Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
February 10, 2016

People Say No To Clinterminator

Here are some interesting results from exit polls in the New Hampshire primaries:

Among voters who cared most about honesty and trustworthiness, 91 percent chose Mr. Sanders and only 5 percent chose Hillary Clinton, according to exit polls. She also performed poorly among voters who wanted a candidate who seemed to care most about people like themselves. And the younger the voters, the more skeptical they were of Mrs. Clinton: She received just 16 percent of the support from people under 29, and 32 percent from those 30 to 44. The only age group she won: voters over 65.
She lost many major demographic groups, performing best among the older and wealthier, and among people who care about experience and electability in November. But these voters were small in number compared with Mr. Sanders’s legions.
Something went wrong between Mrs. Clinton and the women of New Hampshire. Mr. Sanders won 55 percent of their votes compared with Mrs. Clinton’s 44 percent, with married women and especially nonmarried women breaking his way, according to exit polls.

Pretty devastating for Clinton. More:

Mrs. Clinton topped Mr. Sanders by a wide margin among voters who said the next president should generally continue President Obama’s policies. But they accounted for only about four in 10 Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire — far fewer than in Iowa. Instead, just as many voters said the next president should change to more liberal policies — and eight in 10 of these voters backed Mr. Sanders. Almost two-thirds of Democratic voters said they support replacing the current health care system with a single taxpayer-funded plan for all Americans.

The voters recognized that Clinton is a corrupt, lying piece of s***. They see that she would be even more to the right than Obama already is. Only the rich and old like her. Everybody else wants less warmongering than she represents and more socialist policies.

I don't understand why Clinton thought the same policy positions that let her lose against Obama eight years ago would let her win in this cycle. She probably is so full of herself that she believes she deserve the nomination no matter what.

But it seems that her wish to finally become the all-ruling Clinterminator ..

image via Billmon - bigger

.. will never be fulfilled.

Posted by b on February 10, 2016 at 17:44 UTC | Permalink

next page »

Actually,that picture reminds me of the Star Trek Borg,and yes she fits that bill perfectly,if not Bill himself,as she is a member of the Zionist borg.
And she only got the over 65 who made 200,000 or more,which describes elderly Zionists quite well.
Ann Barnard in the NYLTs says;Arab allies are concerned US has become detached from the mission of regime change in Syria,by not supporting the terrorists as they did before.
Nice to see the admission,a lot of idiots have no idea "We are IsUS".

Posted by: dahoit | Feb 10 2016 17:55 utc | 1

I live here in New Hampshire and voted for Bernie last night. My pride in Sanders' big New Hampshire victory is somewhat tempered by the fact that Trump won on the Republican side, but overall I'm pretty proud of my state.

Posted by: Bruno Marz | Feb 10 2016 18:13 utc | 2

I only want Trump to win so he can say one word....Your FIRED!!!

Posted by: Fernando Arauxo | Feb 10 2016 18:16 utc | 3

When's Hillary going to announce the end of her campaign?

Even TPTB will pull support. With someone so unpopular at the start of a new administration, there would be no "honeymoon" whatsoever. The mood of the nation would sour further and faster. The country would be ungovernable.

TPTB need someone that the masses think *might* turn the nation around. Sanders fits well enough. Even some ZeroHedgers prefer him. Trump? Probably not, not after the primaries when demos and indies hear more of his statements. But, could still happen.

Posted by: dumbass | Feb 10 2016 18:17 utc | 4

Trump may have won, but Bernie Sanders sure as hell lost BIG TIME.

FACE IT [D]’s, your votes don’t matter…to those who do.

After Crushing Defeat, DNC “Quirk” Still Gives Hillary More New Hampshire Delegates Than Sanders:

Read more:

Posted by: S Brennan | Feb 10 2016 18:19 utc | 5

that's pretty funny b, but the clinterminator is no laughing matter!

in american politics - i can't see how anyone could possibly move more to the right.. the fact the dems want a leader more to the left is a good sign.. i suspect they have been wanting that for a long time while the 1% and it's msm keep on pushing more to the right of attila the hun or gengis khan..

trump.. i don't watch tv, but the entertainment value seems to be their... i guess if americans are so attached to hollywood, they will have to go with trump over sanders, as the world goes over a cliff..

Posted by: james | Feb 10 2016 18:21 utc | 6

Based on S Brennan's comment, my prior is, for now, dumb.

Posted by: dumbass | Feb 10 2016 19:16 utc | 7

...will never be fulfilled."

Maybe. But how do we count the votes in our Primary system anyway?

You rarely see it reported, but there are these folks called superdelegates. Many of them have already declared their allegiance for Ms. Clinton even though no voting has taken place in the states they represent. They're apparently quite free to go their own way, with no regard whatsoever for the will of their constituents the voting citizens.

The current standings give Mr. Sanders -- who has crushed Clinton among ordinary folks' votes -- only 44 total delegates. Clinton -- who won Iowa by only a slim margin and then was absolutely thrashed in New Hampshire -- currently has 394 delegates.

Their totals for so-called pledged delegates are rather close, but Clinton swamps Sanders with unaccountable superdelegates.

If this is the way our Primary votes are counted, how can we have any faith in the system?

Posted by: Earwig | Feb 10 2016 19:46 utc | 8

One of the finest providing a telling anecdote about one of the worst:

Posted by: IhaveLittleToAdd | Feb 10 2016 19:50 utc | 9

Some say "ignore the superdelegates."

Posted by: Earwig | Feb 10 2016 19:52 utc | 10

Actually,that picture reminds me of the Star Trek Borg,and yes she fits that bill perfectly,if not Bill himself,as she is a member of the Zionist borg.

Posted by: dahoit | Feb 10, 2016 12:55:13 PM | 1

I live here in New Hampshire and voted for Bernie last night. My pride in Sanders' big New Hampshire victory is somewhat tempered by the fact that Trump won on the Republican side, but overall I'm pretty proud of my state.

Posted by: Bruno Marz | Feb 10, 2016 1:13:56 PM | 2

the fact that "The Bern" is little more than "Crypto-Borg all wrapped up in shiny "Socialist" wrapping paper" (F35 Gravy-Train™ edition), seems to pass right over some peoples little little heads

Posted by: Nobel Peace Prize | Feb 10 2016 19:58 utc | 11

Still, gets the poor little dears all fired up and "engaged" in the "democratic process", so it's "Win-Win for the Borg!", regardless.

Posted by: Nobel Peace Prize | Feb 10 2016 20:00 utc | 12

here's some members of the Borg ("Canned Humour" Division - "You vill Laff Now!!") laughin their asses of at ya

Posted by: Nobel Peace Prize | Feb 10 2016 20:11 utc | 13

From Earwig's link:

"By the 1980s, the party elites felt left out of the process, bereft of all influence, and they thought their absence had hurt the party with weaker candidates like George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. Jim Hunt, Governor of North Carolina, was commissioned to come up with a new system, and by 1984 the Superdelegate system was implemented. Democrats thought that by giving more power to party leaders, it would prevent “unelectable” candidates, beloved by the populace, from costing them the general election."

Sounds like the Borg-er King motto: "Your way is irrelevant. You will be assimilated."

Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | Feb 10 2016 20:13 utc | 14

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin supports Baghdad’s demands that Turkey withdraw its troops from Iran’s northern regions, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov said Wednesday.

BAGHDAD (Sputnik) – Bogdanov said that Rogozin was personally met at the airport in Baghdad by Iraqi Foreign Minister Ibrahim Jaafari where they discussed the issue.

