that, perhaps the other way around.
Perhaps not coincidentally, Strategic Culture suddenly has gone all in on pushing every
DNC lie in the name of Trump-Derangement, ostensibly on behalf of Buttigeg, but perhaps for
an unnamed billionaire.
If fake democracy did not exist the elites would need to invent it (which is why they did).
Look, enjoy the show if you will. They decide who rules you, you just have to go along.
Don't sweat what you cant change. Call out the BS when you see it for as long as you are
allowed to, but thats all you can do.
The herd likes to be led. Food and entertainment is all they want. Politics is sports
entertainment. They get to pick a team (or fake wrestler) and cheer. They will be manipulated
to pick only those preselected by the elites. Any of them will do. All are controllable and
will follow their scripts.
If Hillary is on the ticket, that is all I need to know. I'd vote against it, even if against
means Trump. They can't use the threat of Trump as an excuse to get away with just any abuse
they like.
If Mike the midget manages to acquire the Nomination, Trump will disassemble him in the
debates.
And there are plenty of young, technically adept supporters of Bernie Sanders who will
sabotage Bloomberg's digital campaign.
There will be a blizzard war of TV ads beyond anything ever seen . Trump has a war chest
of $200 million and the MAGA people will double that if he needs it.
Trump's ground game is improved by disenchanted Dems and enriched Indies who are
benefitting from his deregulation and tax cuts. They are signing up for his rallies and
making small contributions. Americans tend to vote their wallet and check books, and now,
their 401ks, generally up 90% under Trump. These are real crossover voters for Trump.
Money can buy you anything except height and emotional attachment. Trump has both and
Bloomberg has neither.
Bloomberg's polling may be improving every hundred million or two, but he is stealing with
his billions from every other candidate. The thin line of victory for him will be impossible
if he can't convert nearly all the other candidates voters in key states. He can only win
California's electoral votes once. Trump's path to re-election is very clear, better than
2016, with indications he can expand his victory.
Bloomberg and Klobuchar might be the ticket the ex-mayor packages. He will hope a woman,
that woman, will help him hold enough Dem voters.
She just announced that English should not be the official American language.
That ought to seal Pennsylvania and Wisconsin for Trump.
Imagine when Pence faces her on the debate stage.
The best bet right now is to short "shorties" campaign chances.
Much noise has been made about Trump being elected due to anti-establishment sentiment. While
certainly true, Trump's election is just one in a long line of seemingly anti-establishment
candidates elected, after which it's more or less "business as usual". Clearly the
establishment has long since caught on to the fact that "the masses" dislike it, hence why
they concentrate on the appearance of being anti-establishment. Sadly, "the masses"
get fooled time and time again. One can only marvel at how it keeps happening.
Saying different things to different people is what happens when one focuses on winning an
election rather than on effecting certain policies. While it can be an effective strategy to
lie to those who disagree with your desired policies, that also runs the risk of your
supporters coming to see you as dishonest. On the other hand, it may be impossible to effect
your desired policies without resorting to "politics by other means". What is to be done?
Bloomberg is in it to sabotage Sanders if the DNC can't prevent his(Sanders) nomination. If
that happens they will do like they did to Ned Lamont in the 2006 Connecticut US Senate race
where he defeated Lieberman in the primary. The DNC and republicans together funneled money
into Lieberman's third party run. They're all perfectly happy to throw the election to Trump
by the same method.
"hopefully not at the same horrid cost as the former's destruction required.
Many thanks again for all you do, b; peace."
Spot on. Consideration of similarities to the previous Nazi era, those who caused it by
seeking dominance in commerce and with their manipulation of investments and credit, to the
current situation and once again increased use of military force and threats of mass
destruction, also demand significant scrutiny by those who advocate for better outcomes.
Thanks to you for your input, I find FAR more gems in the comments at this site than my
last haunt which turned into an advocate for con artists, trump in particular.
If I steal billion$ off karlof, circe, jackrabbit, and james and give 90% of it to grieved,
will you call me a philanthropist - - or a THIEF?
Everyone please Stop pretending and repeating that a billionaire is a philanthropist. He
does not give away what is his own self-earned wealth, he can only be returning part of the
megawealth he has legally or illegally stolen.
Billionaires are the RECIPIENTS of society's philanthropy, they are so obviously
recipients of the mad overgenerosity of the 99% underpaid underpowered...who should be
spending their time and energies campaigning for a just cap on personal fortunes and
installing countermeasures to claw back their trillions in mostly-legally-stolen wealth from
the overpaid overpowered 1%
ugh this is just a huge distraction meant to demoralize people. He isn't getting nominated,
at best he can buy enough of the DNC to dictate the nominee in the event noone gets a
majority.
Bloomberg has exactly one thing to offer: money. His record is possibly less in line with
the Dem party's stated principles than Biden, although not by much. Most of the swing states
will have even less respect for him than Romney, who is the closest comparison I can think
of.
The utterly shameless nature of his run is what commands attention. A commenter on
nakedcapitalism likened it to Godzilla vs MechaGodzilla, which I think sums up the appeal of
this story pretty well.
Billionaires are the RECIPIENTS of society's philanthropy, they are so obviously recipients
of the mad overgenerosity of the 99% underpaid underpowered...who should be spending their
time and energies campaigning for a just cap on personal fortunes and installing
countermeasures to claw back their trillions in mostly-legally-stolen wealth from the
overpaid overpowered 1%
YES YES YES to that and thank you.
The philanthropists babble and greasy hands 'contributions' represent that fake
whitewashing akin to 'see I voluntarily pay my taxes'. And then they feel good that they have
earned a little round of applause from the observers and maybe get a little medal for
goodness. Spew. F'ing frauds and cheats.
Perhaps at the revolution philanthropists can be put to work cleaning streets, planting
trees or decontaminating Fukushima reactor.
My position is clear since 2016 . Who cares who wins or whether Bloomberg pick Hillary
Clinton, Warren, Biden or even a queer for VP. I hate both Trump and Bloomberg. But I hate
the Democratic more.
I may vote or write in Tulsi Gabbard , but NO Bernie Sanders.
Sanders-repeating 2016. It will be grand theft and he will fall in line. And there is the
question of his health.
Buttigieg- his 15 minutes in the limelight is nearly up; the Bible belt evangelicals, and
the "Optics" - an insurmountable hill to climb. Well, he can add to his CV an "I also ran for
president."
Biden - He is done. Turn off the oven. The Senate investigations will come to haunt his
ride.
Warren - what is her heritage? Epic fail. Trump will make mince pie.
The most catchy election slogan in the history of these "several states", IMHO was
"Tippecanoe and Tyler too!". It was so successful that it provided two names to Simpson's
song "We are the mediocre presidents". In the song, bearded Harrison, the storied victor of
Tippecanoe, exclaims "I died in forty days!", while his running mate gets half a phrase
"There is Tyler, there is Taylor.
Anyway, if Trump knows anything it is how to hit below the belt:
TheHill.com
Trump campaign seizes on audio of Bloomberg defending 'stop and frisk'
BY MORGAN CHALFANT - 02/11/20 11:38 AM EST 1,897
President Trump's campaign is seizing on newly surfaced audio from 2015 in which former
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg can be heard defending the controversial policing
policy known as "stop and frisk."
Trump's campaign manager, Brad Parscale, tweeted Tuesday that the audio shows that
Bloomberg, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, is a "complete racist." ------ Trump run on letting police to kill as many as they deem proper without ANY second guessing,
denigrating "black lives matter" etc. But Mike is campaigning now in state with non-white
majorities among Democratic primary voters, so it can hurt. Bootiegeg is in single digits
there in spite of lopsidedly leading among folks who sensible store wine in caverns.
Bloomberg really has an epic run. Ad rates rose 20% because of his buys, Democratic
candidates for any office that actually requires a campaign can't find professional stuff
because Mike hires thousands of "activists with prior experience" at double of previous
salary and guaranteed till November. His position papers run in hundreds of pages, hastily
copied, often verbatim (isn't there a specialty of rewriting stuff in different words?). On
foreign policy, he offers measured, cool approach. Steady. Proven. Hand.
I was pondering how it would go if Sanders really were to wrest the nomination - would we
have the spectacle of the MSM and the rest of the establishment saying in effect "None of the
Above"? (Well, not really - they'd all fall into line behind Trump, however grudgingly.)
