Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
April 25, 2019

Joe Biden Joins Crowded Primaries

Today we learned that this dude is again running for president.


In his campaign launch video Joe Biden waxes about the "core values of America" but makes zero political proposals. He claims:

Our very democracy, everything that has made America, America, is at stake. That's why today I'm announcing my candidacy for President of the United States.

The last time Joe Biden attempted to run, he claimed that he was motivated by his son Beau's dying wish for him to become president. Biden 'leaked' that 'dying wish' himself and the details of the 'dying wish' story changed over time.

There are now 20 Democrats running in the primaries for the 2020 presidential election. Only a few of them have the potential to beat Trump.

Biden is not one of them. His biggest strength is that his well known. It is also his biggest weakness. Biden is beholden to Wall Street, supported the Iraq war resolution (vid) and the Ukrainian fascists. His speeches are full of platitudes and balderdash. Biden has no new political program. His sole point is get rid of President Trump.

There are number of 'new' Obama like Democrats running, Robert Francis O'Rourke, aka Beto, and Pete Buttigieg of whom we are warned. Another type are the known 'centrists' - Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar. There are also a number of nonames with no chances to win. Most of them fall into the centrist/bipartisan category.

Unfortunately the Democrats handed Trump the gift of Russiagate. For more than two years they fought him on those grounds. They lost the fight when the Mueller investigation absolved Trump. The false accusations against him will become a major campaign issue. Trump will use the issue to enrage his base. He will say that it was unjust to accuse him of being a Russian stooge. Many people will agree with him if only on that point.

The fight against Trump can not be won in the center. Turnout will be the key factor. Without strong progressive positions the turnout in the general election for any Democratic candidate will be too low to win.

Three candidates fit that corner.

Elizabeth Warren has good progressive ideas. Unfortunately her personality is as likable as Hillary Clinton's. She does not connect emotionally and is difficult to sell.

Bernie Sanders may well have the best chance to beat Trump on domestic policies. But he is no progressive on foreign policy issues.

Tulsi Gabbard has the best overall program but the media ignore her and the Democratic Party establishment is strongly against her. She has no chance to win the primaries.

A Sanders/Gabbard ticket in the general election is one I probably could support. Would it be strong enough to beat Trump?

Posted by b on April 25, 2019 at 18:04 UTC | Permalink

next page »

Sanders/Gabbard would be the one and only ticket that would come close to beating Trump. But the Dems have hobbled themselves with Russiagate. The only hope they have is to go strong on the progressive agenda,The corporatist 'center' won't have a bar of it. It's going to be an interesting election...or maybe not, depending on who runs. Pure theater, anyway.

Posted by: m | Apr 25 2019 18:19 utc | 1

b, don't you go along with Dmitry Orlov's assertion that it doesn't matter who gets to be POTUS, because all of them are necessarily - and probably by now unavoidably - creatures of the true power-wielders of the deep state? They either toe the line of the real power-wielders' diktats, as Trump has been whipped into doing, or they get overthrown - sometimes by assassination. (My paraphrase of Dmitry...)

Posted by: Rhisiart Gwilym | Apr 25 2019 18:22 utc | 2

thanks b... i don't hold out much chance for any change, regardless of who gets in.. the war party is in full control of the usa and i can't see that changing any time soon.. my response is a bit like @3 rhisiart.

Posted by: james | Apr 25 2019 18:26 utc | 3

Joe Biden Is a Fraud, Plain and Simple

There are many of these essays listing in detail Biden's awfulness, so linking the latest seems the easiest thing to do. So far as I know, the man has no virtues worthy of mention, yet a rap sheet as long as the string of coupons you get at a CVS store.

Until convincing evidence to the contrary is stuck in front of my face, I see Biden as just another one of the people assigned to gather delegates so as to attain such a number Sanders can be denied the nomination. Of course Uncle Joe sees it differently. With an ego at least the equal of Trump's, the man imagines he can take the White House. Should it come to that, I'd imagine voters won't risk trading down. Since we're already at Trump Level, who could blame them?

