Bernie. In a heartbeat!
Here is something I am posting to bernie2016. (Note to LJ Friends: I don't actually vote, since I am not a citizen. Instead, I work hard on this sort of stuff, and have also been very "politically" active in the past)..
Thom Hartmann has hosted Bernie on his show every week, basking in his (supposed) conviction to democratic socialism. But, like virtually every other liberal talk show host, he grouses that Bernie, "probably doesn't have a chance to win the Primary." So, I ask, what is this game being played - this fantasy of words and supposed academic sophistication - when all the while it is assumed that Bernie will actually lose?! Why are they spending months - years - bandying about these false promises and hopes about real democracy, when they are praeter-consciously devoted to supporting Hillary, when push comes to shove, which they "know" it will?! Why are they wasting their own time, and the time of millions of listeners?
Why are listeners sitting aside and allowing themselves to be told, by the pundit preachers, that, "well, yeah, but despite everything I just said, I know that the real reality - the real-world realpolitik - is that we have to accept the political BS once again...
"We have to accept the mileau of voting for the, 'worst of two evils.' We have to accept the power of Big Money. We have to accept negative campaign advertisers. We have to accept deception and manipulation and lies. We have to accept the same old political crap. Why? Because she's in OUR party. Because she's part of the Bill Clinton machine, (sometimes indistinguishable from the CIA-Bush Dynasty), which gave us bank, Wall Street, bankruptcy, fair trade and corporate media DEREGULATION. Because she's a woman!. Because she looked presidential on TV (finally)!"
So many default partisans tout apparent wisdom when they are more deeply swayed by images and soundbites, bought and paid for by a fair amount of corruption. They ultimately declare that, "this is the reality of politics."
It was astonishing, the fanaticism by which Norman Goldman attacked his beloved Sanders - from DAY ONE - shouting that Sanders should never have mentioned that he is a democratic socialist. ( I guess Goldman expected Bernie to hide this reality). Such mean naivete, eating our own, in comparison to Republicans, who stand together on a sinking ship. Yet another so-called Progressive, basing his insight on 1990's spin-room hocus-pocus
Well, so many real people want to look at real policy decisions, and approaches, and people, rather than the labels, which have gotten us NOWHERE in the past. They are tired of it! They want candidates who do not twist and hide and substitute and misrepresent and spin and lie, acting like they are better than others, and so deserve secret deals and sex from lobbyists. So many people no longer believe that the rich, and their shills and puppets, are somehow more blessed or superior than anyone else, because they realise that this country is a very skewed playing field to begin with! So, it is refreshing to them to hear a candidate who acts REAL, and has consistently represented people like themselves! The poor and the future-poor.
Labels have mainly been moving targets and fudges and shell-games in the past. So what if Bernie Sanders is a, "democratic socialist?" A "democratic socialist" is not the same thing as a "socialist!" And a "socialist" is not the same thing as as a "communist." And a "communist" is not the same thing as a Stalinist/ China/ Hitler STATIST - (which is basically a tyrant)!
Ironically, at the same time pundits are denouncing Bernie's "socialist COMmunism," our very country has been walking dead into a state of NSA, Patriot Act, NDAA, CISpA, TPP, etc. tyranny! Bernie is a GNAT compared to all that - (recalling to me the insecure Greek state's persecution of Socrates, accused of a kind of intellectual pedophilia, a branding used today against whistleblowers, etc.)
Even if Bernie were a "communist," which he is not, can anyone seriously say that that belief - like Kennedy's Catholicism - could have any significant destructive impact on fundamental American capitalism? How can even a democratic socialist bring about "communistic tyranny", when there is no such thing as democratic socialism here in the first place, (sadly)? The guy has had to caucus with the Democrats! Sadly. It's a bogus, boogie-man scare tactic. And most people see that. Some find it viscerally disgusting. How sad that Norman Goldman fell for it.
Let the man have his ideals. In a country swung so extremely towards corporatism, someone from the so-called, "far-left," (pffft), can only help!