An earlier commenter envisioned the DNC and a counterpart Republican faction going full
treason against their own parties to support a Bloomberg independent run. The MSM would go
into ecstasy supporting that. With how crazy things are getting in the US, it really could
happen.
I was hoping that circe might have something to say about the WSWS article referenced above.
Personally, I'm not much interested in the internal workings of the Dummycrat Wurlitzer
Dazzlemachine. Like the incessant use of Shakycam in TV and movies, it just gives me a
headache and a queasy feeling.
Someone asked, "What is to be done?"
Posters keep saying, "Build an independent movement."
But that is hard uncertain work with no predetermined outline to follow, so that idea is not
very attractive.
@49 Phryne's frock.. i share your views on this concept of philanthropy from billionaires....
thanks for stating all that...
@ uncle tungsten and circe.. read @27 link, which i again share here and get back to us on
how saunders is any different where it really matters.. thanks..
I forgot one point: AIPAC may have trouble buying mercenaries as Bloomberg spends big. OTOH,
they are making preparations against Sanders, as unjustified as it may be, they view him as
[what is AIPACish for AntiChrist?].
Circe@59 "Now we all know how the Buttigieg-funded app developed by a wealthy Zionist
apparatchik skewed the outcome in Pete the Cheat's favor, THE NIGHT OF THE IOWA ELECTION,
when a sizable chunk of the precincts got conveniently jammed in the unholy, programmed
pandemonium just when Buttigieg was conveniently leading by almost two points and quickly
took the stage to claim victory so he could get the bounce and media accolades that come with
a first-state victory. But as we then learned, TWO WHOLE DAYS LATER, yeah, it took that long
to untie a knot! Bernie was actually only behind by a miniscule .1 difference, and then short
of an exact tie or Sanders victory, the Party came up with a wacky excuse to stop counting
and gave Buttigieg 2 extra Iowa delegates for a less than razor-thin edge."
Sanders announced a win too, which demented trash like Circe should conclude Sanders is
the cheat. Even worse, since the party refused to release results, Buttigieg's win in state
delegates/very close second, the indignation that Buttigieg did the same damn thing as
Sanders is grossly idiotic. Maybe the movie Idiocracy was a documentary? Of course the true
explanation is, Circe is a student of Goebbels and knows repeating lies endlessly works.
Since the despicable Circe is spewing so many lies for Sanders, though, doesn't that tell us
something about what kind of candidate he truly is? Aside from his blank record of decades,
attracting filth like Circe is a very bad symptom.
The comments telling us the Democrats are the Pedophile Party or that Clinton has been
murdering her way to take power for the sixteen of the last twenty four years are equally
reactionary psychotic drivel. The witless theories that Trump is fighting the Deep State and
ending forever wars and breaking the Duopoly/draining the swamp and all such Trumpery are
still stupid and reactionary. They do seem to be appropriate to a stealth AfD site.
"To vote for a third party or to abstain is the only responsible reaction to it."
To quote Percival Rose on the Nikita tv show once *again*: "That ain't gonna happen."
Seriously, b, are you high? You really think *any* third party is capable of beating
*both* the Democrats *and* the Republicans when *both* of those parties can field
billionaires (or even candidates with the backing of billionaires)?
Get serious. The US is run by oligarchs and corporations and has been for decades, aided
by a Deep State intelligence apparatus and a compliant and controlled media.
There is *zero* chance of *anyone* - including Jesus himself if you're dumb enough to
believe in such a thing - overthrowing the power structure using voting. As we anarchists
like to say, "If voting could change the system, it would be illegal."
And abstaining simply means they win. So neither voting nor abstaining can achieve
anything.
The system is not just "broken", it is *destroyed.* And a lot of people would argue that
it was broken from the beginning and never intended to be successful. It was a delusion and a
pipe dream that the US was ever going to be a "nation of laws and not of men." Or that its
citizens would keep their heads out of their butts and vote in non-corrupt, competent
leaders.
Trump on accountants: The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that
wear yarmulkes
Bloomberg lacks yarmulke, something that can be easily remedied. In any case, Napoleonic
legacy is not all bad, e.g. metric system, or reorganization of a jumble of legal fiefs in
Germany into something workable, today the boundaries of German landes largely follow the
lines made by Napoleon. granted, one metric system is enough, and an interest in reorganizing
regional boundaries is the last thing I would see in the next President, but short people
were often good leader. That said, the current strongman of Poland is 168 cm old, so hostile
comment writers call him "evil midget", although more recently they prefer "lame" -- he had a
knee replacement. In any case, he is a piece of work.
Bloomberg is such a "target-rich environment" of awful it's hard to know where to start, but
on the basic question of his character, much more revealing than this or that crude remark,
is the fact that he has always restricted how Bloomberg News can report on him.
Now in this campaign, rather than reconsider their "tradition of not investigating Mike",
Bloomberg News has extended it to cover all the Dem presidential candidates. In other words,
they shouldn't be considered a real news organization at all.
Anybody in Bloomberg's position worth a tinker's dam would have told his news execs and
editors from the get-go to report everything about him, and dig for more. That he'd fire
anybody caught going easy on him!
Advising voting for a non-existent or impossible to build on time third party, or abstaining
from voting, in my view, equates asking the vote for Trump, since, if you had not noticed,
the right always go to vote ( not only in the US but everywhere, hence one of their tactics
is "killing hope"...), and they will vote either for Trump or for Bloomberg ( the impostor
trying to hijack the Democrat vote for the Republicans and oligarchs ( he himself has stated
the he and Trump know and treat the same people in NYC...)
That Bloomberg has advanced he would choose Hillary Clinton as VP comes to make a remake
of the 2016 scenario, with the people chosing the "lesser evil", who would be in this case
again Trump, as a whole psyop will be unleashed to asure that this couple, Bloomberg/Clinton
will start more wars than Trump ( if that would be even possible ).
The tone of the article as taking as a job done that Bloomberg will be able to buy the
Democrat nomination seems to come as discouraging towards those in the Sanders´ wagon,
obviating the strong popular support Sanders is getting in every state so far..
Who would had thought that B would adopt Jackrabbit´s mantra, "not to vote"...
This JR for to have been so often accused by so many regulars of being a troll, manages to
survive here quite well... while so many others, much more encouraging and not limited to one
topic/mantra but adding so much interesting and varied info, have been wiped
out....Curious...
Just for the record, and since we talk about the transmigration of conservative right wing
oligarchs through the US bipartisan system, reading at the Unz Review an article which makes
a summary/compilation of all the points made to this date on the Coronavirus issue, this site
was linked and labelled as "conservative"..
Your Sanders is as much of a warmonger as Bush, Clinton, the Clinton harpy, Obama and the
rather tentative Trump.
He voted for the AUMF 2001 that enabled the Afghanistan and Iraq wars (2003 was just for
show, and he did vote the budget for the Iraq invasion.)
He is a Zionist, continues to be a Zionist, only not the same party as Netanyahoo.
He is not running to win anything but the badge of true and faithful servant of the
Imperial owners of his "Democratic" party, bringing him the disgruntled vote again and again,
as proved in 2016 and officially promised in 2020.
All this is a matter of uncontroversial record of facts and you are part of the propaganda
operation. If willingly or not is irrelevant.
Bloomberg may be able to ensure that the convention is brokered and "super delegates" will
decide the nominee. As mayor he crushed the Occupy movement.
Bloomberg's arrogance is his stumbling block.He doesn't seem to think any of his actions have consequences. He has no sense of how people
perceive him.
In a time of revolutionary levels.of wealth inequality, when Americans are blaming excessive
wealth for their diminished circumstances and future, Bloomberg puts himself forward instead
of a Pete Buttigeig cutout like Seth Klarman.
If his financial position weren't irritant enough, he dumps a bunch of money on the DNC and
gets them to change the rules so he can run, piling outrage on top of annoyance.
He does a terrible job of explaining the worst aspects of his tenure as mayor,defending his
racism. His successor who won by a landslide is backing Bernie.
The cherry on this ugly cake is Hillary. even more reviled and distrusted now now than before
she stole the candidacy from Bernie and lost the farm to Trump. lest we forget, blaming
Russia for her loss and sniping from the sidelines. He puts her in the co-pilots seat. Atta
boy Mike.