“In this context, the issue of the illegal presence of Turkish troops on Iraqi soil was discussed and support was expressed of the official position of the Iraqi government that is based on the need to respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Iraq,” Bogdanov told journalists in Baghdad.

In early December, the Turkish government sent a battalion of 25 tanks and about 150 troops into northern Iraq without the permission of the Iraqi government.

Ankara said its forces were there with the assent of the Iraqi government, and were sent in response to security concerns in northern Iraq, where its forces help to train Iraqi militia battling Daesh in northern Iraq.

Posted by: Picard | Feb 10 2016 20:15 utc | 15

A bit OT, but the Washington Post this morning, p. A-19, reports that Russian has offered to end it's bombing campaign in Syria on March 1. First mention of it I've seen. Likely disinformation or wishful thinking on the US part.
All the other WaPo news articles, editorials, op-eds, etc. about Syria, are calling for a US/Nato/"coalition" air/ground intervention in Syria ASAP, some explicitly to remove Mr. Assad, on the grounds that his presence permits/causes IS to flourish. Looks like things may come to a head fairly soon. (May have to open up that old fallout shelter in my basement.)

Posted by: Seward | Feb 10 2016 20:40 utc | 16

I am one of the old contingent you speak of that supports Hitlery, AND I DON'T!

That said, I fully expect Hitlery to be the Dem candidate. You have yet to see the perfidy of the "better" of our two parties. Oh, but it will be LEGAL, just like the R2P of our world by the owners of private finance.

Bernie is saying lots of NICE things to build hopium in the masses. And just like Lucy with Charlie Brown, revolution for the public will be snatched away at the last minute with the jack boot of private finance remaining.

Evolution is the rule and humanity will either evolve to finance as a public utility or die by the greed and avarice of the "LEGAL" owners of our world (that own all the puppet strings to Hillary Clinton).

Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 10 2016 20:46 utc | 17

On expectation game Clinton somewhat under-performed, and concerning the Establishment and super delegates, they are not Clinton's groupies, although they may pretend to be. One thing I like about Sanders is that he can reclaim "hunters", white blue collar folks who are so-so religious, struggle with jobs, wages, insurance, but you would not pry their hunting rifles from their hand even when they are dead (rigor mortis). But Clinton wants to make the story that he does not care about minorities, environment etc. and as the primaries go to states where Blacks form a big proportion of primary voters, Sanders has to visit some Black churches etc.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Feb 10 2016 21:02 utc | 18

I was watching Paul Jay The Real News Network (TRNN) yesterday lives from New Hampshire. He said between Bernie and Hillary the poll in California show very close. I'm now contemplating change my voters’ preference from independent to Democratic and vote for Hillary. Switching back to Independent again after the Super Tuesday, make sure Bernie will not be on Nov. ballots.

Watch this from previous threads courtesy of @Bluemot5

Posted by: Jack Smith | Feb 10 2016 21:03 utc | 19

...will never be fulfilled

so premature, b, so naïve. you preclude the land of cotton, and the corny bible belt.

never say never.

Posted by: john | Feb 10 2016 21:11 utc | 20

@Fernando Arauxo #3

I only want Trump to win so he can say one word....Your FIRED!!!

If Trump win the primaries and facing either Bernie or Hillary, I'll vote for Trump Even if he doesn't care about Palestinians he probably worn't start a war with Russia, Putin.

Posted by: Jack Smith | Feb 10 2016 21:15 utc | 21

I hope Bernie will prevail at the end. Billary will be a nightmare.

Posted by: nmb | Feb 10 2016 21:23 utc | 22

I still expect Billary to win the nom

Posted by: aaaaaa | Feb 10 2016 21:28 utc | 23

>> "By the 1980s, the party elites ... commissioned ... a new system, and by 1984 the Superdelegate system was implemented.

Mondale. Dukakis. Kerry. Yeah, that spiffy new superdelegate system is working great!


Looking at the history, maybe it marks the time when the "D" brand started becoming indistinguishable from the "R" brand.


If the "D" brand does not select Bernie, maybe MoveOn et al will start a new party.

Posted by: dumbass | Feb 10 2016 21:38 utc | 24

As a man much smarter than myself once said: 50% of politics is about payback. There is a deep current of payback running through the population, and the Clintons will reap what they’ve sown. I think wanting to dock their clock once and for all is more of a factor for most women than any feminist/gender bias.

IMO, Loretta Lynch holds the key to the 2016 presidential election. Even if she does nothing,Lynch could very well determine who the next US president is, and that makes her currently the most powerful woman in the world -- a black woman from a humble North Carolina family and (unlike Obama) a descendant of slaves.

An analysis of Hil’s options w/ respect to a possible Federal indictment or two is always a fun way to pass some time. Below are some of my own thots on three possible indictment scenarios.

It looks like there are two distinct potential grounds for indictment: 1) influence peddling, either direct or through Clinton Foundation; 2) illegal possession of classified Emails. I don’t distinguish these types of indictments below, but they could well result in distinct outcomes. The scenarios are presented in what I kinda’, sorta’, probably think is the most likely to the least likely. Also, the outcomes are twisted by my assumption that Trump will be the Republican nominee. But even if I'm wrong there, he will certainly be a factor in both races right up until the nominations.

Scenario 1. Loretta continues the present gambit of trying to help the Democrats as much as possible by sitting on the indictments and doing everything possible to delay the release of more Emails.
Outcome: Hil is screwed.

First thot: In this scenario, DT would continue to keep mum about Hil’s possibly being indicted b/c the polls indicate that Bernie will beat DT 2x worse than Hil will, so DT wants to run against Hil. If DT’s dream comes true and Hil gets the nomination, then he would wipe the floor with her, her unresolved legal problems, and Loretta’s (i.e. the Democrats’) attempt to protect Hil.

Second thot: Will Bernie play the felony-card if Loretta doesn’t make a move? The stupidest thing Sanders has ever said is: “I am sick and tired of hearing about Hillary’s damn Emails.” The Email issue was a gift that he might have needed down the road in a tough primary race and he sh*t on it in an attempt to look noble or chivalrous (sp?). Watch – Trump will eventually take Sanders to task for his comment as meaning Sanders is sick and tired of hearing about the possibility that a Democratic politician might get prosecuted for a felony or two.

But the sleigh-ride is over for Bernie, so he’s got some tough decisions. From here on out it’s an uphill fight. Having put his foot in his mouth about the Emails, he may be able to save his bacon and beat Hil over the head with the 2nd potential indictment: influence peddling. That plays into his anti-WallSt message.

Scenario 2. Loretta announces before Democratic nominations that DoJ will not pursue an indictment, closes all investigations.
Outcome: Hil is screwed.

First of all, this would sink Hil’s nomination and the Democrats’ chance of winning the WH b/c of the odor arising from what would be the latest example of Democrat back-room dealing. If Hil does get nominated, DT would make mincemeat out of her disappearing felonies and the crooked Democrat AG.

Second of all, the lack of an indictment probably means Obama could not preemptively pardon Hil to protect her from Republicans later indicting her if they get into office. True, Ford pardoned Nixon, but I’m not sure the precedent would hold and it was never reviewed by the courts. I mean, if a president can pardon someone for something they’ve never even been indicted for, then the whole system becomes a farce. “I pardon Michelle for any crimes of any nature she might have committed at any time in the past.”