In the same breath that many pundits, and talking radioheads, decry the domineering political system, they damn the very progressive and independent candidates which they theoretically have supported, in some fantasy dream world. I can only hope that their audiences do not sheepishly swallow this tacit arrogance, like sheep accepting wanton authority, and think for themselves, as they feel they must. Vote for what you believe in! And drop all the punditry calculating nonsense.
Today, on Thom Hartmann, it was pretty much accepted that the reason why, "Hillary will win the primary," is because of the Democratic, "super-delegates." Everyone knows - and I have seen it - that the super-delegates are, (early on), bought away by big, status-quo, corporate Democratic party money and influence, to quash any contending challengers. The superficial rationale is that this is a way of keeping out, "extremists," who could never win the general election. That is to say that NeoLiberals and Blue Dogs need to maintain their reign, in collusion with the NeoCons and RINO's, (which, as some policies have suggested, has arguably amounted to treason). It is a way of defending the corporately-chosen candidates. It is also a way of perpetuating war.
These candidates, although they may throw bones of gay rights, pot legalisation, pro-choice, anti-gun, etc., are indistinguishable from corporately-chosen GOPpers, economically, and have too often been to the detriment, not only of the poor and middle classes, but to the country itself. Why? Because big money comes from overseas, or from overseas-invested mega-corps and banks.
So, Thom said that, should Bernie lose the primary, (which he is supposed to do according to Party religion), then everyone needs to come together and vote for Hillary in the general, even if Thom's friend, Bernie, were to run as a write-in. Is anybody as tired of this rhetoric as I am? It is strangling us all. Listen, I would rather vote for a Trump-Paul ticket, because of their economic issues, than vote for Hillary Clinton. (I would rather vote for Jesse Ventura, if he got in. Or Elizabeth Warren. Or JFK Jr.). Why must I be painted as anti-Party, anti-woman, anti-Progressive, and so forth, just because I have happened to have studied this stuff, and make a free choice?
Fortunately, there remains a better candidate in the field, and his name is Bernie Sanders. What kind of fop would I be if I were to vote for Hillary because Thom Hartman told me to, with my fingers crossed and my pants wet - again?
Thom Hartman said that the whole super-delegate arrangement was a, "political reality," so, sorry, we have to accept it.
Well. How about this? Bernie Sanders is a political reality. Alternatives are a political reality. The will of the poor has power. The pain of the middle class is real. Super-delegates are a rigging of the system, from a more ignorant era, and can be changed - in part by the influence of someone like Sanders. Even if he does run as a write-in, Bernie Sanders remains a political reality. Being a write-in is a political reality. Dissent is a political reality. I am done with big money pushing voters around. I am done with jumping through hoops and pretzel logic, just to hold up a top-heavy, corrupt system, deemed too big to fail.
Bernie has to go all the way, in the spirit of Socrates. Let's not be mummed and mummified by the disingenuous justifications, that, "Bernie has provided a valuable service! Hillary has picked up some of his messages!" Well, if that is so, then how much greater of an influence will he be, should he go all the way? And, the movement may become so powerful that he just might win - if not in 2015, then in 2019. Vote for what you believe in. Bernie all the way!
But these enabling denials, from the Status-Quo pundicrats, are not even valid when candidates who take up progressive or independent messages simply lie, and then welch on their promises once in office, in the service of big money, and the so-called authority of the generals of the corporate-military-invasion-of-privacy complex. It's the same old kiss-up-to-power song and dance, which a growing multitude of people are tired of getting from politicians, no matter how many bones they throw.
The underlying message, of the pseudo-progressives? "Oh, no, no, no! We have to put our corporatist in, or else their corporatist will get in! This is the easilly-manipulated politics of delusional despair. "Believe me! Believe me!" Lest I say, it is a politics of narcissism. Infantilism. When is this tide of Baby-Boomer selfishness ever going to subside?