The DNC are masters at misleading polls. They and CNN published 6 week old polls in order to
mislead voters on how well Bernie was doing. Buttigeig polling high in NH after it became
known he paid for the app that wrecked the caucus and gave him the lead?
None of this looks like a winning campaign to me.
I find it interesting that Trumps two primary targets, Pocahontas and Biden are pretty much
done for already. He has not even touched the others. He spent something like 66 million in
2016. Bloomberg will spend billions to get nowhere. How many people will turn out for a
Bloomberg rally?
Bloomberg is out to get Sanders, not Trump. He talks Trump BS out of jealousy and so he
can stay in the in crowd in NY. In reality, they are a coin with the same face on both
sides.
I'm surprised people here are surprised.
The USA was always governed by a capitalist oligarchy. This was specially evident after
Thomas Jefferson (the last descendent of Washington) until the birth of the Republican Party
(Lincoln).
After FDR and the birth of a real existential threat (the USSR), the American oligarchy
sobered up a little bit and begun to govern from behind the curtains, behind professional
politicians (in order to not lose the ideological war in the Cold War).
All the evidence points out the USA was always like this. Bloomberg is not the anomaly,
but the normal. Bernie Sanders is the anomaly, which must be eliminated from the American
organism. As such, it is also an illusion to think the American system (and, indeed, the
western democratic system) can ever be reformed.
Bloomberg & Clinton: Two of the most useless people I can think of on the planet. They
were the sort of occupants meant for the copter Kobe was in.
BUT
This goes to show just how rattled the D-Party Establishment is with Sanders and the
growing Movement he's riding that has excellent momentum. And as I pointed out the other day,
Trump just gave him a huge boost with his proposed budget gutting of Medicare and Social
Security.
A note for those who've asked for the link to my VK Space. All you need do is click on
karlof1 at the bottom of my comment and you'll be taken directly there to register or sign in
depending on your status.
Bubbles prediction: Bloomberg would pummel helter skelter trump into the ground. He may well be another bastard, but unlike trump he can articulate what he want's to say.
Unlike trump's word salads that surely must be encoded messages only the Maga hat faithful
can decode.
Playing to ignorance and telling people what they want to hear has a short shelf life,
especially now what with the US federal debt out of control and King of debt trump saying who
gives a shit, we have a country to run.
om Friedman writes a
love letter to his favorite wealthy authoritarian (no, not the Saudi one):
And this candidate is now rising steadily in the polls. This candidate is Michael
Bloomberg. This candidate has Trump very worried.
Bloomberg has managed to buy some support in national polling for the low, low price of $300
million spent so far on ads, but there is still not much reason to believe that most Democratic
voters would want him as their nominee. He is skipping the first few contests, so we won't know
for sure just how little support he has until March, but he seems as much of a poor fit with
the Democratic Party electorate as ever. His attempts to "apologize"
for the stop-and-frisk policy in New York would be more meaningful if he weren't lying
through his teeth about his support for it. According to Bloomberg
, this was a policy that he merely inherited before getting rid of it, but the truth is that he
escalated it and was
forced to stop it because of a court order:
Ultimately, a federal judge found in 2013 that stop-and-frisk intentionally and
systematically violated the civil rights of tens of thousands of people by wrongly targeting
black and Hispanic men. Bloomberg blasted the ruling at the time, calling it a "dangerous
decision made by a judge who I think does not understand how policing works and what is
compliant with the U.S. Constitution."
Bloomberg's record on civil liberties in general is abysmal. Alex Pareene recounts
how Bloomberg had hundreds of protesters arrested ahead of the Republican National Convention
simply to keep them off the streets:
Over the course of the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City, the New York
Police Department arrested nearly 2,000 people at protests. The mass arrests were
indiscriminate. Bystanders and journalists were among those hauled to a filthy bus depot
terminal that served as a makeshift holding pen.
Hundreds of people were charged with minor crimes so that they could be kept in jail for
the duration of the convention. A judge held the city in contempt of court for failing to
abide by a state policy that gives people in jail the right see a judge or be released within
24 hours. And the city lied about how long it took to process the fingerprints of its
detainees. In the end, no serious charges were brought against anyone, because the entire
point was to keep people off the streets while Bush and his friends enjoyed their parties,
and to dissuade others from attempting any further disruption.
Even then, it was clear that the arrests were illegal. They were, as the civil rights
attorney Norman Siegel put it at the time, "preventative detention." The cops knew it, the
city's lawyers knew it even as they denied it, and the mayor knew it.
The intrusive surveillance of Muslims that he approved as mayor was as outrageous as it was
unnecessary. Conor Friedersdorf explains
:
And he cannot be trusted to respect the civil rights of Muslims, as he illustrated after
9/11, when he presided over blatant religious profiling. Starting shortly after the attacks,
officers infiltrated Muslim communities and spied on hundreds or perhaps thousands of
innocents at mosques, colleges, and elsewhere.
These officers "put American citizens under surveillance and scrutinized where they ate,
prayed and worked, not because of charges of wrongdoing but because of their ethnicity," the
AP reported, citing NYPD documents. Informants were paid to bait Muslims into making
inflammatory statements. The NYPD even conducted surveillance on Muslim Americans outside its
jurisdiction, drawing a rebuke from an FBI field office, where a top official charged that
"the department's surveillance of Muslims in the state has hindered investigations and
created 'additional risks' in counterterrorism."
Bloomberg defended the NYPD's counterterrorism efforts as necessary to keep New Yorkers
safe, yet "in more than six years of spying on Muslim neighborhoods, eavesdropping on
conversations and cataloguing mosques," the AP reported, "the New York Police Department's
secret Demographics Unit never generated a lead or triggered a terrorism investigation." The
police acknowledged, in court, having generated zero leads.
Bloomberg's heavy-handed, abusive policies weren't just egregious violations of civil
liberties, but they were also doing nothing to make the city more secure. Despite this,
Bloomberg was a fervent defender of his policies until he realized that they would be a
political liability for his current presidential campaign. Now he delivers unconvincing,
dishonest "apologies" in an attempt to make people forget what he did. He still wants to use
his time as mayor to argue that he is qualified for higher office, but he has to run away from
one of his signature policies because he cannot justify it to Democratic voters. Bloomberg
can't stand by his record because his record on these issues was awful, so why would voters
trust him enough to promote him to an even more powerful position?
Friedman may think that the man is "a moderate progressive with a heart of gold" (yes, he
said that), but the reality is that Bloomberg is an authoritarian oligarch whose contempt for
Americans' constitutional rights runs like a red skein through his entire record. Pareene puts
it this way:
Bloomberg said and did all these things because he is an authoritarian. He has explicitly
argued that "our interpretation of the Constitution" will have to change to give citizens
less privacy and the police more power to search and spy on them. In fact, he does not seem
to believe that certain people have innate civil rights that the state must respect.
Like many other so-called "centrists," Bloomberg is a defender of intrusive state power and
massive concentrated wealth. We are already familiar with how awful his
foreign policy views are . Conservatives, libertarians, and progressives all have good
reasons not to want him in charge of any government ever again. The thought of someone like
this running the executive branch with all of the power that it possesses is terrifying.
"... AS : You've talked about technocratic progressives, and alluded to what might be called technocratic libertarians. Is there such a thing as technocratic populism, which genuinely responds to populist complaints through market-based, technical solutions? Or is technocratic populism a contradiction in terms? ..."
"... AS : It's ironic, isn't it, that some of the changes that hollowed out the parties were initially justified on the grounds that they weren't representative enough. Would it be fair to say that these kinds of populist reforms backfired and produced democratic deficits? ..."
"... AS : Two proposals that have been voiced by those policy wonks in recent years are universal basic income and trust-busting. In the book you reject both of these proposals. Why? ..."
"... AS : Five times zero is still zero. ..."
"... AS : Many of the power-sharing proposals you favor work by creating veto points that let workers say no and force a compromise. Do you worry that this might make us less competitive in the international arena? China doesn't have many democratic constraints on the market, after all, because it's not a democracy. Is it possible to create veto points without sacrificing efficiency, and with it our competitive edge? ..."
"... AS : In closing, I want to ask a couple big-picture questions. Patrick Deneen, the author of Why Liberalism Failed , recently tweeted that The New Class War is "THE essential book of the decade." Do you agree that liberalism has failed? And if not, why do you think that a lot of post-liberals have been raving about your book? ..."