Third, double jeopardy doesn’t apply until a case actually goes to trial, so if the Republicans win the WH, Loretta’s decision not to indict Hil would go down the toilet. Trump might even run on that very fine legal point – he would certainly not pull any punches.

Scenario 3. Loretta indicts Hil before the nominations.
Outcome: Hil is screwed, the Democrats are screwed.

If Lynch does this, she would almost certainly warn Hil days or weeks before hand, so Hil can get out of the race prior to actually being indicted. Nothing worse than the marshals cuffing you during a rally, especially if your sleaze-ball, should’a-been-indicted-long-ago husband is there, too.

I mean, if Loretta indicts Hil, the nomination/election will be Hil’s last worry. Hil’s only goal would be to stay out of prison. Even if Obama were to immediately pardon her, she would never get the nomination.

Would Obama pardon her post-idictment? Good question? If he did, Democrats lose the election automatically. In fact, if Hil is indicted, unless Obama comes out and explicitly says that he will not pardon her even after the election, the Democrats will lose regardless who the candidate is. If Bernie gets the nomination, as he will if there is an indictment, in order to win the election he would also have to tell America that as president he would not interfere with the indictment or prosecution, which would deprive him of millions and millions in cash thank-you “notes” from the Clintons.

Posted by: Denis | Feb 10 2016 21:51 utc | 25

Well, b, you got something else you wanted today. Carly Fiorina has suspended her campaign.

Posted by: Jon Lester | Feb 10 2016 21:59 utc | 26

All of those so-called candidates are candidates vetted by oligarchic ruling elite. All of them, including Sanders and Trump, both election time populists aim to extort the vote from gullible and desperate Americans only to betray them.

Anybody of Sanders sheeple followers asked how many delegates Sanders won in NH?

Sanders did not win in NH, it was a tie 15 delegates to 15 delegates. Here you have BS democracy at work where Sanders won massively popular vote 60% to 38% and barely tied in what really counts and please note that Clinton already has over 500 votes of super-delegates. What is the chance for Bernie? Plain field? It is enough for Clinton to hang on long enough loosing primaries popular vote by 25% and still win nomination, and Bernie as he already promised will support her and not run as independent. What is it but a declared betrayal of the people? And for Whom? About to be indicted criminal? Think people!


People are monkey trained from their crib to the grave. They are regurgitating what they have been told or shown or imposed on them at home, at school, at work, in Church and elsewhere a characteristic of disciplinary society of control where choice has been limited to razor thin slice of unreality. They are told to vote so they vote, if they are told to bend over they will.

All those inconvenient questions such as why in every 20th century totalitarian regime, including Nazi Germany, US, USSR or Israel elections were being conducted often and always with so-called patriotic propaganda twist to obfuscate the brutality of politics.

Hitler, Stalin, Polpot, Mao, all of them, before diligently organized elections, many having what would amount to a primary season, where all people’s grievances were expressed, told their people how important is to articulate their democratic aspirations by an act of voting on national representatives who would implement their collective wisdom and will.

What we call voting is nothing but an ancient ritual of active submission of every slave to the powers via act of participation in a ceremony, a symbolic sacrifice for beautiful gods of power and opulence, a perverted form of communion of victims with their executioners.

The people should not ask for a right to vote, they should demand a right to rule. Otherwise they are nothing but a wasted particles pleading for mercy in an obscene act of self mutilation.

Unfortunately, this time as well, millions of irrational, desperate and helpless in their daily lives electoral zombies, under a spell of exciting political masquerade, will align themselves with an anointed winner of a meaningless popularity/beauty contest, in a delusional feat of transference of a fraction of elite's power to themselves just for a second of a thrill of illusion power. And they will continue to authorize their own suicide mission, since even baseless hope of any chance of influencing of the political realm via means of begging is the last thing that dies.

Below excepts from:

“The act of voting in the current political system is nothing but morally corrupting tool that extorts from us an approval for the meaningless political puppets of the calcified regime, in a surrealistic act of utter futility aimed just to break us down, to break our sense of dignity, our individual will and self-determination since no true choice is ever being offered to us and never will.

Idea of political boycott and ALTERNATIVE POLITICAL PROCESS is the only viable idea to express our political views that are absent from official candidates’ agendas and from the ballots. Let’s not be afraid, it was already successfully done in the past. It works.”

Posted by: Kalen | Feb 10 2016 22:11 utc | 27

The problem is they're both bad. Click on link at bottom of page. I'll be voting Green myself.

Great picture, thanks.

Posted by: jo6pac | Feb 10 2016 22:39 utc | 28

What country.

Stolen from my friend 99

Posted by: jo6pac | Feb 10 2016 22:47 utc | 29

What are delegates and excellent article on the subject.

Posted by: dh | Feb 10 2016 22:54 utc | 30

Hillary got more delegates despite only receiving 40% of the vote. The next few weeks the primary moves to Hillary friendly states. States like South Carolina, Nevada have many black and latino voters who support her more and she is leading in the polls. The party establishment is backing her completely. They are not going to allow someone like Sanders to win the nomination.

The general election is going to be a contest between Hillary and The Donald and will be decided by Florida and Ohio.

Posted by: ab initio | Feb 10 2016 22:59 utc | 31

Delegate Count (including superdelegates)

Clinton (D-Wall Street) = 394
Sanders (D-Faux Socialist) = 44

Why am I supposed to be excited about this, again?

Posted by: AlanSmithee | Feb 10 2016 23:00 utc | 32

Another person that freaks me out beside Clinton and Jeb Bush is Ted Cruz.This dude is nuts

Posted by: lebretteurfredonnant | Feb 10 2016 23:14 utc | 33


People like you and psychohistorian attribute far more control to the elites than the evidence warrants. The American political establishment has been running the country into the ground for 25+ years with two legacy parties that are essentially the same. Trump and Sanders both represent a rebellion by the citizenry. Trump is a buffoon, that goes without saying, and Sanders isn't that great by the standards of much of the rest of the world (he's certainly no socialist). But both are offering things that very much buck the traditional Beltway menu of 'acceptable opinions'. Now, you're right that the appointing of delegates doesn't remotely match up with the distribution of voters. That's because we live in a sham democracy, but if Sanders was really not a threat to the establishment they wouldn't be playing these delegate games in an attempt to negate the choice of the population.

But keep insulting his supporters, really makes you look like a great person.

Posted by: Plenue | Feb 10 2016 23:20 utc | 34

@24 da. 'If the "D" brand does not select Bernie, maybe MoveOn et al will start a new party.'

  I think MoveOn et all will view everything as normal and a-ok, and they'll be right, from their pov.

  But real, ordinary people may notice, finally, that the 'D' brand is as corrupt as the 'R' brand and think ...
  What can we actually do about this ourselves?

@27 Kalen. 'Idea of political boycott and ALTERNATIVE POLITICAL PROCESS is the only viable idea to express our political views that are absent from official candidates’ agendas and from the ballots. Let’s not be afraid, it was already successfully done in the past. It works.'

  Yeah. That's what we can do.

@33 lf,

  May well be Cruz/Clinton. Duel of the nihilists. Nothin' from nothin leaves nothin' ... we gotta have somethin'...
  If we wanna survive.

@34 eunelp.

  Don't take it personally. Deep down we all want to believe. There's just no reason to believe any longer.

  Rather, we have to jettison the incredible superstructure and believe in ourselves. I believe in me, I can believe in you.
  And so on, and so on ... and we can all write-in candidates whom we judge might actually represent us.
  Start the snowball rolling down the hill ...