And, let's turn this around. Instead of people who vote against Hillary being, "anti-woman," and so forth, why don't we look at the bigotry and igonrance of the people supporting her. First of all, for them to make such an insinuation is itself bigotry. Um, maybe they themselves want Hillary in because they don't like Jews! Maybe they like Hillary because she is White! Maybe they hate men! Maybe they are greedy, invested corporatists, who want to eat the poor! See how pointless is this wastage of identity politics? Yet it is just as valid as the insanity of blaming people who vote for Clinton, assuming they are unthinking, and so bigoted in some way. Or else: naive and unrealistic.
No. It is this BS which is foolish. It is disingenuous, disrespectful and divisive.
Who has consistently supported the poor, blacks, and women, over the years? Bernie Sanders. Who has consistently fought for environmental justice, alternative energy, and has addressed global warming? Who has consistently supported unions, and the, "common man," even where that common man felt that hunting is his choice? Who has supported choice? And transparency? And Wall Street? And corporate doners? Who has consistently fought against inequality, the loss of jobs overseas and unfair trade agreements? Bernie Sanders! And somehow people who choose him over Clinton are irrational or bigotted? That's a dangerous path to encourage.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton supported NAFTA during her husband's presidency. Then, she said she was opposed to such trade "agreements," (illegal treaties), after that presidency. But, when she was Secretary of State, she advocated such agreements, such as the TPP, which was already being planned. Then, out of office, Hillary Clinton demurred - and now, running for office, she pretends to oppose the TPP, without giving any real signs that she rejects it. The Clintons have pandered to gain power. And they have done worse. She is never going to be called out on the TPP, which she will support, because big money corporatism is rampant in WDC. And people are tired of it.
Clinton has pretended to take on the messages of Bernie Sanders, but what is that worth? How will she act when in office? Like every other money puppet. Look at how Obama has turned around on important issues, De FACTO, including perpetual war, transparency, etc., surrounding himself with banksters and corporate crooks, like Goldman Sachs. Don't think that Hillary will be any different.... because she is female?! Carly Fiorina is female and look at her H.P. past.
Take a look at the Keystone Pipeline issue. What is really behind Hillary Clinton's only-recent declaration that she vehemently opposes it? "I just didn't say anything... but Obama was taking toooo LONG!" (pffft).
It was political expediency. Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, knew that the Keystone Pipeline had become an insignificant likelihood. In my estimation, (as stated on the Thom Hartman show, as well), they both knew that Trudeau would win in Canada, and would work against the pipeline. They also knew that shale and fracking had become loser investments, and that the price of oil was too low to carry the Pipeline's value for construction. (There was one other factor, regarding the oil industry, which I cannot recall at the moment, due to a slight migraine).
So, Clinton's cautious M.O. allowed her to now exploit what was already in the cards. There was no longer a slurry of corporate money to be made from the pipeline, which would also have hurt USA refiners. Now, I ask you, is that how Bernie Sanders makes decisions?
[And, it doesn't help to simply dismiss the troubles of Benghazi, with the email scandal. This is some real serious stuff, even though it has been dutifully politicised by the Republicans. The bigger picture is, most probably, that there was yet another corrupt gun-running operation going on, which was financed by the Saudis, which was patently illegal, not to mention immoral. Top members of each party, with the CIA and others, had their hands in this. That is why the publicised scandal(s) is not really amounting to anything more substantive: Because there has been deeper, higher corruption involved. THAT's what has to be addressed. But it never will be, so long as we take the bait of left-right partisan bickering].
Of course, Clinton, and others, have been influenced by Bernie's popular, progressive stances. But that's not THE story, by a long-shot!
And: Why vote for a reactor when you could have a generator, (so to speak)? Are we again going to vote for fluffs in the corporate wind, who climb the power ladder based on catering to whatever money interest is of the moment, or are we going to chuck this rot and actually vote for someone who leads? The country is in trouble - we need to break the toxic BS addiction - and replace it with the real BS - Bernie Sanders, (lol). Very good for gardens. So much richer than rich. Haaaaa... I love the smell of it!