"... AS : You don't seem to have much faith in either political party right now. Do you think the power-sharing you envision can plausibly arise without any help from established politicians, or are things going to get a lot worse before they get better? ..."
"... AS : Do you think competition with China could potentially catalyze a class truce? ..."
"... AS : Last question: Your theory of the case is very much a systemic one. It's a story about structures and institutions and systems, how they've changed and how they've changed for the worse. What, if anything, can individuals do to promote the kind of systemic change you want to see in the United States? ..."
Michael Lind on Reviving DemocracyTo fix things, we
must acknowledge the nature of the problem. T he Cold War may have ended, but the class war
rages on -- or so Michael Lind argues in The New
Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite . TAI assistant editor Aaron
Sibarium recently sat down with Lind to discuss this argument, and what it means for democracy
in our populist era. This is a lightly edited transcript of the conversation.
Michael Lind : It's the conflict that has broken out between the
college-credentialed, university-educated managerial and professional class, which dominates
Western democracies on both sides of the Atlantic, and the high school-educated working class
of all races and national origins, which is about two-thirds of the population. I argue that
there was a kind of class peace treaty, or what political scientists call a "settlement,"
between capitalists, managers, and the working class for a couple of decades following 1945
that broke down in the late 20 th century, largely as a result of the atrophy of the
institutions that had amplified the power of less educated working-class people. The most
important of these were trade unions, churches, and other religious organizations, as well as
local mass membership parties -- parties of political machines at the local level.
As a result of that breakdown, there's just been a shift of power and influence in all three
realms: the economy, the culture, and government. And I argue the frustration this has created
on behalf of much of the population has ultimately led to a lot of the populist rebellions
we're seeing: the election of Trump, the Brexit vote in Europe, the Yellow Vest revolts in
France.
AS : Part of the story here is the rise of a "managerial elite," as you call it,
which differs in important ways from the elite it displaced. What are the distinct features of
this managerial class?
ML : I don't claim any particular originality here. I follow James Burnham, a
one-time influential American Trotskyist who became one of the founders of postwar American
conservatism. In his book The
Managerial Revolution written during World War II, he argued that the Marxists were
wrong. The two major classes in the Western world in the 1940s were not workers and
capitalists, but workers and managers. Because at that point, thanks to the rise of large
corporations, there was what Berle and Means in their classic study of
the corporation described as separation of ownership and control. And you had this bureaucratic
corporate executive class who were not necessarily the biggest shareholders. Particularly
nowadays when shared ownership is widely dispersed and fluctuating, it's kind of a legal
fiction to say that the shareholders are the owners of the corporation, and that the managers
are merely passive agents.
So that was the argument. Burnham argued -- and I follow him -- that the managerial elite
includes far more than corporate executives. It includes professionals, experts of all kinds,
civil servants, and also the military, which he argued would become increasingly influential in
societies. Meanwhile, only one-third of the working class was ever industrial workers -- the
rest were service and clerical workers. But at present, as a result of automation and
productivity growth, most new working class jobs are in hospitality and leisure, healthcare and
retail. And those tend to be very poorly paid and very non-union jobs. So the migration of
employment from the unionized manufacturing sector to these sectors has contributed to
inequality.
AS : A common libertarian argument holds that if you look at the data, working-class
living standards have improved, so everything's more or less fine. To the extent there is a
crisis, it's one more of perception than fact. How do you respond to this argument?
ML : Well, it's true: As a result of technological progress poor people have access
to all kinds of technology that rich people did not have a century ago. The problem with
libertarians is they're like Marxists, and even some progressives: They think money is
everything. The problem with libertarians is they're like Marxists, and even some progressives:
They think money is everything. They ignore power. They ignore dignity. So the basic premise
is, "well, you've lost your unions, which amplified your influence if you only had a high
school diploma, but in return you make $500 more a year, so it's a wash."
I find it very odd because the whole basis of American republicanism, small-r republicanism,
is the idea that ordinary people should have power and that there should be checks and
balances. The idea is not that you can have a dictatorship or an autocracy or an aristocracy as
long as it pays compensation to everyone else.
AS : Here at the magazine, we're very interested in reviving what we call the
political center. In the book you note that the center of elite opinion is very different from
the center of working-class opinion -- even as your emphasis on class compromise sounds, well,
kind of centrist. Do you identify as a centrist? And what do you think are the biggest mistakes
that self-styled centrists have made?
ML : Marx said, "I'm not a Marxist," so I like saying that I, Michael Lind, am not a
Lindist. I'm less interested in sticking out a position on the political spectrum -- either the
elite spectrum or the working-class spectrum, which are your two different political spectrums
-- than I am in nation-building. And how do you rebuild a functioning democratic nation-state
in which politics is not all about 51 percent trying to annihilate 49 percent? I think we have
to be as inclusive as possible. In the book, I call this "democratic pluralism," the idea being
that you have to have a government based on compromise.
But before you can have compromise, you have to acknowledge the reality of conflict. You
have to admit that the conflicts are legitimate. Because if one side is simply wrong or one
side is simply evil, then there's no point in compromise. So democratic pluralism is a very
realistic view of politics. It's arguably the case that employers and employees have clashing
interests on things like trade and immigration. There is no one objective policy, so you have
to negotiate and make trade-offs. Different religious groups and secular people have equally
legitimate values. They have to coexist in the same society.
And when it comes to matters of class, the vast majority of working-class people simply are
going to be outweighed in politics and in the media by the minority of very well-educated and
very well-financed people. So they have to have their own organizations to exercise what the
economist John Kenneth Galbraith called
"countervailing power." But my vision is one of compromise and negotiation. It's not that a
group of experts gets together and decides what the ideal policy is and then the government
just imposes this. I don't know in advance what the ideal policy is for Uber and Lyft drivers.
I think that the drivers should have some kind of collective representation and should be able
to negotiate with their employers. But if they can come up with a solution that's acceptable to
both, that's fine with me.
AS : You say that under democratic pluralism, the state serves as a kind of brokering
agent between labor and capital. Could you elaborate on the role of the state in this
negotiating structure?
ML : The libertarian or classical liberal view of government is that it's an umpire.
It doesn't have any commitment to one side or another, or even to one country or another,
according to libertarianism; it just enforces the rules. Whoever wins, wins. But the democratic
pluralist tradition sees the democratic nation-state as the coach of a team. And the team
includes the national managerial elite and investors and workers, who are all competing with
other nations. So democratic pluralism involves some degree of economic nationalism.
It's not necessarily leading to war or anything like that. It's just that all the different
countries are trying to make their own people more prosperous. And so as a result of that, the
government can step in and keep the different groups in society from ripping each other apart.
But at the same time it should not just try to dictate things from above. So that's why I think
the coach metaphor is better than the umpire metaphor.
AS : Would you say that this more thoroughgoing concept of democratic representation
is just a means to class compromise, or is it a normative end in itself?
ML : I think it's a means to an end. The normative end is national unity. And that's
why, even though some of this sounds vaguely Marxist, the premise is not that the working class
is going to destroy and replace the managerial class. Every society, including communist
societies, have had managerial elites in the modern world. And you have to have them. You have
to have experts. You have to have managers. And in practice, they will probably pass on their
advantages to their children to some degree. You even see this in communist industrial
countries. So the goal is to give the working-class majority the weapons to enforce a
compromise, to draw some concessions from the managerial elite.
If the working class were too strong and were threatening to cripple the managerial elite, I
would be for strengthening the managers against an overly powerful working class. But the goal
is national unity. It's what
Henry Carey , the Whig economist in the 19 th century who was an advisor to
Abraham Lincoln, called "the harmony of interests." And there's this older Hamiltonian
tradition that rejected the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian idea that there's a battle to the death
between capital and labor in favor of the idea that they're partners in a common project of
national development and national construction. But the government is not simply a passive
figure. It's actively bringing them together and regulating their partnership.
AS : You write that under democratic pluralism, "legislatures can cede large areas of
policymaking to those with higher stakes and expertise." That framing sounds a bit like some
defenses of the administrative state, of which you are a partial critic. What role, if any, do
administrative agencies have in brokering class compromise?