Posted by: jfl | Feb 11 2016 0:12 utc | 35

I left the U.S. when that piece of shit Bush invaded Iraq; I will feel compelled to leave the planet if that bigger piece of shit Clinton gets the nomination...

Posted by: V. Arnold | Feb 11 2016 0:20 utc | 36

By all means, attack Clinton - she's mendacious. But it kinda sickens me that the emphasis on Moon of Alabama after the NH vote is Clinton and not Trump, who represents a rising fascist tide and a potentially unstoppable one. That's the much more important story, and it's frightening. I suspect more isn't said against Trump because there's latent sympathy for him around these parts.

Posted by: Huffington Aviation | Feb 11 2016 0:21 utc | 37

Personally, I'm looking for leadership from Black Americans ...

  Vector of Fear: Blacks and the Democratic Party
  Throw Off the Dead Weight of the Democratic Party

... whose present generation are coming to realize they've been betrayed enough. Black capital is even making a buck on it.

What we really need to do is realize just what Ella Baker told us, "Strong people don't need strong leaders."

Each of us write-in someone we'd really like to have representing us, tell our friends we've done so and will continue to do so, suggest they do the same, compare notes, select a compromise candidate that a mojority of us can elect.

The power inheres in ourselves, not with those we choose to represent us.

Politics is not rocket science.

Posted by: jfl | Feb 11 2016 0:34 utc | 38

@37 HA

Trump's a loser in the general. Just like the American motors guy ... what was his name? I think most people realize that.

Posted by: jfl | Feb 11 2016 0:46 utc | 39


"Politics is not rocket science."

Agreed. That is why this aspect is the most important one:

"Among voters who cared most about honesty and trustworthiness, 91 percent chose Mr. Sanders and only 5 percent chose Hillary Clinton, according to exit polls."

Add to that the fact that few voters are aware of Clinton's law breaking email scandal possibility of being arrested for multiple felonies and her attempts to lie it away, and that 5% will become less than 1%. The honesty issue is also why Sanders beats Trump as it's an open secret that Trump's wealth was ill-gained.

But when it comes to Obama's many vile acts, this one is very pernicious as few will know about it until it becomes law,

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 11 2016 0:50 utc | 40


I see statements like this often, and each time I have to wonder- "who do they think they are fooling?"

You say you are opposed to the two-party duopoly system, but then you use the prospect of the Democratic Party using the superdelegates to hand the election to the criminal Hillary Clinton to try and discourage people from voting for Bernie Sanders. The thing is, if that were to happen it would represent the Democratic party putting a gun to it's head and pulling the trigger, if you actually want the American people to reject a corrupt system, you couldn't possibly wish for a better outcome.

As someone who has donated to the Sanders campaign, I have to say, let them try it. You see I understand full well that the system is rigged, but a political boycott is just masturbatory nihilism. Instead, push the elite's control to the limit, force them to show their true colors. Let them steal the election with super delegates, it will cost them dearly in legitimacy.

Posted by: Rostale | Feb 11 2016 0:54 utc | 41

@Kalen #27, @jo6pac #28

Emotions run high as the primaries tempo heated up. Democratic and Republican they're still the same, it ain't going to change. The cycles repeated repeatedly....Wars and Wars and more wars regardless which party win.

Voters making the same mistakes repeatedly ain't going to change? The "smart" ones vote the lesser evils and they're still the same. The lesser evils turn out to be more evil. The Nobel Laureate turns out, deported more illegal than all the presidents combine. More Black died in the hands of the cops, Murder it's own citizen, prison for profits expand to keep up the incarcerated, students loans and car loans all time high, persecutes more whistleblower.....

Posted by: Jack Smith | Feb 11 2016 1:05 utc | 42

Just as it's possible to contract double pnuemonia, it seems that a few commenters here have contracted doiuble nihilism. I'm sure there have been a few times in human history where voting was not the same as submission to slavery.

Well every time a bell rings somwhere an angel must be earning wings. Likewise, joy surely lightens our burdens, every time a true megalamaniac has his, or her, political ambition thwarted.

Anyone who cares, and who has been blogging this depraved history for more than a few years, certainly must be suffering some degree of PTSD, if not outright clinical depression.

But what can you say about a joint like the United States, a country suffering from an acute paralysis of justice. among other things? I'm not privy to what the Masters of the Universe have in mind; but I am just impertinent enough to warn them about arranging a presidential contest between two Beasts from the Pit.

That's where Bernie comes in (as flawed as he may be). A conversation about justice or the rule of law, a conversation about what is environmentally sustainable, about what is provident for the mutual survival of the nations on this planet, would be a respectable beginning,

Posted by: Copeland | Feb 11 2016 1:06 utc | 43

The best political statement I've seen so far during this quadrennial extravaganza is on a Road-Kill T-shirt.




Posted by: Wayoutwest | Feb 11 2016 1:15 utc | 44

Posted by: Copeland | Feb 10, 2016 8:06:30 PM | 43

Dear Mr Moron,

Back in 08 you were telling everyone how Obama was gonna be different, hope ' change. That turned out well, didn't it?

Here you are doing the same thing all over again. Your political intuition is clearly shit, and no one should ever listen to your idiotic pronouncements on this, or indeed any, subject.

Kindly shut the fuck up, you clueless idiot.


The People

Posted by: the people | Feb 11 2016 1:53 utc | 45

Same goes for all you other Crypto-Borg Bernie supporters too.

And any one that pipesup with "Jill Stein!" Deserves a serious kick in the nutz/flaps

Theres a special place in hell for y'all.

Idiots like the one at 43 have a lot to answer for.

Just stfu m'kay?

Posted by: the people | Feb 11 2016 2:00 utc | 46

Generally speaking the same shitheads that shilled for the Obomber are now shilling fer CryptoBorgBernie. Using exactly the same arguments.

Given how oboma turned out, its a fair bet that CryptoBernie would be disasterous for everyone on the planet except the Lockheed Martin Company and its shareholders (F35)

These CryptoBernie shilling shitheads should be pitch capped, on sight

Posted by: the people | Feb 11 2016 2:14 utc | 47

In the meantime, quiz question: what is the second and the third law of Rubiotics?

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Feb 11 2016 3:00 utc | 48

At this point in the campaign Shrub (BushII) was running as the candidate who would keep us out of foreign entanglements, Obomber
as the peace candidate who get us out of the Middle East.

Posted by: mad1 | Feb 11 2016 3:01 utc | 49

@19 You appear to be a troll or a bigot. Hillary is even more of an aggressive Zionist so what the hell are you doing? Are you just a bigot who assumes a Jew can't hold a more progressive position related to the Middle East and Israel than a non-Jew?

"looking at her comments about that apartheid nation, one gets a clear view of some broader, very troubling perspectives that Mrs. Clinton seems to hold."

She spouted Zionist propaganda here, " a guest on Stewart’s own show challenged his assumptions about who is to blame for the current violence: Hillary Clinton."

"In addition, she vociferously defended Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's handling of the assault on Gaza. Not surprisingly, her bellicose rhetoric has received praise from neocon luminary Robert Kagan. Senator Clinton's vote in favor of the Iraq war, a vote for which it took her more than a decade to express regret, was clearly not a temporary lapse in judgment."