Seriously, the Primaries next year are going to have to be closely watched, for vote fraud in them will be far more serious than in the general election. Like, does anyone suppose the Billionaires or Big Bankers or Holy Israel gives a hoot whether it's President Trump or President Biden?

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Apr 25 2019 18:27 utc | 4

Today Sloppy-Joe Biden joined the deluge of wet noodles hoping to take on MAGA Man.

T-Shirt time !


No, this is not some sort of Godzilla XLVI remake movie.
Joe Biden has tossed his kippah into the ring to run for President
and now it is
Establishment Biden vs wrecking ball Trump.




Get your T-shirts - MAGA vs MEGA

Posted by: librul | Apr 25 2019 18:40 utc | 5

Sanders will rally the FSA but that will go nowhere in general election.
Gabbard is serious person. The fact that DNC does approve is one of her strengths. Of course Wasserman will attempt a Tanya Harding but Tulsi can take her.
I hope she would not team with Biden.
I thing two good women might be powerful:
Behold: Gabbard/Omar.

Posted by: Jared | Apr 25 2019 18:47 utc | 6

Let us hope the Ukrainian pay for play is exposed at the same rate as his Grope & Change grinding on ladies and little girls.
Harris and Buttigieg need him out of the way for a showdown between competing SJW groups: black woman vs. gay male. Neoliberal monetary and Necon foreign policy are a given with all of them save maybe Bernie.

How to deep six Bernie once Biden is out of the way? Should be heinous and fun to watch.

Posted by: Anunnaki | Apr 25 2019 18:48 utc | 7

Biden is one creepy character. There's no way I'd let any female I knew near him.

Staggering list of damning evidence

Posted by: Some Random Passer-by | Apr 25 2019 18:49 utc | 8

Smiling Joe Biden, the glad handler from Delaware, is nothing more than another neocon wolf in sheep's clothing. His tenure as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1993 resulted in the infamous Anita Hill debacle due to his failure to investigate Ms. Hill's allegations that then SCOTUS nominee Clarence Thomas sexually harassed her several years earlier. The result was an embarrassing televised hearing that exposed Biden's incompetence, along with that of other members of the committee. In the end, an unqualified right wing legal 'bump on the log' attained a seat as a Supreme Court justice. Later it was proven that Ms. Hill's claims were true, but the damage was done. BTW, Biden's penchant for fascists was on display in the Yugoslavian civil war.

Posted by: GeorgeV | Apr 25 2019 18:50 utc | 9

Head of DNC says "We are at war with Russia"!!

Thus the following promo will likely play on BigLie Media:

We're at War with Russia! That would mean we need a War President, someone we know we can trust, someone like Joe Biden!

Note how Russiagate narrative is continued and turned into an asset.

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 25 2019 18:52 utc | 10

now we know why biden was so supportive of clarence thomas. sexual harassers gotta stick together.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Apr 25 2019 18:53 utc | 11

@ Rhisiart Gwilym #3

Sanders is already hip deep in the Deep State, and there is no denying it. In absolute terms he is an unacceptable candidate. But then a person recalls a famous Winston Churchill quote:

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

After stating the obvious fact Sanders just isn't much good, you have to ask, compared to what?

This election cycle it looks as if the Palestinians will be screwed yet again. But I can imagine that while Sanders will be extremely protective of the Holy Cesspool, he will stop the practice of kissing Netanyahu's ass to the point of inflammation.

As you say, if we get President Sanders we'd better not also be presented with Vice President Neocon. In that event I'd expect something or other to happen so as to suddenly have President Neocon.

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Apr 25 2019 18:54 utc | 12

I'm honestly disappointed Trump's nickname for Biden is "Sleepy Joe" rather than "Gropin' Joe."

+1 for Gabbard as Pres solely on her anti-Imperial Wars position (but I'd also be delighted if she were Bernie's VP).