ML : There have been two kinds of administrative agencies that are somewhat
independent of direct presidential political control since the progressive era. One kind is the
very technocratic agency where you get the experts who are insulated, they're altruistic,
they're wise, they have degrees from Ivy League universities. And whatever they want is
supposedly good for the public. I'm very suspicious of this for obvious reasons. The other kind
is associated with a lot of the New Deal agencies that were created. And we have to remember
the New Deal was a farmer-labor alliance. It was an alliance of the working class and the
family farmers who had been excluded from the first stage of industrialization in the United
States. They realized that Congress cannot possibly make detailed regulations for everything in
an industrial economy, but at the same time they did not want to turn over vast discretionary
power to a bunch of "pointy heads," as George Wallace would say, from the Ivy League
universities.
So their compromise was to create sector-specific organizations: the FCC, the Agriculture
Department, and various independent agencies where interest groups were represented and could
influence policy, even if only informally. Now, libertarians hate this because they see it as
corruption for the interest groups to influence policy. A certain kind of technocratic
progressive hates it because the people who make policy are not supposed to actually be from
that field -- that's their definition of corruption. But to my mind it makes sense, because if
you're going to make policy for family farmers, you should probably talk to family farmers. If
you're going to make policy for taxi drivers, then represent the taxi drivers and consult with
them.
By the same token, I think we have a very unrealistic view of the omnicompetent legislator.
We have this idea that if you're a Senator, today you're going to make policy for farming and
tomorrow you're going to make it for pilots, and the day after that you're going to make it for
religious liberty. Having worked in state legislatures, I can tell you that doesn't happen.
What happens is that one or two members of the legislature are known as experts in a particular
field. Usually they have some connection with that field, and their fellow legislators -- often
across party lines -- defer to their expertise. So one of the things I argue is that we should
not be afraid to delegate some policymaking authority to administrative agencies, on the
condition that they represent interest groups, particularly working-class interest groups,
whose views might be ignored otherwise.
AS : How much of the current working-class ferment is due to a feeling of
powerlessness, and how much of it is due to the people in power making bad decisions? Put
another way, if elites had taken better care of the working class without actually giving them
much substantive representation, would the working class still be in revolt? To what extent is
this about powerlessness qua powerlessness versus not getting some preferred policy
outcome?
ML : I think you can make that distinction in theory. But in practice, you really
can't, because unless there are institutions that represent the policy preferences of
working-class people, those people are going to be ignored.
So in theory, yes, you could have had a bipartisan consensus that did not push
elite-friendly globalization policies, that did not push elite-friendly immigration policies,
that did not push elite-friendly environmental policies such as in France. But there's a reason
why the elite-friendly policies always prevailed: the absence of actual checks and balances. So
I simply don't believe in the possibility of a benevolent elite unless members of the working
class have something beyond the vote. I simply don't believe in the possibility of a benevolent
elite unless members of the working class have something beyond the vote. The vote is
important, but casting a vote every couple of years for one of two candidates -- particularly
when both have been chosen by donors and elite activists -- does not give you very much
influence on the system. That's why, I think, you have to have free elections, but they have to
be supplemented by policymaking bodies where you have additional checks and balances.
AS : You write that "even in so-called capitalist countries," partly as a result of
this lack of checks and balances, property rights have been "diluted and redefined beyond
recognition." How has this happened, and what are the implications for the struggle you're
describing?
ML : This gets into why I don't like the term "middle class." For the majority of
people in the United States, I use the term "working class." The classic word for that is
"proletarian," which sounds kind of Marxist, but it comes from ancient Rome. It meant a
propertyless wage worker, who has to earn a living by working for wages. Today we talk about
the home-owning majority, the property-owning majority, and so on. But in practice, unless you
have paid off your house mortgage loan completely, you're renting it from the bank. And the
same is true of your car -- you're renting that until it's completely paid off, if it ever is.
So the property-owning majority is kind of an illusion.
And I'm not criticizing the system. It's a successful system. But let's not trick ourselves
into thinking that most Americans are therefore property-owners in a significant sense, or
certainly that they're capitalists. The vast majority of Americans in retirement depend almost
entirely on Social Security. Only the top half of the population has any kind of investments in
401(k)s or IRAs. And even that, if you look at the average 401K or IRA, is really a negligible
amount of money. It doesn't last very long. So we really have a majority of people who could
not live for more than a few weeks without a wage, without turning to the state for
unemployment insurance. They would be destitute in old age without Social Security. And this is
one of the reasons that there's a class division in attitudes toward entitlement policy. It
seems insane, if you think about it, that after the economy crashed in 2008, the priority in
Britain was austerity, cutting back government spending in the middle of a global depression.
And in the United States, we had the bipartisan effort to cut the deficit, with President Obama
offering the Republicans a cut to Social Security. That would not have happened in a truly
democratic system in which ordinary people had the same clout as very well-to-do people.
AS : Implicit here is a critique of a certain kind of left-producerism, which folks
like Elizabeth Warren and Matt Stoller have been pushing. That tradition imagines a world where
all Americans are self-reliant property-owners, and hearkens back to the free labor movement of
the 19 th century. You seem to be saying this is a pipe dream.
ML : My previous book, which I co-authored with the economist Robert D. Atkinson, was
Big Is
Beautiful: Debunking the Myth of Small Business . And we criticize this anachronistic,
19 th -century Jeffersonian idea of the small producer. It's just completely
anachronistic. A slight majority of Americans today work for firms with 500 people or more. I
love that statistic. It just shocks people.
Small businesses create most new jobs. They also destroy most new jobs because almost all
small businesses fail. Small businesses create most new jobs. They also destroy most new jobs
because almost all small businesses fail. So the only net job creation is by successful
businesses, which if they are successful, become medium-size or large businesses. They level
off at some point, of course. But that being the case, this Jeffersonian ideal is a hundred
years out of date. It was clear in the early 20 th century that you could do four
things to respond to the rise of large corporations. One is to break them up into little
teeny-weeny firms again, mom and pop firms. That's the anti-trust agenda. That was considered
anachronistic even in World War I -- Woodrow Wilson said, "this is absurd." So did Theodore
Roosevelt. Roosevelt has this reputation as a trust buster, but if you actually read what he
wrote, he thought consolidation was inevitable.
So we have these large corporations, and they should be regulated. But if you reject
breaking them up into little pieces, what are the remaining three options? Well, there's
nationalization. That's what the socialists wanted. Eugene Debs and the socialists thought
trusts were great, because it's easier to nationalize a big firm than a small firm.
Then there's regulation, and then there's countervailing power, to use the term again from
John Kenneth Galbraith. The labor movement under Samuel Gompers in the early 20 th
century said, "well, we don't want socialism. We're not socialists. We want dynamic firms. We
want to share their profits as workers. We don't want our own little tiny mom and pop firms. We
like working for steel companies and car companies, as long as we're paid decently. We don't
want the government to regulate our wages and benefits because we think that the rich lobbyists
will always have more clout in Congress than representatives of working people."
So their solution, which I argue for, was countervailing power. You pool the labor power of
workers, but then you negotiate with the big firms.
Now there's technically a fifth option, which is even more absurd than the anti-trust
option. That's the libertarian one, where you just allow oligopolies and monopolies to grow,
and they grow simply because they're dynamic and efficient. But if they abuse their power you
just turn a blind eye to it. And you have to be an ideological libertarian to believe that a
janitor, an individual janitor, has bargaining power in a company with 500 people. That's just
pure nonsense and it's been recognized as such. Even J.S. Mill, who is cited as a classical
liberal thinker, was for unions, because he saw that there was no way one individual could
realistically negotiate a contract of employment with a large firm.
AS : You claim that immigration has made this kind of negotiation more difficult by
creating a split labor market that ends up hurting low-wage workers. Yet several studies have
suggested that it was cultural anxiety, not economic distress, that best predicted support
for Trump. Would it be fair to say that immigration is primarily a cultural battleground in
this new class war? Or do you think the materialist story is underrated?
ML : That's a misleading question. Most of the social science on Trump and Brexit is
worthless because political scientists look for a single factor. Was it deindustrialization,
was it racial views, was it age or whatever? And since you're dealing with a society that's
quite stratified by class and divided by race, people have multiple characteristics that you
can't catch if you're doing a regression analysis with one polling question. So I dismiss a lot
of that stuff.