Supposedly, it was a political reality that the word, "Socialist," would sink Bernie. Instead, at the same time Norman Goldman was spouting this, Bernie was drawing crowds up to 10,000 - early in the campaign. Supposedly, it was a political reality that no candidate could survive, without massive amounts of money from corporate doners. Even as Hartmann explained this, "unfortunate fact," Bernie was doing just fine - with smaller doners, and gaining in the polls. And, look at all the so-called "political realities" that Donald Trump has been bashing, on the Republican side. Here is the populist upwelling many of us have been hoping for - hopefully progressive - so we'd better not throw it away. (And, let's be sure that Fascism doesn't come in and try to supplant it).
It is sad that so many hardworking men and women still latch onto wealthy, stealthy, uber-candidates and celebrities, thinking that these are somehow more spiritually endowed and enlightened, promising riches that always seem to get caught like a plug in the sucking drain of an intractable flood. Yet, they vote them in, over and over again, believing that if they just keep working hard, they too can achieve the success and glory that the stars promise. It is hard to criticise the sincerity of the working class, so trusting in its emulation and respect - in its attempted empathy. But, they are too often working against their own best interests, and being dragged down by the harm that the rich forever do, without blame or accountability.
And, we know that, more and more, those who live the American dream are no longer children of the Protestant ethic, and such. Instead, they are insulated juveniles who throw around cheap money available only to them. And, if their investments don't pan out, then they are bailed out. Because their power, their majesty, is too big too fail. What comes of a class of such detached, selfish false idols, but harm?
It is sad to see the ill and elderly, pushing on despite outrageous misfortune, seeking only to tread water, when they are only kicked deeper down the drain, by assaults so unnecessary and so unproductive for the common nation. It is really so sad. Meanwhile, we are ruled by shills of the stratospheric elites, behind closed doors, behind diversions and lies, behind committees and super-committees and super-delegates and super-PACS and super theories of Trickle-Down and TPP Free-Trade. We are ruled by the deformed, corrupt UBERMEN from on high.
In all the time Obama has supposedly been reading and commiserating with, letters from the disadvantaged, the chained CPI has been advanced on Social Security, economic stats have been fudged to misrepresent reality, the military and debt have grown out of control, Social Security has received few increases, etc. CISpA has passed. The NDAA will be passed again. The wars continue in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, etc.
In a closed super-committee of FIVE, including Obama, a budget was worked out wherein Medicare and Disability benefits were cut. It is highly unlikely that Obama voted against this, especially given the tone of his rhetoric, following the uber-committee vote. Do you think that Hillary will be much different? Look at who her mega-doners are. Goldman-Sachs. George Soros. Monsanto. Big Pharma. (Look it up - and look up the Clinton Foundation doners).
And, as far as her being predestined - preordained - to winning the Primary? Not so fast! And, as far as her being more able to win the general election, over Bernie? HIGHLY DEBATABLE. Who has consistently won, with the help of conservatives, even with the monicker of, "socialist?" You know who. And - if Hillary were to win either of these, it would only be a loss for her, and a set-back for our country. Because, it won't be Hillary Clinton who is winning. It will be big money. More of the same - but worse.
Sorry, anyone has the right to vote against Hillary, for as long as they want. No one needs to be drawn into the politics of dread, voting out of fear. How long before we wake up? - because all of this fear has been what has been fueling the wars, and fueling the rich, and making us poor. It is so unnecessary, except to the continuance of a handful of bullying parasites.
You have a right to vote for Bernie Sanders.
~~~
Here are some of my relevant communities: o_c_c_u_p_y, madison_fights, w_a_r_m_i_n_g*, liberal_plus, economic_sanity, tax_the_rich, move_to_amend. I also recommend the_recession.
*(Please note that I have a major post coming up for w_a_r_m_i_n_g, which will hopefully go up by tomorrow).
Here are my journal tags for posts relevant to:
Bernie Sanders
o_c_c_u_p_y
madison_fights
w_a_r_m_i_n_g
liberal_plus
economic_sanity
Hillary Clinton
Thom Hartmann
Norman Goldman
Donald Trump
Jesse Ventura
Left-Right Alliance
Politics 2016 and Elections 2016
(There will be overlap).