Posted by: Farragut | Apr 25 2019 18:55 utc | 13

@ Jared #7

Omar isn't legally entitled to become President, so I expect a valid case could be made she couldn't become VP, either.

VP for Gabbard is the best I can hope for. The Corporate/Zionist Media is going to have it in for her by reporting lies or erasing her from the election picture as much as they can.

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Apr 25 2019 18:59 utc | 14

I agree with Rhisiart Gwilym @3 and james @4.

Hillary and Pelosi are against impeachment - which supports Trump - as I've explained here and here.

= = = =

Sanders is a Democratic Party sheepdog, as I described here.

<> <> <> <> <> <> <>

Sadly, I think b is caught in a mental framework, like many socialist-leaning Europeans, that prevents him from thinking critically about Sanders.

All the more strange because everyone can see how Obama and Trump failed to live up to their rhetoric, how powerful monied interests and the Deep State conduct "managed democracy" and give us the illusion of democracy. Yet some cling to the notion that democracy works! making it possible that a socialist hero can be elected.

Until democracy itself is made an issue (akin to the Yellow Vest protests), we will continue to be played.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 25 2019 19:35 utc | 15

You forgot Andrew Yang, the most transformative candidate in a generation. He's the only candidate who foresees the coming AI revolution that will make much human labor obsolete.

Math. Yang gang 2020. Secure the bag.

Posted by: Cycloben | Apr 25 2019 19:35 utc | 16

@ Jackrabbit #16

Sanders is a Democratic Party sheepdog, as I described here

I'll confess to being curious - which of the Trump Replacement candidates is NOT a "sheepdog"?

And exactly what is your proposed alternative for the "illusion of Democracy" plaguing the US?

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Apr 25 2019 19:44 utc | 17

Well known Twitter "bot" Ian56 has published a thread about Biden. I suggest people give it a looksee. Ian asks in his first entry:

"How the hell does the Oligarchy think they are going to get Creepy Joe Biden past the public?
I mean the average American Joe is extremely dumb & ignorant, but even they are not that dumb."

I just posted the answer @11. Welcome to 1984. We are now officially at war with Eastasia!

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 25 2019 19:45 utc | 18

+1 for Gabbard
Here's hoping that she, Sanders & Gravel tear the centrists a new one at the debate.

Posted by: Iguanabowtie | Apr 25 2019 19:46 utc | 19

Bernie Sanders may well have the best chance to beat Trump on domestic policies. But he is no progressive on foreign policy issues.

He has gotten better on this recently but he doesn't have the strength left in him to properly challenge the lobby, particularly being Jewish his extended family/social circle is a weakness they'll attack like with Goldstone.

Interestingly 'Beto' O'Rourke called Netanyahu a 'racist' not too long ago.

Presumably he calculated that the infamously spiteful man won't be in office come January 2021 and that he can join in the scape-goating of Netanyahu as the unique 'bad-man' whose policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians and other neighbours wasn't highly popular and endorsed by Israeli society and we can all forget about it when somebody more presentable takes over despite engaging in the same policies.

Posted by: Altai | Apr 25 2019 20:12 utc | 20

The intent of the "Democratic" National Committee, DNC, is to crowd the field with so many candidates that no one can win on the first ballot, allowing the Superdelegates the option to vote their "conscience" (their puppet masters choice) on the second, and thus installing another empty suit.

Either Sanders, or similar progressive, gets it on the first ballot, or it's the same old same old. You will notice that very few candidates are proposing progressive platforms.

IMO Americans are so insular and uninformed about foreign affairs, you will never see a foreign affairs candidate that can get any traction. Additionally, a foreign affairs candidate that went against the Deep State will be crushed, as is happening to Gabbert.

Also, it's important to note the last President that went against the CIA was assassinated in 1963.

It's all about control.

Posted by: Michael | Apr 25 2019 20:19 utc | 21

Russiagate will scarcely matter to most voters by election time 2020. Trump has already received whatever positives he will receive courtesy of Barr's whitewashing. It is clear among a majourity of Americans that Trump obstructed justice and the drip drip of continued information, hearings, etc will not improve his standing. May not hurt him but definitely will not help him gain voters at the margins.