Hillary Clinton position: "Don't demand complete moratorium on Israeli settlement. (Jun 2014)"


Posted by: Tom Murphy | Feb 11 2016 3:08 utc | 50

@45 I was telling people Obama was horrible and a phony BEFORE the end of the primaries! See my warnings:
(this exposes Obama's Wall Street donations! And his warmongering mentality:
als not, talk is cheep, Obama only said "Iraq war was a dumb war" but Bernie actually voted against it. Obama never was in a position to make such a vote and talk is cheap. As I said, I tried to warn you about Obama BEFORE the Democratic primaries. #NoObamaWar

Posted by: Tom Murphy | Feb 11 2016 3:14 utc | 51

Obama was remarkably adept at weaponizing liberal language, and using it against the American electorate. I voted for this man in 2008, and was shocked when I realized he was a Trojan Horse...or maybe he was (more accurately) like a Trojan Whore. I went with my friends to hear him speak in Fort Worth, during his early campaigning in Texas.

A number of weeks into his first year I was able absorb the horror of his administration. I changed my mind, and accepted the sense of betrayal; and the certain shame of having been conned was hard to cope with.

During the primary campaign. when he was running against Hillary, I used up enormous amounts of energy (or so it seemed to me) and with whatever skill I have with persuasive writing, I tried to put up any impediment I could against Hillary's chance at the nomination. At the time.a Clinton victory seemed like the worst thing that could happen.

Posted by: Copeland | Feb 11 2016 3:44 utc | 52

Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 10, 2016 3:46:39 PM | 17

Bernie is saying lots of NICE things to build hopium in the masses. And just like Lucy with Charlie Brown, revolution for the public will be snatched away at the last minute with the jack boot of private finance remaining.


The rules of the game are that of evolution. Revolutions are a bit overrated, if you ask me. One nice thing that already happen is that Republicans called everybody and his brother "a Communist" or "a Socialist", and the result is that while part of the public laps it, another part is revolted and "Socialist" is not a dirty word anymore. I guess in all that tussle, "liberal" did not recover so well. So here comes Comrade Bernie hell bent on depriving our most productive citizens of (some part of) their hard won gains, and he is not laughed out of town like some Kucinich. (I mean, back when Kucinich was a candidate, he was utterly non-viable, and not merely because the public insists on candidates who are taller than average, have last name with at most two syllables and speak in deep baritone).

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Feb 11 2016 3:55 utc | 53


Oh for god's sake, shut up about the emails. Not a single one of them was classified WHEN she received it. They only got that designation retroactively, as they were examined before release to the public. There is zero evidence an email marked classified or top secret entered her server. And the emails that they're now trying to retroactively make top secret - it looks like the bulk of them are getting that label because they merely mention the drone program, which is secret only in an Orwellian sense. There is no basis on which to indict her. There isn't even a criminal investigation underway. When people say the FBI is investigating Hillary, they're repeating a falsehood originating from shoddy NYT reporting, later retracted.

The rumors of an investigation into Clinton Foundation influence-peddling were churned by a poorly sourced story from the right wing and weaponized by Drudge. They are unconfirmed and uncorroborated. Neither is there solid public evidence of influence peddling, period. Only the vaguest insinuations of quid pro quo.

The fact that people are serving up this offal on the board shows how effective the right's propaganda campaign has been. There are many, many reasons to distrust or dislike Clinton. But the email scandal is vastly hyped, and the ostensibly discerning and independent-minded denizens of this site should know better.

Posted by: Huffington Aviation | Feb 11 2016 4:27 utc | 54

Why do people assume that black voters will vote for Hillary? People assumed that Clinton would win women.

The Clinton's have bankrolled the black elites but the average voter in America does not know anything about Sanders. Most people do not read blogs or follow political news. Most voters can not tell you where Syria and Iraq are located on map. Or where Isis originated. In short most Americans know nothing about the world by extension most people know nothing about Bernie Sanders or Democratic Socialism.

Sanders is not perfect but he is a hell of a lot better than the current neo-liberal/neo-conservative sociopaths in Obama's administration.

I am a libertarian socialist. The fact that Bernie Sanders can mention the world Socialist on national TV with out losing credibility is a HUGE step forward. Is it too late? Yea. I think it is too late. The damage done to this planet is irreversible but that was most likely true when during Bush's tenure.

And please stop with the Green Party. I left that party behind after Elaine Brown left. I do not know where Jill Stein stood on Brown's departure. I do not know why anyone would seriously contemplate voting for a person whose major political accomplishment is a Township seat.

There are other 3rd party candidates with real political victories. I'd go with Rocky Anderson.

Posted by: AnEducatedFool | Feb 11 2016 4:34 utc | 55

@53 PB

I will believe there is real change when we no longer have private finance. Until then it is the same old BS, just revitalized!

Bernie's wife does not have a tongue stud (that I know of) and Bernie has been saying the same stuff in Congress for a long time so it is harder to make him sound an outlier. While Bernie spouts some nice stuff, we may have taken society over extinction cliffs with Fukushima radiation accumulation or climate change and we need other than bandaid approaches to our challanges.

Making finance a public utility is the type of evolutionary change we need, IMO. It puts a stake through the heart of the Gawd of Mammon and will force us to resolve our tin pot debt stupidity. Limiting private "ownership" of property to 99 year leases like China makes sense as well along with neutering the top end of inheritance as the air to the global plutocrats.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 11 2016 4:51 utc | 56

Posted by: V. Arnold | Feb 10, 2016 7:20:17 PM | 36

Don't make it a wasted trip. Take her with you.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Feb 11 2016 5:01 utc | 57

>> I do not know why anyone would seriously contemplate voting for a person whose major political accomplishment is a Township seat.

Maybe b/c they agree w/ her platform and not with any of the others?

Posted by: dumbass | Feb 11 2016 5:07 utc | 58

Hoarsewhisperer | Feb 11, 2016 12:01:51 AM | 57

LOL; you're a real meany. I couldn't think of a worst companion...

Posted by: V. Arnold | Feb 11 2016 5:27 utc | 59

65 and over = babyboomers....flower children!

Posted by: brian | Feb 11 2016 5:31 utc | 60

Hey b, don't count the "Borg" out. The rulers of American Empire usually get what they want. Don't forget, they own the machines.( E-voting)

Posted by: ben | Feb 11 2016 5:42 utc | 61

P.S.--Whether or not a vote for Sanders means anything, doesn't matter. Things are being discussed in MSM, that would never have been mentioned, without Sanders in the race.

Posted by: ben | Feb 11 2016 5:49 utc | 62

MoA, you state that "[t]he voters recognized that Clinton is a corrupt, lying piece of s***." MoA, you have greatly understated the case!

Posted by: Macon Richardson | Feb 11 2016 7:19 utc | 63

Posted by: Copeland | Feb 10, 2016 10:44:40 PM | 52

You were a shithead shill and/or a clueless twat back in 08, and you're still a shithead shill and/or a clueless twat now. Fuck off and dieyou decrepit old windbag. Pitchcapping's too good for you.

Posted by: AnEducatedFool | Feb 10, 2016 11:34:24 PM | 55

You too.

Posted by: the people | Feb 11 2016 7:38 utc | 64

@32 "Delegate Count (including superdelegates)
Clinton (D-Wall Street) = 394
Sanders (D-Faux Socialist) = 44"

But 350 of those votes are Superdelegates, and there are only another 350-odd of those up for grabs.

Not only that, the 350 that have pledged to Hillary are under no obligation whatsoever to stick to their word.

After all, they are politicians. If they start to Feel the Bern then they may do what comes naturally to them: backstab, backslide, jump-ship.