What I do in the book is build on Edna Bonacich's idea of the split labor market . That's when you have two
populations competing for the same job. Sometimes they're of different ethnicities, they can be
from different regions of the country or from different classes, but each has distinct,
identifiable characteristics. Employers prefer the population that is willing to work for lower
wages, whatever its defining characteristic is. For example, in the 19 th century
industrial capitalists in the North brought in not just African-Americans, but also poor whites
from the South to undercut unionization by mostly European immigrants in Northern industrial
cities -- often Irish-Americans, German-, Polish-, Italian-Americans. That's a split labor
market. Another example is employers bringing Chinese indentured servants to California to
undercut unionization attempts by white labor activists. When that happens, there's inevitably
racial resentment as well as economic resentment. The Irish-American labor organizers in San
Francisco will denounce the Chinese for their cultural characteristics, and, at the same time,
they'll denounce the capitalists for bringing in the Chinese to undercut their wages.
So you have to think about it as a three-way conflict among employers and two different
groups of workers. It's not simply a racist, anti-racist paradigm. On the other hand, it's not
pure economics, because there's often ethnic resentment between these different groups.
AS : Immigration is part of a larger story you tell about global labor arbitrage. Can
you expand on that?
ML : Arbitrage is making a profit by exploiting jurisdictional differences in the
value of the same good -- in this case, labor. It has nothing to do with productivity growth,
and this is something that is confused in talks about globalization. If you shut down a factory
in the Midwest and open up a new factory employing cheaper labor in South China or Mexico,
using exactly the same technology, the profit of your firm goes up because the wage share of
the profit has gone down. You're no more productive than you were, and you don't produce any
more output because productivity is output-per-worker. The Chinese workers or the Mexican
workers are producing cars and iPhones at the same rate as the American workers -- they're just
paid much less. So that's labor arbitrage.
You also get labor arbitrage with immigration. When employers bring in a group from abroad
to work the same jobs that natives or naturalized immigrants have been doing, but for lower
wages, the new workers are not more productive, or more skilled, or more efficient. They're
just cheaper.
AS : You hold up the post-World War II settlement as a model of democratic pluralism
-- not just in economics but also culture. That settlement arguably rested on a shared moral
consensus -- in particular a shared Christian consensus -- that's since broken down. The
working class has become more diverse, not just ethnically but religiously, philosophically,
morally. How do we have cultural power-sharing agreements when there's no shared culture, even
among the working class?
ML : Well, I disagree with that characterization of the postwar period. Up until then
you had a mainline Protestant establishment in the United States that was very anti-Catholic
and anti-Jewish. And so Jewish kids and Catholic kids had to recite Protestant prayers in
schools and sing Protestant hymns. Americanization was stripping them of being Jewish and
Catholic. And evangelical Protestants suffered as well because these were mainline Protestants
who didn't like evangelical Protestants.
But after World War II, the United States created what the sociologist Will Herberg called
"the triple establishment." He wrote a book called Protestant --
Catholic -- Jew . And I'm old enough to remember that at every high school
commencement, you had a priest, a minister, and a rabbi. So it was pluralistic. Now the term
"Judeo-Christian" was invented around that time, to pretend these religions are all part of the
same thing, which their theologians will dispute. I'm not saying we should return to that and
ignore secular people, particularly with secularization increasing in the U.S. as in
Europe.
But I think we've moved back toward a secularized Protestant mainline establishment. And if
you look at a lot of the "wokeness" we see today, it's kind of a secularized version of New
England puritanism I think we've moved back toward a secularized Protestant mainline
establishment. And if you look at a lot of the "wokeness" we see today, it's kind of a
secularized version of New England puritanism , at least in the United States. They go after
exactly the same people that the old Northeastern mainline did: Southern evangelicals,
Catholics, and traditional, non-liberal Jews. Muslims as well, although they treat Muslim as a
racial category to be favored rather than a religious conservative category, although most
Muslims are religiously conservative.
So I argue that we don't want a French-style anticlerical state, which wants to ban all
displays of religion and be aggressively secular. That's not the American tradition. It's not
the Anglo-American tradition. You also don't want the elite's religion -- which in the old days
was mainline Protestantism, nowadays you'd call it mainline secularism -- to simply dominate
the media and education. So I think we have to go back to some kind of institutionalized
representation. Maybe it will be the priest, the minister, the rabbi, the druid, and the
atheist. But I think that's a much healthier approach in a society where you have deep
permanent value pluralism , as the
philosopher John Gray has argued. You have to have what he calls a modus vivendi , an
agreement to live and let live and co-exist.
AS : In your book, you note that there used to be religious and cultural bodies that
were informally charged with oversight of education in the media. Organizations to which films
were submitted for approval.
ML : Yeah, the Legion of Decency, which was originally a Catholic organization. It
got to the point where Hollywood would just submit the films to them. There's this wonderful
movie by the Coen brothers, Hail, Caesar , about making a biblical epic
in the 1950s. There's a great scene where they have a Catholic
priest, a Protestant minister, an Orthodox Christian priest, and a rabbi, and the poor studio
guys are trying to make sure their film doesn't offend anybody.
Now, if you're a free speech zealot of the romantic libertarian bent, then the more shocking
to public sensibilities, the better. And I don't want to go back to the old days where they
were censoring Catcher in the Rye in the libraries. But on the other hand, come on. If
you have a society that is half wiccans and half Nordic Asatru Thor worshippers, what is the
goal of your policy in education and so on? Is it to constantly insult and humiliate the two
groups that are the biggest groups in your society?
And what about parents? If you have compulsory public education, then the views of the
parents ought to be respected by educators, right? Now again, this is not anticlerical France
where the public school is a way to de-program Catholic school children and turn them into
French Jacobin Republican citizens. I'm very supportive of mandatory viewpoint diversity in
K-12 and higher education, and also in the media because let's face it, the mass media are a
de facto public utility. It's how people communicate, it's what shapes perceptions. And
to say that it's a purely private thing, so if you don't like it, go found your own radio
network or your own TV network or your own social media platform . . . I don't think that's
realistic.
AS : You note that in the past, Catholics played a role out of proportion to their
numbers when it came to policing the culture. What sort of minority group, if any, do you think
would fill that role today? Is there a particular subgroup that's well-positioned to revive
these religious or cultural bodies?
ML : There is a kind of a revival of Catholic social thought on the right wing of the
Republican Party, with people like Marco Rubio saying good things about unions. You see
flickers there of this older Catholic influence, both in working-class economic areas but also
in the culture. Like Protestants, Catholics are declining as a percentage of the population.
Southern evangelicals, because of their dispensationalist ideology -- thinking the end of the
world is near -- did not for obvious reasons put a whole lot of effort into thinking about the
details of public policy.
We'll see what happens with American Muslims. What you saw with Catholic immigrants and
Jewish immigrants was that even as they became less ethnic diasporas, they remained religious
believers. There were new Jewish-American and Catholic-American establishments. I think we may
see that with both Sunni and Shi'a Muslims. And to the extent that they don't accept the idea
that we're just going to go along with whatever the Ivy League schools say, to the extent they
reject the woke secular liberal attitude, they may play a role.
AS : You also have a very interesting passage where you say that terms like
transphobia, homophobia, and Islamophobia medicalize politics, and treat different viewpoints
as evidence of psychological disorder. Why has this become one of the go-to methods for
invalidating dissent in the United States?
ML : Well, it has very deep roots, nearly a century old. If you go back to the 1920s
and 30s, many of the intellectuals in the Western world were just completely entranced with
Freudianism, and with other kinds of modern psychology. They thought that this was a science
and it explained human behavior. And so the whole project of redefining morality in terms of
psychology and therapy goes back to Freudianism, and then you get these increasingly dumbed
down versions of it where one moral dispute after another -- over gay rights, over trans
rights, over immigration -- gets medicalized so that instead of this being a dispute based on
thousand-year-old religious texts, the people who hold a certain view are simply emotionally
disturbed. And the cure for that is therapy.
You see this with diversity training. The premise is that if you don't agree with whatever
the accepted positions are, then you need to be reprogrammed. To become a productive, normal
person, you need therapy. And I think this is just very sinister and totalitarian. Obviously
there are emotionally disturbed people who hate homosexuals, and there are deranged individuals
with a completely insane hatred of people of another race. But as I say in the book, an
Orthodox Jewish rabbi who disapproves of homosexuality, but also of abortion and divorce and
adultery, is just following the teachings of Judaism, right? The rabbi is a perfectly normal,
well-adjusted person. That's just the theology. If you want to fight the theology, denounce the
theology.