Thanks!
Thom Hartmann has hosted Bernie on his show every week, basking in his (supposed) conviction to democratic socialism. But, like virtually every other liberal talk show host, he grouses that Bernie, "probably doesn't have a chance to win the Primary." So, I ask, what is this game being played - this fantasy of words and supposed academic sophistication - when all the while it is assumed that Bernie will actually lose?! Why are they spending months - years - bandying about these false promises and hopes about real democracy, when they are praeter-consciously devoted to supporting Hillary, when push comes to shove, which they "know" it will?! Why are they wasting their own time, and the time of millions of listeners?
Why are listeners sitting aside and allowing themselves to be told, by the pundit preachers, that, "well, yeah, but despite everything I just said, I know that the real reality - the real-world realpolitik - is that we have to accept the political BS once again...
"We have to accept the mileau of voting for the, 'worst of two evils.' We have to accept the power of Big Money. We have to accept negative campaign advertisers. We have to accept deception and manipulation and lies. We have to accept the same old political crap. Why? Because she's in OUR party. Because she's part of the Bill Clinton machine, (sometimes indistinguishable from the CIA-Bush Dynasty), which gave us bank, Wall Street, bankruptcy, fair trade and corporate media DEREGULATION. Because she's a woman!. Because she looked presidential on TV (finally)!"
So many default partisans tout apparent wisdom when they are more deeply swayed by images and soundbites, bought and paid for by a fair amount of corruption. They ultimately declare that, "this is the reality of politics."
It was astonishing, the fanaticism by which Norman Goldman attacked his beloved Sanders - from DAY ONE - shouting that Sanders should never have mentioned that he is a democratic socialist. ( I guess Goldman expected Bernie to hide this reality). Such mean naivete, eating our own, in comparison to Republicans, who stand together on a sinking ship. Yet another so-called Progressive, basing his insight on 1990's spin-room hocus-pocus
Well, so many real people want to look at real policy decisions, and approaches, and people, rather than the labels, which have gotten us NOWHERE in the past. They are tired of it! They want candidates who do not twist and hide and substitute and misrepresent and spin and lie, acting like they are better than others, and so deserve secret deals and sex from lobbyists. So many people no longer believe that the rich, and their shills and puppets, are somehow more blessed or superior than anyone else, because they realise that this country is a very skewed playing field to begin with! So, it is refreshing to them to hear a candidate who acts REAL, and has consistently represented people like themselves! The poor and the future-poor.
Labels have mainly been moving targets and fudges and shell-games in the past. So what if Bernie Sanders is a, "democratic socialist?" A "democratic socialist" is not the same thing as a "socialist!" And a "socialist" is not the same thing as as a "communist." And a "communist" is not the same thing as a Stalinist/ China/ Hitler STATIST - (which is basically a tyrant)!
Ironically, at the same time pundits are denouncing Bernie's "socialist COMmunism," our very country has been walking dead into a state of NSA, Patriot Act, NDAA, CISpA, TPP, etc. tyranny! Bernie is a GNAT compared to all that - (recalling to me the insecure Greek state's persecution of Socrates, accused of a kind of intellectual pedophilia, a branding used today against whistleblowers, etc.)
Even if Bernie were a "communist," which he is not, can anyone seriously say that that belief - like Kennedy's Catholicism - could have any significant destructive impact on fundamental American capitalism? How can even a democratic socialist bring about "communistic tyranny", when there is no such thing as democratic socialism here in the first place, (sadly)? The guy has had to caucus with the Democrats! Sadly. It's a bogus, boogie-man scare tactic. And most people see that. Some find it viscerally disgusting. How sad that Norman Goldman fell for it.
Let the man have his ideals. In a country swung so extremely towards corporatism, someone from the so-called, "far-left," (pffft), can only help!