Likewise, foreign policy scarcely moves the needle in the US electorate at large so that won't necessarily help Trump nor hinder Bernie except on the outer fringes. Americans are tired of endless wars so the Demotards should generally be favoured on this issue whether or not warranted so long as they play their cards right.

Trump may gain an advantage among more conservative-tinged independent voters if he continues to work in concert with Russia and Israel on Middle East issues in the sense that many may see these alliances as promoting strength and peace (whether warranted or not). The coming deal with China on trade will benefit Trump long as the economy keeps humming along.

US Presidential elections definitely turn on the economy. A slowdown or recession before 11/2020 and Trump is toast. Also, the conversation has clearly moved left on economic inequality and healthcare. Bernie owns these issues and to the extent he can make his way through the primaries he will stand a great chance of unseating Trump.

Warren does too but as you stated she is not telegenic nor peronable. Her .01% Native American schtick really hurt her credibility. That was a dumb move. Are some of her problems related to gender bias? Without a doubt. However, as I have long said, the first American female president will not come from the baby boom. The first American female president will more likely be a millenial. Gabbard is certainly telegenic and hasn't been blackballed as much as she is simply not well-known. She's in the field at the moment. Her chances appear more real farther down the road so running now could be seen as a first step in the eventual process. I doubt Bernie will choose her as VP but who knows?

Neither is Bernie telegenic of course but his style and his face on TV are well-known quantities at this stage. And he definitely benefits from his y chromosome. Right or wrong. Wrong for sure.

Bernie faces bigger challenges in the primaries from Biden, the younger better looking fellas and the female competitors then he will during the general, imho. Especially if the economy goes south...

Posted by: donkeytale | Apr 25 2019 20:19 utc | 22

Oops! I made a mistake. The Anita Hill hearings took place in 1991. I guess I'm getting a tad forgetful in my old age. Many apologies to MoA readers. --- GeorgeV

Posted by: GeorgeV | Apr 25 2019 20:31 utc | 23

A Sanders/Gabbard ticket in the general election is one I probably could support. Would it be strong enough to beat Trump?
Posted by b at 02:04 PM

Not a chance.
The Dems are dumber than rocks. The only way to beat Trump in an election battle is to damn him with faint praise and then offer to do what Trump (whose heart was in the right place) tried, but failed, to do. And they're all too pompous to swallow THAT much pride.

There's not much time left either. Some of Trump's gambits will probably bear fruit before the 2020 race and if that happens he'll romp home no matter what they try.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 25 2019 20:32 utc | 24

re Warren, she is also a "Russia! Russia! Russia!" type.

On facebook in May 2017, "We know that the Russians hacked into American systems to try to influence our election."

The other day on CNN she said, re the Mueller report, "Three things just totally jump off the page. The first is that a hostile foreign government attacked our 2016 election in order to help Donald Trump. The evidence is just there. Read it, footnote after footnote, page after page documentation. ..."

Not saying that most other candidates aren't the same.

Posted by: spudski | Apr 25 2019 20:35 utc | 25

Michael @22,

This is about right. I would add only that, whatever they say, the Democratic Party as a whole would much prefer to lose to Trump in 2020 than to beat him with Sanders-Gabbard. This is because Sanders-Gabbard threatens the power structure in the Democratic Party much more than Trump does. Also because Democrats are not so much interested in passing policy as pretending to "fight" for it against the evil Republicans. This way they can keep getting all the corporate-oligarch money while pretending to "fight" for the little guy.

Posted by: WJ | Apr 25 2019 20:37 utc | 26

Gabbard showed poor judgement when at about age 22 she joined the US Army in response to the Sept 2001 attacks on NYC and the Pentagon.

It was clear back then that some vast military counter attack would be not just a waste of resources but counter-productive to the USA and the world at large.