But when you have the elites in charge of education and the media essentially adopting as
their working hypothesis that anyone who disagrees with them needs therapy -- this is very
sinister.
AS : It seems like this medicalization of politics has coincided with the rise of
outlets like Vox, which you criticize more than once in The New Class War . Is that just
an accident, or have both trends been driven by the same technocratic impulse?
ML : Yes, Vox very much represents what I call technocratic progressivism -- the idea
that there is one "correct" answer which is also the moral answer. And so if anyone disagrees
with the Vox policy, either they're ignorant or emotionally disturbed. It's very
patronizing.
Having said that, the right has its own version of this, where anyone who disagrees with the
right's policies is a traitor or an instrument of Satan or morally evil or stupid. So you find
it on both sides.
But the medicalization tends to be associated with the overclass center-left, not the
radical left. The Marxists don't do this because they believe in class conflict. I think their
theory of class and class conflict is wrong, but they're actually closer to reality than the
technocratic progressives who think that if everyone were sane and smart, there would never be
any conflicts at all.
AS : You've talked about technocratic progressives, and alluded to what might be
called technocratic libertarians. Is there such a thing as technocratic populism, which
genuinely responds to populist complaints through market-based, technical solutions? Or is
technocratic populism a contradiction in terms?
ML : I think it's a contradiction in terms, because if you believe as I do that the
root of populism is a power deficit, then it's not a matter of getting the right policies. You
actually have to redistribute power, and redistributing power to working class people means
they have the power to be wrong and support dumb things. And their representatives have the
power to make bad decisions.
So I don't think you can come up with a kinder and gentler version of technocratic
progressivism where you just do better polling or you're just more benevolent and more
sensitive to working-class people. You have to talk to them. I spent two decades in the NGO
world. Apart from receptionists and janitors, you never encounter working-class people. I spent
two decades in the NGO world. Apart from receptionists and janitors, you never encounter
working-class people. The idea that you would actually go out there and ask them what their
problems are, that almost never happens.
To be clear, there are some good things that come out of the technocratic approach. You
don't expect working-class people to tell you statistically what the best health insurance
option is. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about basic preferences. The politicians do
go out and supposedly hear from people at the diner when they're trying to get elected. But the
experts in a think tank or university who are coming up with the plans that the politicians
then sell to the people at the diner -- those experts don't have much contact with the working
class.
Fifty years ago in this country it worked differently. The parties were federations of state
and local parties, so word could go forth from Washington to persuade people that yes, this is
the way to do it. And often that worked because the people involved in the local Democratic or
Republican machine trusted the county precinct chairman. But the people in DC also heard from
the grassroots. County people would talk to the state people, state people would send the
message that things are going on out here. Now that the parties are just shells bought by
billionaires, you don't get that.
As for unions -- they did bad things as well as good things, all human organizations have
trade-offs -- but it meant that there was some kind of mechanism for working-class revolts to
get somebody's ear up above. And in the absence of unions you get polls. "There's a poll that
shows the working class believes X, there's a poll that shows the working class believes Y." In
the old days you asked the shop steward or the foreman what the working class thought; you
didn't have a telephone poll. That shows the extent to which all these connecting levels of
organization have vanished, if the only way to find out what people are thinking is by calling
them randomly and asking their opinion.
AS : It's ironic, isn't it, that some of the changes that hollowed out the parties
were initially justified on the grounds that they weren't representative enough. Would it be
fair to say that these kinds of populist reforms backfired and produced democratic
deficits?
ML : Yeah, I think that's right. Now, sure, there were corrupt smoke-filled-room
politicians. There were sleazy union officials who were embezzling from the union, there was
sexual harassment among religious figures. These are human institutions.
But in ancient Rome, there were the tribunes, whose role was to represent the ordinary
people against the senatorial class. And the moment it was reduced to one tribune -- who
happened to be Caesar -- that was the end of that system. So you have to have lots of little
petty tribunes, lots of petty power brokers, whom the metropolitan liberals never liked. The
elite conservatives never liked them. Everybody looked down their noses at them, and at the
church ladies, and at the corrupt local union boss, but they're all gone now. They're all
extinct, just like the dinosaurs. So there's this huge void in between. Nothing's perfect, but
I think we do have to rebuild this group of intermediate brokers so that you don't simply have
a political system that consists of donors, advertising experts, and policy wonks who live in
New York and Washington and maybe San Francisco.
AS : Two proposals that have been voiced by those policy wonks in recent years are
universal basic income and trust-busting. In the book you reject both of these proposals.
Why?
ML : Well, universal basic income has always been rejected by pro-labor people and by
social democrats on the theory that if the working class has power through collective
bargaining and other means to force employers to pay a living wage, then you don't need a
universal basic income. If you work 40 hours a week -- and there's dignity to work -- then it's
profoundly humiliating to say that a few rich CEOs are the only productive people in society,
and everyone else is some kind of parasite. But to bribe them into silence, we'll just pay them
off -- this is utterly abhorrent to the idea of the dignity of labor. It's abhorrent to the
idea of a democratic Republic. Instead, you have an aristocracy passing out charity to
people.
So that's the moral and political reason for rejecting it. The practical reason is, does
anyone think that these billionaires who are hiding all of their income in the Cayman Islands
are going to consent to be taxed to give everyone $12,000 a year? I don't believe that for a
moment. Right now you can't even raise taxes on people making $100,000 or $200,000 a year. If
the middle class is defined as anyone making less than $200,000 a year, we're not going to
raise taxes on them. So where's this money coming from for the UBI?
And I've already touched briefly on the fact that trust-busting is anachronistic. What's
particularly absurd is they're trying to argue that inequality has gone up, not for the real
reason, which is that unions have been crushed and labor markets have been flooded by low-wage
immigrants, but because of the monopsony power of big corporations. Okay. So let's say you
break Facebook into five giant firms. Do we really believe that the janitor is going to have
five times the bargaining power in these baby Facebooks? That's ridiculous. It's not going to
happen.
AS : Five times zero is still zero.
ML : Yeah. But what you see with the Democrats is they're rapidly being taken over by
formerly Republican libertarians and moderates. So as the Bush Republicans and a lot of
libertarians, even the Koch brothers, are distancing themselves from the Republican Party, are
moving away from the GOP because it's becoming more blue-collar -- well, when Bush country club
Republicans decide, "Oh, I hate Donald Trump, I'm going to switch to the Democrats," they don't
necessarily change their views about taxes or immigration or unions.
I'll give you an example I use in the book. The overwhelming majority of congressional
districts in the 2016 elections that went for Clinton are among the wealthiest districts in the
United States. And Trump got among the poorest districts in the United States, so the idea that
the Republicans are the country club managerial capitalist party and the Democrats are the
AFL-CIO steelworkers is like 20, 30 years out of date. It's all in flux.
AS : Many of the power-sharing proposals you favor work by creating veto points that
let workers say no and force a compromise. Do you worry that this might make us less
competitive in the international arena? China doesn't have many democratic constraints on the
market, after all, because it's not a democracy. Is it possible to create veto points without
sacrificing efficiency, and with it our competitive edge?
ML : Germany has had strong unions and co-determination, and its manufacturing
industries are in many ways more advanced and successful than in the United States, where
companies just want to crush unions and go for the cheapest possible labor. Japan is very
paternalistic, but they have good labor relations as part of this kind of welfare capitalist
system. So if you look at export competitiveness, the anti-labor countries like the U.S. and
the UK don't do that well compared to the ones that have some kind of harmonization among their
workforces and employers in manufacturing.
What dictatorships like China can do is mainly through credit, not cheap labor. They can
dump products below cost on the rest of the world. And the classic dumping strategy, whether
it's from a firm or a nation, is that you deliberately sell below cost long enough to drive
your rivals out of business. And then at that point you have a monopoly in the market, which
means you can jack up the price to recoup the losses you incurred during the dumping phase. So
if you have government-owned enterprises, or nominally private enterprises that in practice
have an unlimited credit line from the government or from banks the government pressures,
there's no way any private enterprise can compete with a state-backed corporation.
So if you believe in industrial capitalism as I do -- I think it's the most dynamic system
for increasing wealth and innovation in history -- then you have to block entry into your
market by state-capitalists, otherwise they will wipe out your firms. This should not even be
debated.