Not now, of course, it's way too early. But if Bernie keeps doing well then they'll start to waiver.

I get where you are coming from: Bernie has an uphill battle getting a share of those 700 Superdelegate votes.

But as the primaries go on their value decreases, simply because more normal delegates will get tallied (just over 4,000 in total), whereas there are only another 350 or so Superdelegates votes still to be "decided".

Which means that your early tally isn't nearly so important as you imply, neither in terms of the absolute number of superdelegates nor in how certain Hillary can be that she really does have them in her pocket.

Posted by: Yeah, Right | Feb 11 2016 8:42 utc | 65

Russia in Nato proposed by Bernie Sanders? Is this real?

Posted by: Noel | Feb 11 2016 9:20 utc | 66


That's from November 2015. In the wake of Friday the 13th he's mentioned Russia, as Hollande did at that time. He's on the porch with all the rest of establishment. Nowhere is there a reference to Russia in NATO ... I'm referring to the video at Bernie Sanders On ISIS | We Need 'New NATO' Including Russia To Fight Daesh | Mango News, the video at your link is no longer valid.

Bernie says nothing about the wars abroad because in doing so he would either go with the status quo or lie ... and he's playing the 'different', honest politician, so to be caught doing either would doom him.

Good post on Bernie from Shamus Cooke.

Posted by: jfl | Feb 11 2016 12:07 utc | 67

Can't believe we're even discussing these idiots at MoA. It won't make a prick of difference who wins. They are all clearly narcissistic sociopaths without conscience. There is no way in hell they would have made it this far if they weren't. Between the Clit, the Jew and the Wig, there is not one iota of compassion. I hope they all get a big fat dose of pollonium...
Don't empower the system. Don't vote. And b, there are waaaay more important things to talk about. Like farting ducks and cute kittens.
The yanks can shove their elections up their own huge assholes. The rest of the world should know better...

Posted by: dan | Feb 11 2016 12:22 utc | 68

Wayoutwest says:

The best political statement I've seen so far during this quadrennial extravaganza is on a Road-Kill T-shirt.




i concur. this trenchant and unsparing slogan has some traction, too, amidst all the usual electioneering blather and hyperventilating.

'cause if we could nail just one of these motherfuckers to the wall, well, and get the ball rolling...

'cause if we can't reinstate some semblance of rule-of-law, there's little reason in 'taking part in the grotesque, meaningless charade designed to camouflage the hideous, ugly truth of the system that rules us.'

Posted by: john | Feb 11 2016 12:43 utc | 69


Trump is a Crypto-Poltergeist.

His job is to destroy the Republican candidate pool, leaving someone odious, effeminate and Canadian as their candidate, against that known zio-asset, and deep dyed-in-the-cloth-of-Shabbat HRH HRC, ... who will immediately do whatever her zio-fascist handlers tell her to do, while pulling a Merkel on the American people, expanding a Niagara of H-1B Hindus and H-3B Hispanics, and crack-spreading DoD/DHS toward that mythic $1T a year critical mass of a Perpetual War Hegemonic State.

There is no way in Hell that Trump would disclose and disgorge all his holdings, if he were elected, that should be obvious, so what is he doing? He's trapping the RNC behind that gayish Canuck and Dukakis act-alike, a guy (sic) who has zero chance of winning: Rafael de los Naranjas, El Charlatán Sans Heuvos.

Posted by: Chipnik | Feb 11 2016 12:48 utc | 70


If you're buying AMZN on the cheap, or Tesla, then you can say it's because you 'believe in their platform'. If you say you're voting for a candidate because of their 'platform' (sic), which is solely to state the focus-group elevator pitch de juere, while amassing financial contributions as fast as humanly possible, ala Gore, Kerry and McCain, all approaching $100Mairehood, you're either a shill, a PAC, or an ignoramous.

Posted by: Chipnik | Feb 11 2016 13:00 utc | 71


>> you're either a shill, a PAC, or an ignoramous.

The earlier question was about Jill Stein. If I vote for her because her platform represents my views and because none of the other candidates do, you say I'm an ignoramus?

Are all voters ignoramuses? If not, what are your "acceptable" criteria for deciding whom to vote for?

Posted by: dumbass | Feb 11 2016 14:11 utc | 72

Posted by: the people | Feb 11, 2016 2:38:51 AM | 63

Hey "the people", please go back to whichever mobile home you crawled out of.

Posted by: Bruno Marz | Feb 11 2016 14:15 utc | 73

I too despise Hillary Clinton. She talks like Eleanor Roosevelt, but she walks like Marie Antoinette. 'The poor, they have no bread? Then say how much we care and let them starve. Vote for me I'll be the first woman president!'

But don't count her out yet. She tied Sanders in NH. Yes really. ('Super-delegates' anyone?) And her institutional power remains formidable. She may yet become the next president even if the people despise her. I mean, the people be damned.

Posted by: TG | Feb 11 2016 14:53 utc | 74

41;Yes,a naked theft of this election from either or both Trump and sanders will be notr forgiven by the electorate,which is already pissed to sh*t.
37;Your claim of fascism is laughable.What the f*ck do you think invading myriad nations that pose no threat to US is,which is current and ongoing.
Trump says,Yankee come home,or at least,stop doing stupidity over and over again.

Posted by: dahoit | Feb 11 2016 15:27 utc | 75

Posted by: Bruno Marz | Feb 11, 2016 9:15:18 AM | 72

Ah yes, of course, the perfect reply from a self-declared "socialist".

Like all good self-declared "socialists" you can of course barely hide your contempt for actual poor people.

Never yet met a self-declared socialist who, when one prods them a little, didn't turn out to be a pompous over-educated middle-class despiser of actual members of the actual "working class"/poor.

Which of course is why the actual working class/poor can't stand you middle-class overeducated pretend-socialist shitheads, and wouldn't vote for your sort in a fit. The actual working classes and the poor can smell your contempt for them a mile off, which is why you turds never gain enough votes to hold power.

The people you claim to care about, or "represent", know exactly what you are, and know know damn well how much your sort despise them.

A communist I 'd trust. But a socialist? Never!

A socialist is just someone without the balls or integrity to be a communist

Posted by: the people | Feb 11 2016 15:41 utc | 76

The "smart" ones vote the lesser evils and they're still the same.

Posted by: Jack Smith | Feb 10, 2016 8:05:43 PM | 42

Nothing smart about those people. Dumb, really really dumb - no matter what their level of education. In fact often, when it comes to seeing the con, the more "educated" they are the dumber they are.

Too stupid to know just how stupid they really are.

There are at least 4 or 5 of them posting here in this thread, shilling for Crypto-Bernie the alleged "Socialist".

Why do you think all these non-Jewish US politicians are loudly declaring their Pro-Zionist credentials?

Because they have to PROVE it, over and over again, to get elected and stay elected - that's why HRC is so loudly shilling for Israel. Non-Jewish US Pols like her have to prove it, again and again and again - they have to appear more bloodthirstily Zionist than the real bloodthirsty Zionists themselves.

Crypto-borg Bernie, lover of Lockheed Martin's F35-brand of "Socialism", on the other hand doesn't have to do any of that public whoring for Zion, cos he's already "a made man". So the idiots commenting here, and contrasting him favourably with HRC in that regard, moronically think he's not Pro-Zionist.