One can say she was young and didn't know better. But I don't see how anyone one smart thought some massive US military reaction to the actions of 20 hijackers was a good idea.

Posted by: Jay | Apr 25 2019 20:49 utc | 27

With the exception of Gabbard, the running list looks like a who's who of industry and Israel lobbyists.
Perfect scenario: Sanders and Gabbard run, beat Trump, and Airfoce 1 crashes, killing Sanders and all the top officials and generals, decapitating the deep state and leaving Tulsi in charge. Unicorns farting rainbows suddenly manifest everywhere, and Guy Faux reincarnates and this time, succeeds...

Posted by: dan | Apr 25 2019 20:53 utc | 28

Bernie Sanders has been around in Washington. He knows that his domestic plans are unaffordable in the Red Scare climate which he's been pushing himself, since all money will go to the Deep State and the Armies of Mordor. The evidence is he's OK with that. Anyway, why spend time on this old geezer; he's already lost and in the time since then, he's exposed himself as a phony and liar.

Posted by: Ma Laoshi | Apr 25 2019 20:59 utc | 29

There's no way Gabbard, Sanders or Yang will ever get the nomination. I'd be pleasantly surprised if they did.

Posted by: Ian | Apr 25 2019 21:00 utc | 30

The good thing about Biden entering the race is that it complicates an already difficult path to the nomination for the slew of establishment candidates. Biden is not a first choice for the Democratic intelligentsia. Sample Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight regularly and you'll know that Kamala Harris and boy-mayor Buttigieg are the favorites. Of course, Trump would eat either whole.

I'm rooting for Sanders, not because I believe him to be uniquely authentic, but because he is the one who scares the shit out of the big-ticket donors who guide the Democratic Party.

Read last week's front-pager from Jonathan Martin. Guaranteed if Bernie walks away with the primary in a rout, you'll see prominent Dems back a third party candidate.

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Apr 25 2019 21:02 utc | 31

It just doesn't matter. It never will matter and is going to continue to get worse until it fails. So why do people continue to vote for something that doesn't work and never will. The only thing that matters is local. Friends, family and neighbors. Politics is totally different when you can see your representatives by the whites of their eyes.

Posted by: so | Apr 25 2019 21:05 utc | 32

Thank you spudski #26, Warren is crap. There are only two genuine leading candidates, Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders that offer some serious prospect of change and either could get there. Any change away from the Belligerant faction would be welcome. But it needs a Congress and a Senate to combine with the change agenda to make a concrete, durable new direction. That is a daunting task but achievable in these times.

It will be interesting to watch Creepy Joe Biden eat shit but he is just the bait, I look forward to the switch being revealed. Nothing will surprise me.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Apr 25 2019 21:07 utc | 33

FWIW/ There is a very brief youtube video of Biden proclaiming proudly that he is a Zionist.

Posted by: Fastfreddy | Apr 25 2019 21:12 utc | 34

One gets so tired of this kind of speculative crap. When are the bulk of the people going to realize that Americans have not voted for president for four or five decades. The Rothschild cabal puts in whomever they order into the office. Some of them even brag about it. The actual vote is totally ignored, has nothing whatever to do with the outcome. Media and politicians know all this and are happy to present the usual THEATER to make the people think they actually have the power. It's actually poor theater as many of these idiots are not good actors but it carries much greater rewards than the also Jewish Hollywood acting. Talking heads have even been caught rehearsing the minute by minute election results ahead of the day but that's quickly down the memory hole.
Quit wasting your time and energy on a fixed racket. Work instead to end the racket.

Posted by: Tony B. | Apr 25 2019 21:17 utc | 35

Something ultimately vastly more important than the "elections" is happening. The manner in which elections are "conducted" in the US is changing -- And not necessarily for the better. The State of Main will be using "ranked choice voting" ("RCV"), previously known as "IRV" ("instant runoff"), which will eventually be found to be just as bad as the current system of "single selection" (or "plurality" or "FPTP"). This is a disaster. Also something called "approval voting" ("AV") is being promoted -- And this also, will not-work!!!