AS : In closing, I want to ask a couple big-picture questions. Patrick Deneen, the
author of Why Liberalism
Failed , recently tweeted that The New Class War is "THE essential book of the
decade." Do you agree that liberalism has failed? And if not, why do you think that a lot of
post-liberals have been raving about your book?
ML : Well I think there's agreement among people with very different views of history
that what we call "liberalism" now -- which I would call libertarianism or neoliberalism -- has
moved toward hyper-individualism in the culture and deregulation of the economy, and that this
is a bad thing. It's bad for community. It's bad for the nation-state. It's bad in the long run
for the capitalist economy because it undermines its foundations.
Where you get debate is on the question of when this started. To my mind, the neoliberal era
started in the '70s and really got underway after the Cold War. For some of the critics of
liberalism, like Deneen, it starts with the Protestant Reformation or with the Enlightenment.
That's an interesting debate to have, but it's a philosophical debate. And I think that
whatever your theory of the case, you can agree that the neoliberal moment is hopefully over,
and that it's time to create a new system, which I for one hope will incorporate the good
things about neoliberalism: emancipation of sexual minorities, a lot of the gains in civil
rights and civil liberties. So you want the pendulum to swing back, but not necessarily all the
way to where it was before neoliberalism. You just correct the excesses in the next stage of
history.
AS : You don't seem to have much faith in either political party right now. Do you
think the power-sharing you envision can plausibly arise without any help from established
politicians, or are things going to get a lot worse before they get better?
ML : In the book, I argue that ruling elites generally share power only when they're
forced to. And they are forced to either by fear of insurrection from below or by a fear of
competition with other countries. I argue that ruling elites generally share power only when
they're forced to. And they are forced to either by fear of insurrection from below or by a
fear of competition with other countries. In most cases it's very difficult for weak,
disorganized working-class people, or in the old days peasants, to overthrow the regime. So the
elite doesn't have a whole lot to worry about from below. If you look at the creation of the
mid-century class compromise I document in The New Class War , it was done largely
during World War II in the United States and in Britain and in Germany. The left doesn't like
to admit this. They want to pretend it was just a spontaneous upwelling from below. But in fact
union membership shot up radically during World War II, because the Roosevelt Administration
ordered firms to switch to war production, to make a deal with unions in the interest of
defeating the Axis powers.
So at this point, I'm actually very pessimistic. I think that absent some kind of sustained
international rivalry, where a section of the managerial elite comes to understand that
constant labor and cultural warfare undermines us in international competition, so that they
will have to broker a truce to save themselves -- I think absent that, you get a situation like
a lot of South American countries. Brazil and Mexico, Central America, arguably they suffer
because they never had a major war, and thus never had any incentive to extend power to
ordinary people. So they're very oligarchical to this day.
AS : Do you think competition with China could potentially catalyze a class
truce?
ML : It could, but I'm a realist in my foreign policy views. So I tend to see
international politics as a series of either low-level or very intense competitions among
different great powers. So if it's China now, it may be a rising India 50 years from now, and
it may be somebody else in a hundred years. I think it just makes sense as a matter of prudence
for a nation-state that's also a great power, like the United States, to have a kind of
permanent low-level mobilization, which we didn't do after the Cold War.
I think future historians will be puzzled by the idea that the bipartisan establishment had
that there would be no more great power conflicts -- that we could move much of our
manufacturing and R&D to China, our most likely competitor, and have nothing to worry
about. Sure, it lowers consumer prices. But if you think that today's trading partner may be
tomorrow's military rival, it doesn't mean you're not going to engage in trade and immigration,
but it does mean you're going to have some limits on those things for national security
reasons. And again, for national security reasons you do not want class conflicts, racial
rivalries, religious disputes to spiral out of control. It undermines the strength and harmony
of your country in a dangerous world.
AS : Last question: Your theory of the case is very much a systemic one. It's a story
about structures and institutions and systems, how they've changed and how they've changed for
the worse. What, if anything, can individuals do to promote the kind of systemic change you
want to see in the United States?
ML : Well, I think the first thing they can do is get off Twitter, and stop following
national news obsessively, which is largely something the educated upper-middle class does.
Working-class people are working, they don't have time, but if you're just re-tweeting angry
memes about national politics, that's not politics. I don't know what it is. It's a kind of
entertainment or something.
So start with your neighborhood, start with your city. It's not going to be enough --
obviously you have to have the top-down element too -- but real politics is getting the
dangerous intersection fixed. It's taking part in a group. If the only thing you do is you vote
and then retweet cartoons about the other party, you're not really engaged in politics,
right?
So you have to be part of some kind of group. It can be a community group, it can be a
religious group, it can be a party group. You've got local Democrats, local Republicans. But I
think the best way to break the tendency toward increasing nationalization of everything starts
with the individual. It starts locally. When I teach I'm kind of amused, if not shocked, by the
tendency of young people to think that if there's any problem, Washington should fix it. If you
need a bike path in your city, then Congress should allocate money for the bike path. Well,
okay, but why don't you try raising money door-to-door for the bike path? And if that doesn't
work, why not go to the city council? And if that doesn't work, there's the state legislature.
We really are drifting toward this system where it's assumed that if you elect the right
President, then all problems, state and Federal and local, social and economic, will be solved
because the President has the right policies.
The Democratic primary has just seemed unreal to me for this very reason because now each
candidate has his or her own party platform. They're basically one-person parties, and they're
expected to have a platform for every single thing. Up until recently, the President was just
the head of the party in Congress, and the party had different wings. There were the farmers
and labor and African-Americans, there were consumer groups. The party platform reflected the
relative power of those groups, and the President vowed to help carry out the party
platform.
I think we're moving toward a nationalized plebiscitary presidential system, where the
president is freely elected, but it's a kind of elective dictatorship: an all-powerful
Caesarist or Bonapartist presidency will just solve all of our problems, and then if anything
goes wrong in the country it's the President's fault, even though the President didn't have all
that much power in reality. Real politics starts locally and consists of having groups of
people working together on common projects beginning at home. Published on: January 29, 2020
Michael Lind is co-founder of New America and the author of The New Class War:
Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite . Aaron Sibarium is assistant editor at
The American Interest .
The Deep State Democrats aren't ready to go full communist yet, so they have, once again,
rejected Jewish communist Bernie Sanders, only to replace him with an extreme leftist,
globalist, gun-grabbing, billionaire, warmonger, *** from NYC.
This is the Democrats' Hillary Clinton candidate of 2020, a guy with very similar
positions to Hillary Clinton, plus the billionaire status.
Political positions of Michael Bloomberg
Bloomberg has been a registered Democrat for most of
his life. He is regarded as socially liberal
or progressive on
multiple issues, supporting abortion rights, same-sex marriage, strict gun control
measures, environmentalism and a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. On
economics and foreign policy issues, Bloomberg has tended towards a moderate stance. He
opposed a timeline for withdrawal from the Iraq War , and criticized those who favored
one. Economically, he supports government involvement in issues such as public welfare
while being strongly in favor of free trade and being pro-business, describing himself as a
fiscal
conservative because he balanced the New York City's budget. [75]
He is concerned about climate change and has touted his
mayoral efforts to reduce greenhouse gases . [76]
Bloomberg has been criticized for not allowing many emergency officials who responded to
the September 11, 2001, attacks to attend the tenth anniversary observation of that day.
[77] He was also
at odds with many around the U.S. for not inviting any clergy to the ceremony marking the
anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. [78]
Social issues
Bloomberg supports abortion rights, stating, "Reproductive choice is a fundamental human
right and we can never take it for granted. On this issue, you're either with us or against
us." He has criticized " pro-choice " politicians who support "
pro-life " candidates.
[79]
Bloomberg supports governmental funding for embryonic stem cell research,
calling the Republican position on the issue "insanity".
[80] He supports
same-sex
marriage with the rationale that "government shouldn't tell you whom to marry."
[81]
Bloomberg supports the strict drug laws of New York City. He has stated that he smoked
marijuana in
the past, and was quoted in a 2001 interview as saying "You bet I did. I enjoyed it."... In
December 2019, Bloomberg came out in favor of marijuana decriminalization and allowing
states to legalize it without federal intervention. [86] ...
... In regard to the global War on Terrorism including Iraq he
said, "It's not only to protect Americans. It's America's responsibility to protect people
around the world who want to be free."...
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