The gullibility of these people never ceases to amaze.,

Oh sure, Crypto-Bernie occasionally mumbles some slightly non-Zionist sounding drivel (to keep the gullible on-board) but since he's already proved his Pro-Zion credentials by upping sticks and actually moving to that shitty little country, living on freshly stolen land, he don't got nothing to prove - he's already proven it, in spades.

So Crypto-Bernie doesn't have to repeatedly publicly whore for that shitty little country, like all the sub-human Goy Politicians do. He's both Jewish and "made aliyah" - so his bloodthirsty Zionist credentials are beyond doubt. Just Like Chomsky.

And just like Chomsky, they sent him back to the US to go fool the moronic Goyim.

And completely fooled the moronic Goyim were, as can be seen from the number of idiots shilling for him, by touting his "socialism" (A Fighter-Jet socialist! FFS) and his alleged non-Zionism in this thread alone. (a non-Zionist that once "made aliyah"? hahaha, how gullible can you be to believe that one?)

Posted by: the people | Feb 11 2016 16:32 utc | 77

"the people"

The Green Party does not have a stranglehold on 3rd party progressive platforms. The Justice Party was formed in 2011. I personally have a stronger affinity for their positions than the Green Party especially after the Elaine Brown fiasco. I have not followed the Green Party since she left. I do not know where Jill Stein stood on those issues.

The Green Party WAS/is the over educated white liberal that left the Democratic Party. Many of their leadership positions were co-opted by Democratic officials. I do not know how much of that has changed. Their supermajority voting structure is also a major hindrance. I honestly do not follow them anymore.

Stein's positions are not radically different than Sanders on the domestic front. If you really want the Greens to succeed then vote/run in local elections as a Green Party member. They will never garner national attention until the Green Party or any third party is able to make inroads on the local level.

Posted by: AnEducatedFool | Feb 11 2016 16:38 utc | 78

Remember when, at a "Town Hall" meeting, Crypto Bernie, the alleged non-Zionist and "socialist", threatened to sic the cops on anyone that dared question his alleged non-Zionist credentials?

That was just a couple of months ago.

Imagine! threatening a crowd that you hope to get to vote for you. What a vote-winner!

ONLY a proven-Zionist like Crypto-Bernie would think it okay to do that, because they know, as a made-man, they'll get a pass from virtually everyone on the left and right.

Posted by: the people | Feb 11 2016 16:47 utc | 79

If you really want the Greens to succeed then vote/run in local elections as a Green Party member.

Every Green Party in the World that gained any political power immediately dropped any pretence of leftism and threw their lot in with the Corporates and the Right.

Green voters are even bigger idiots than Crypto- Bernie voters.

Posted by: the people | Feb 11 2016 17:19 utc | 80

@ "the peephole"

My not liking you has nothing to do with the fact that you're poor; it's got everything to do with the fact that you're clearly an asshole.

Posted by: Bruno Marz | Feb 11 2016 18:01 utc | 81

@53 PB

I will believe there is real change when we no longer have private finance. Until then it is the same old BS, just revitalized! [psychohistorian]

And I will believe in a real change when I see Ragnarok. A change can be real, but the issue is if it is for the better. With finance being all public you have bureaucrats deciding on all loan activity. That can be creepy, and at best, economically inefficient. Instead, intelligent regulations should set the propensity of banks to take risks, for example, bankruptcy protection can encourage banks to avoid reckless loans rather than harbor an illusion that they will be able to squeeze blood out of stone.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Feb 11 2016 18:03 utc | 82

H. Clinton can’t win by the votes as stated many times. Vote fraud set aside. Looking like fraud will not be possible in this case…!

H. C. is a dynastic, USA régime (needs change pronto right?) candidate. Sanders is a New Deal neo-democrat. For lack of a better brief description. Traditionalist, and placed as a ‘genuine’, within the ‘mainstream’ and ‘acceptable’ Democratic Party candidate. No real break-away moves on foreign policy. (Afaik.) sidebar: Why do we have Sanders and Corbyn and no young ppl?

Trump is a nativist populist, nominally a Rep. but a maverick outsider (which is why the Reps don’t know what on earth to do.) If his statements are to be believed, he is far more ‘left’ in the sense of state control / organisation, nationalist and protectionist etc. than Hillary, on domestic policy. His foreign policy is confused, but anchored clumsily towards ‘the best deal for America.’ All this is surely to be expected from a business man.

Trump’s website Make America Great Again has a few slim position entries, the first page is rah-rah news. The ‘statements,’ verbal, at ralllies +etc that are bruited in the MSM (type *Donald Trump positions* > google) hold sway and nobody ever refers to the ‘official’ position, whatever it might be.

Emotions, strarification, a glitzly jamboree, run by the MSM …

Money, money: tweet by the Donald:

Jeb Bush spent more than $40,000,000 in New Hampshire to come in 4 or 5, I spent $3,000,000 to come in 1st. Big difference in capability!

So votes are to buy, not flash news. The cheaper they come the better? Are these numbers close to any real accounting? Who gets the money?

Posted by: Noirette | Feb 11 2016 18:18 utc | 83

Here's what Bernie Sanders has going for him (for me).

1)The mainstream media has ignored him.

2) Posts which reek of disingenuity (my phrase) are over the moon suggesting a) that voters are idiots b) that saying stuff doesn't mean doing stuff, and c) that Sanders supporters are Obama bots.

I would say, yes, pie-in-the-sky supporters of Sanders might be thought of that way. But I do not think those who are voting for him in these primaries fall into that category. Too much water has flowed under the political bridge for anyone not to be aware of the pitfalls and practises of the n'er-do-wells, and while Sanders doesn't fall into that category he sails pretty close to the wind and we know his voting record in Congress, which has not been stellar.

It remains to be seen whether the Democratic party bigwigs want to win or do they just want to dance with the fatcats which brung them. If it's Hillary, I won't be voting; if it's Bernie I just might. And who the R's put up to scare us into H won't budge me; there's no 'lesser evil' in that scenario.

Whatever one has to say about Sanders, that he's weak and might well fold under pressure - sure, that's a possibility. But if he's not nominated, or if he does fold - I see the signs of a popular revolt in the making. Because the banner that reads "We're not gonna take it any more" just started to glow neon.

Posted by: juliania | Feb 11 2016 18:21 utc | 84

Posted by: Bruno Marz | Feb 11, 2016 1:01:26 PM | 80

Better an asshole than a moron "socialist"

Posted by: the people | Feb 11 2016 18:22 utc | 85

By the way, "Bruno",

I couldn't give a damn whether you like me or not - In fact I'm glad you don't - if someone as odious as you liked me, I would know I was doing something very very seriously wrong.

I was referring to your attempt to smear and dismiss me by claiming I live in "mobile home" (I don't, but it matters not even if I did)

Clearly you think anyone that lives in a mobile home is some sort of subhuman idiot and can be safely ignored denigrated and dismissed just by mentioning "living in a mobile home". It's a truism that is generally poor people who live in mobile homes.

So clearly you think poor people are beneath you, because they live in a mobile home, and they also can be safely ignored denigrated and dismissed just by referring to the fact that live in a mobile home. It's code, a socially acceptable way for smug clueless middle-class contemptuous overeducated types like yourself, to get away with calling poor people stupid, without having to publicly say "stupid poor people".

So your contempt for the poor, based solely on their living circumstances, is quite obvious.

If you were not a smug overeducated-but-not-very-smart contemptuous fool you'd have found a less obviously self-incriminating way to dismiss me. But you are, so you couldn't.