In the same breath that many pundits, and talking radioheads, decry the domineering political system, they damn the very progressive and independent candidates which they theoretically have supported, in some fantasy dream world. I can only hope that their audiences do not sheepishly swallow this tacit arrogance, like sheep accepting wanton authority, and think for themselves, as they feel they must. Vote for what you believe in! And drop all the punditry calculating nonsense.
Today, on Thom Hartmann, it was pretty much accepted that the reason why, "Hillary will win the primary," is because of the Democratic, "super-delegates." Everyone knows - and I have seen it - that the super-delegates are, (early on), bought away by big, status-quo, corporate Democratic party money and influence, to quash any contending challengers. The superficial rationale is that this is a way of keeping out, "extremists," who could never win the general election. That is to say that NeoLiberals and Blue Dogs need to maintain their reign, in collusion with the NeoCons and RINO's, (which, as some policies have suggested, has arguably amounted to treason). It is a way of defending the corporately-chosen candidates. It is also a way of perpetuating war.
These candidates, although they may throw bones of gay rights, pot legalisation, pro-choice, anti-gun, etc., are indistinguishable from corporately-chosen GOPpers, economically, and have too often been to the detriment, not only of the poor and middle classes, but to the country itself. Why? Because big money comes from overseas, or from overseas-invested mega-corps and banks.
So, Thom said that, should Bernie lose the primary, (which he is supposed to do according to Party religion), then everyone needs to come together and vote for Hillary in the general, even if Thom's friend, Bernie, were to run as a write-in. Is anybody as tired of this rhetoric as I am? It is strangling us all. Listen, I would rather vote for a Trump-Paul ticket, because of their economic issues, than vote for Hillary Clinton. (I would rather vote for Jesse Ventura, if he got in. Or Elizabeth Warren. Or JFK Jr.). Why must I be painted as anti-Party, anti-woman, anti-Progressive, and so forth, just because I have happened to have studied this stuff, and make a free choice?
Fortunately, there remains a better candidate in the field, and his name is Bernie Sanders. What kind of fop would I be if I were to vote for Hillary because Thom Hartman told me to, with my fingers crossed and my pants wet - again?
Thom Hartman said that the whole super-delegate arrangement was a, "political reality," so, sorry, we have to accept it.
Well. How about this? Bernie Sanders is a political reality. Alternatives are a political reality. The will of the poor has power. The pain of the middle class is real. Super-delegates are a rigging of the system, from a more ignorant era, and can be changed - in part by the influence of someone like Sanders. Even if he does run as a write-in, Bernie Sanders remains a political reality. Being a write-in is a political reality. Dissent is a political reality. I am done with big money pushing voters around. I am done with jumping through hoops and pretzel logic, just to hold up a top-heavy, corrupt system, deemed too big to fail.
Bernie has to go all the way, in the spirit of Socrates. Let's not be mummed and mummified by the disingenuous justifications, that, "Bernie has provided a valuable service! Hillary has picked up some of his messages!" Well, if that is so, then how much greater of an influence will he be, should he go all the way? And, the movement may become so powerful that he just might win - if not in 2015, then in 2019. Vote for what you believe in. Bernie all the way!
But these enabling denials, from the Status-Quo pundicrats, are not even valid when candidates who take up progressive or independent messages simply lie, and then welch on their promises once in office, in the service of big money, and the so-called authority of the generals of the corporate-military-invasion-of-privacy complex. It's the same old kiss-up-to-power song and dance, which a growing multitude of people are tired of getting from politicians, no matter how many bones they throw.
The underlying message, of the pseudo-progressives? "Oh, no, no, no! We have to put our corporatist in, or else their corporatist will get in! This is the easilly-manipulated politics of delusional despair. "Believe me! Believe me!" Lest I say, it is a politics of narcissism. Infantilism. When is this tide of Baby-Boomer selfishness ever going to subside?