Posted by: the people | Feb 11 2016 18:38 utc | 86

Posted by: juliania | Feb 11, 2016 1:21:26 PM | 83

a "popular revolt" being fronted by an odious-creep Zionist like Crypto-Bernie, is a popular revolt being deliberated co-opted in order to be led astray.

Posted by: the people | Feb 11 2016 18:41 utc | 87


Thanks very much for making my points for me.

Posted by: juliania | Feb 11 2016 18:44 utc | 88

I was calling you trash, peephole, because you are trash.

Posted by: Bruno Marz | Feb 11 2016 18:50 utc | 89

2) Posts which reek of disingenuity (my phrase) are over the moon suggesting a) that voters are idiots b) that saying stuff doesn't mean doing stuff, and c) that Sanders supporters are Obama bots.

Sanders shills are just like Obama-bots, and probably all WERE obama-bots 8 yrs ago - They are recycling the exact same arguments they used to shill for the Obomber 8 yrs ago. The exact same arguments.

They think we're all too stupid to notice - which is just another example of the contempt they have for ordinary people.

Posted by: the people | Feb 11 2016 18:53 utc | 90

a) that voters are idiots b) that saying stuff doesn't mean doing stuff, and c) that Sanders supporters are Obama bots.

a) "a) that voters are idiots" . . . well voters generally are idiots - look who they elected last time!

But shithead shills-fer-Crypto-Bernie think that all other people are idiots - you think no one will notice that you're re-using the same arguments you used to shill for the obomber last time you lot tried this con.

b) "saying stuff doesn't mean doing stuff" - Well it doesn't, does it? Words are cheap - actions can cost.

Especially where politicians are concerned. Crypto-Bernie's actions, his reserved-seat in the 1st-class section on the MIC-F35-Gravytrain, disproves any false claims regarding his alleged "socialism". His action of "making aliyah" disproves any claim that he is non-Zionist.

After all, It's politics! None of these people actually mean what they say, they do it to get elected. (That this actually needs explaining is astounding.)

c) that Sanders supporters are Obama bots.

If it looks like a horse, and smells like a horse, and dumps horseshit all over the place - then it's probably a horse.

We can clearly see these horse-shit Crypto-Bernie shills using the exact same arguments the Obama bots used 8yrs ago. So these horse-shit Crypto-Bernie shills are to all intents and purposes indistinguishable from the horse-shit Oboma-bots of 8yrs ago, and indeed many of them ARE/Were horse-shit Oboma-bots 8yrs, - they even admit it (see #43)

Posted by: the people | Feb 11 2016 19:12 utc | 91

If it looks like foff, and smells like foff, and dumps foffshit all over the place - then it's probably foff.

Posted by: not foff | Feb 11 2016 19:58 utc | 92

Careful now, your envy is showing

Posted by: not you | Feb 11 2016 20:26 utc | 93

@82 PB ,

"With finance being all public you have bureaucrats deciding on all loan activity."

I agree. It sure beats those decisions being made by folk acting on greed and avarice instead of the best interests of the group.

" That can be creepy, and at best, economically inefficient."

I will take creepy over anti-humanistic any day. Government actions have to lose a lot of efficiency to overcome the built in PROFIT factor of private efforts.....where did that mythological idea come from? I know I am smoking better shit than you.

"Instead, intelligent regulations should set the propensity of banks to take risks, for example, bankruptcy protection can encourage banks to avoid reckless loans rather than harbor an illusion that they will be able to squeeze blood out of stone."

I would much rather have those regulations apply to the government, be published and applied with conservative compassion.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 11 2016 20:46 utc | 94


Astute dissection of Oba-manure in '08 and prescient reading on the direction of the ride he was taking the sheeple for.

Posted by: metni | Feb 11 2016 21:27 utc | 95

You guys do realize Sanders has a record stretching back decades, right? He isn't just some blank-slate newbie like Obama was, you can actually look at his record and see if he's all talk or not.


Wow. You're an asshole.


I can tell you don't actually know much about Marie Antoinette.

Posted by: Plenue | Feb 11 2016 22:05 utc | 96

The political role of the Bernie Sanders campaign

Let us never forget, Democrats and progressives win when voter turnout is high.” He added that it was necessary to “remember—and this is a message not just to our opponents, but to those who support me as well —that we need to come together in a few months and unite this party” behind whomever is nominated (emphasis added).

Sounds like Alexis Tsipras on the eve of the referendum in Greece ... which he clearly expected to lose ... doesn't he? The dog whistle blows and the sheepdog answers. If Bernie were to win the nomination, expect a similar performance to Tsipras' from the Bern.

In terms of his actual program, the most essential issue is not Sanders’ promises of a $15 minimum wage and free tuition at public colleges and universities—which President Sanders would quickly drop because they would cut into corporate profits—but his support for imperialist war. Throughout the campaign, Sanders has said very little about foreign policy, but what he has said is aimed at assuring the ruling class and the military that he poses no danger.

In Sanders’ speech Tuesday night, perhaps the loudest applause from the audience came when he referred to his vote against the Iraq war in 2003. However, this was followed immediately with the pledge that “we must, and will destroy ISIS”—that is, prosecute the war in Iraq and Syria.

These comments are made as the Obama administration, whose foreign policy Sanders has repeatedly defended, is preparing an enormous escalation of the war in Syria, aimed above all at the removal of the regime of Bashar al-Assad. The conflict in Syria threatens to spark war with nuclear-armed Russia, the target of relentless threats by the US and the European powers, including a vast militarization of Eastern Europe.

Sanders opposes none of this. If he were called upon by the ruling class, he would use his “progressive” credentials to buttress support for war. Those “feeling the Bern” today would experience bombs tomorrow. Sanders would justify breaking his empty promises of social reform by pointing to the financial requirements of war.

Sanders aims not to create a “revolution,” as he asserts in his campaign speeches, but to prevent one.

Posted by: jfl | Feb 11 2016 22:43 utc | 97

Bernie Sanders = long time sleeper - sent back from Zion, just like ol Chompers, to play Socialist Shepard to the socialist sheep - Hegelian dialectics - control both sides. Both of them are confirmed Zionists that "made aliyah" and then returned.

And don't gimme any of that "oh we all made mistakes in our youth" crap - he STILL refuses to properly condemn Israel or Zionism, decades later he even threatens to sic the cops on anyone questioning him about his pretence of non-Zionism. So even you Bernie-Bots can't honestly pretend it's something he deeply regrets. But then Bernie's lack of honesty ain't something which seems trouble you lot overly-much.

I don't know anyone that went off to another country to join up with a bunch of nazi-like ethnic cleansers to lay claim to someone else's stolen land. And if I did I certainly wouldn't vote for the scum.

He isn't just some blank-slate newbie like Obama was, you can actually look at his record and see if he's all talk or not.

The F35 Gravy-train is NOT a "Socialist" Gravy-train. This is Lockheed Martin we're talking about - very very NOT Socialist. So yeah Crypto-Bernie has a long history alrighy - of working with and being rewarded by Lockheed Martin.

Bernie has 1st Class seat on the F35 Gravy-train, reserved just for him.

Posted by: not you | Feb 11 2016 22:56 utc | 98

Sanders aims not to create a “revolution,” as he asserts in his campaign speeches, but to prevent one.

hahah - even jfl can see it - THAT's how obvious it is!!

Posted by: not you | Feb 11 2016 22:58 utc | 99

Yes, the troll has foff-ited all credibility.

Posted by: Copeland | Feb 12 2016 0:10 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.