And, let's turn this around. Instead of people who vote against Hillary being, "anti-woman," and so forth, why don't we look at the bigotry and igonrance of the people supporting her. First of all, for them to make such an insinuation is itself bigotry. Um, maybe they themselves want Hillary in because they don't like Jews! Maybe they like Hillary because she is White! Maybe they hate men! Maybe they are greedy, invested corporatists, who want to eat the poor! See how pointless is this wastage of identity politics? Yet it is just as valid as the insanity of blaming people who vote for Clinton, assuming they are unthinking, and so bigoted in some way. Or else: naive and unrealistic.
No. It is this BS which is foolish. It is disingenuous, disrespectful and divisive.
Who has consistently supported the poor, blacks, and women, over the years? Bernie Sanders. Who has consistently fought for environmental justice, alternative energy, and has addressed global warming? Who has consistently supported unions, and the, "common man," even where that common man felt that hunting is his choice? Who has supported choice? And transparency? And Wall Street? And corporate doners? Who has consistently fought against inequality, the loss of jobs overseas and unfair trade agreements? Bernie Sanders! And somehow people who choose him over Clinton are irrational or bigotted? That's a dangerous path to encourage.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton supported NAFTA during her husband's presidency. Then, she said she was opposed to such trade "agreements," (illegal treaties), after that presidency. But, when she was Secretary of State, she advocated such agreements, such as the TPP, which was already being planned. Then, out of office, Hillary Clinton demurred - and now, running for office, she pretends to oppose the TPP, without giving any real signs that she rejects it. The Clintons have pandered to gain power. And they have done worse. She is never going to be called out on the TPP, which she will support, because big money corporatism is rampant in WDC. And people are tired of it.
Clinton has pretended to take on the messages of Bernie Sanders, but what is that worth? How will she act when in office? Like every other money puppet. Look at how Obama has turned around on important issues, De FACTO, including perpetual war, transparency, etc., surrounding himself with banksters and corporate crooks, like Goldman Sachs. Don't think that Hillary will be any different.... because she is female?! Carly Fiorina is female and look at her H.P. past.
Take a look at the Keystone Pipeline issue. What is really behind Hillary Clinton's only-recent declaration that she vehemently opposes it? "I just didn't say anything... but Obama was taking toooo LONG!" (pffft).
It was political expediency. Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, knew that the Keystone Pipeline had become an insignificant likelihood. In my estimation, (as stated on the Thom Hartman show, as well), they both knew that Trudeau would win in Canada, and would work against the pipeline. They also knew that shale and fracking had become loser investments, and that the price of oil was too low to carry the Pipeline's value for construction. (There was one other factor, regarding the oil industry, which I cannot recall at the moment, due to a slight migraine).
So, Clinton's cautious M.O. allowed her to now exploit what was already in the cards. There was no longer a slurry of corporate money to be made from the pipeline, which would also have hurt USA refiners. Now, I ask you, is that how Bernie Sanders makes decisions?
[And, it doesn't help to simply dismiss the troubles of Benghazi, with the email scandal. This is some real serious stuff, even though it has been dutifully politicised by the Republicans. The bigger picture is, most probably, that there was yet another corrupt gun-running operation going on, which was financed by the Saudis, which was patently illegal, not to mention immoral. Top members of each party, with the CIA and others, had their hands in this. That is why the publicised scandal(s) is not really amounting to anything more substantive: Because there has been deeper, higher corruption involved. THAT's what has to be addressed. But it never will be, so long as we take the bait of left-right partisan bickering].
Of course, Clinton, and others, have been influenced by Bernie's popular, progressive stances. But that's not THE story, by a long-shot!
And: Why vote for a reactor when you could have a generator, (so to speak)? Are we again going to vote for fluffs in the corporate wind, who climb the power ladder based on catering to whatever money interest is of the moment, or are we going to chuck this rot and actually vote for someone who leads? The country is in trouble - we need to break the toxic BS addiction - and replace it with the real BS - Bernie Sanders, (lol). Very good for gardens. So much richer than rich. Haaaaa... I love the smell of it!
Supposedly, it was a political reality that the word, "Socialist," would sink Bernie. Instead, at the same time Norman Goldman was spouting this, Bernie was drawing crowds up to 10,000 - early in the campaign. Supposedly, it was a political reality that no candidate could survive, without massive amounts of money from corporate doners. Even as Hartmann explained this, "unfortunate fact," Bernie was doing just fine - with smaller doners, and gaining in the polls. And, look at all the so-called "political realities" that Donald Trump has been bashing, on the Republican side. Here is the populist upwelling many of us have been hoping for - hopefully progressive - so we'd better not throw it away. (And, let's be sure that Fascism doesn't come in and try to supplant it).
It is sad that so many hardworking men and women still latch onto wealthy, stealthy, uber-candidates and celebrities, thinking that these are somehow more spiritually endowed and enlightened, promising riches that always seem to get caught like a plug in the sucking drain of an intractable flood. Yet, they vote them in, over and over again, believing that if they just keep working hard, they too can achieve the success and glory that the stars promise. It is hard to criticise the sincerity of the working class, so trusting in its emulation and respect - in its attempted empathy. But, they are too often working against their own best interests, and being dragged down by the harm that the rich forever do, without blame or accountability.
And, we know that, more and more, those who live the American dream are no longer children of the Protestant ethic, and such. Instead, they are insulated juveniles who throw around cheap money available only to them. And, if their investments don't pan out, then they are bailed out. Because their power, their majesty, is too big too fail. What comes of a class of such detached, selfish false idols, but harm?
It is sad to see the ill and elderly, pushing on despite outrageous misfortune, seeking only to tread water, when they are only kicked deeper down the drain, by assaults so unnecessary and so unproductive for the common nation. It is really so sad. Meanwhile, we are ruled by shills of the stratospheric elites, behind closed doors, behind diversions and lies, behind committees and super-committees and super-delegates and super-PACS and super theories of Trickle-Down and TPP Free-Trade. We are ruled by the deformed, corrupt UBERMEN from on high.
In all the time Obama has supposedly been reading and commiserating with, letters from the disadvantaged, the chained CPI has been advanced on Social Security, economic stats have been fudged to misrepresent reality, the military and debt have grown out of control, Social Security has received few increases, etc. CISpA has passed. The NDAA will be passed again. The wars continue in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, etc.
In a closed super-committee of FIVE, including Obama, a budget was worked out wherein Medicare and Disability benefits were cut. It is highly unlikely that Obama voted against this, especially given the tone of his rhetoric, following the uber-committee vote. Do you think that Hillary will be much different? Look at who her mega-doners are. Goldman-Sachs. George Soros. Monsanto. Big Pharma. (Look it up - and look up the Clinton Foundation doners).
And, as far as her being predestined - preordained - to winning the Primary? Not so fast! And, as far as her being more able to win the general election, over Bernie? HIGHLY DEBATABLE. Who has consistently won, with the help of conservatives, even with the monicker of, "socialist?" You know who. And - if Hillary were to win either of these, it would only be a loss for her, and a set-back for our country. Because, it won't be Hillary Clinton who is winning. It will be big money. More of the same - but worse.
Sorry, anyone has the right to vote against Hillary, for as long as they want. No one needs to be drawn into the politics of dread, voting out of fear. How long before we wake up? - because all of this fear has been what has been fueling the wars, and fueling the rich, and making us poor. It is so unnecessary, except to the continuance of a handful of bullying parasites.
You have a right to vote for Bernie Sanders.
~~~
Here are some of my relevant communities: o_c_c_u_p_y, madison_fights, w_a_r_m_i_n_g*, liberal_plus, economic_sanity, tax_the_rich, move_to_amend. I also recommend the_recession.
*(Please note that I have a major post coming up for w_a_r_m_i_n_g, which will hopefully go up by tomorrow).
Here are my journal tags for posts relevant to:
Bernie Sanders
o_c_c_u_p_y
madison_fights
w_a_r_m_i_n_g
liberal_plus
economic_sanity
Hillary Clinton
Thom Hartmann
Norman Goldman
Donald Trump
Jesse Ventura
Left-Right Alliance
Politics 2016 and Elections 2016
(There will be overlap).
Thanks!