I and some others are promoting (simple) score voting ("SSV") which definitely WOULD work -- It would really disrupt the "two-party system". But unlike the other two, it is not backed by billion-dollar foundations.

I don't have much up yet, but I probably will soon (remember it, perhaps) at:

Posted by: blues | Apr 25 2019 21:22 utc | 36

Poor Ole' Joe Biden,
He's got a bad case of the Potomac Fever,
He dreams of no other things,
His salvation will be embalming fluid.

Posted by: hosscara | Apr 25 2019 21:41 utc | 37

This is going to haunt Q-Tip

My friend watches all these town halls. Said the one with Lie-a-watha and Gropin' Joe: Too white. Too old.

If Ukraine can elect a comedian why can't we? #JimmyDore2020

Posted by: Anunnaki | Apr 25 2019 21:46 utc | 38

Posted by: Michael | Apr 25, 2019 4:19:11 PM | 22

Agreed. It's all about bringing the Party controlled superdelegates into play.

Like you said, the D-Party's plan appears to be to flood the primary with a sufficient number of candidates to fragment first round primary voting enough so that no single candidate reaches the required 51% needed to exclude superdelegates from subsequent rounds of voting.

For anyone not familiar with this, here's the scam in brief:

1. New DNC rules state that superdelegates can not vote in the first round.

2. If, in the first round, a single candidate receives at least 51% of the vote, then the superdelegates do not come into play in subsequent rounds.

3. If no single candidate receives 51% of the vote, Party controlled superdelegates participate in subsequent rounds.

4. D-Party Solution: Flood the field of candidates so that it becomes much less likely that a single candidate will achieve 51% in the first round. Thus allowing the Party controlled superdelegates to be used to nominate the Party's chosen corporate loyalist.

A simple plan.

PS +1 for Gabbard
PPS For more detail on this subject, see:

Packed Primary May Let Superdelegates Screw Progressives Again

Posted by: nom de plume | Apr 25 2019 22:09 utc | 40

IMHO, None, including the current resident of the White House are qualified to lead a state,,, any state. There are very few 'leaders' in the world and none reside in the West. As for the author stating he could support Sanders,,, I as a US citizen in no way can support Free Schit Bernie nor can I support Warlord Trump so it looks like I have to sit out another joke laughingly called elections. Of the gaggle, I might,sorta, could consider Tulsi if she ever comes out of her shell and be... Tulsi....

Posted by: ken | Apr 25 2019 22:16 utc | 41

b said;"Tulsi Gabbard has the best overall program but the media ignore her and the Democratic Party establishment is strongly against her. She has no chance to win the primaries."

Absolutely, nor, anyone else with a progressive take on politics.

The party of $ has captured all the conduits of information for the most part, and what's
not in their camp, will be muted by Pelosi and Schumer, both $ party moles.
Sanders and Gabbard will never be heard, or nominated.

The Fascist takeover of the U$A is complete. Mussolini was correct about the alliance of corporate and state...

Posted by: ben | Apr 25 2019 22:16 utc | 42

Hoarsey @ 25 said;"The Dems are dumber than rocks."

Their not dumb, just bought and paid for, and have been for years..

Pretending to be for working class Americans, while being in the service of the $ party, is, for most of the Dems, a way of life. ( see Pelosi and Schumer)...

Posted by: ben | Apr 25 2019 22:24 utc | 43

Oh, P.S. Joe Biden F###ing sucks!!!

Posted by: ben | Apr 25 2019 22:30 utc | 44

donkeytale: You are either for fascism or against it.

Well, you are clearly for fascism because you support the electoral charade that is the US duopoly.

And @23 I see that you're still pushing the Putin is a Zionist bullshit, in a very sly way:

Trump may gain an advantage among more conservative-tinged independent voters if he continues to work in concert with Russia and Israel ...
LOL! Trump, Netanyahu, and Putin makin' sweet Zionist love together? Pass the eye bleach!

If you're such an Anti-fa warrior, why is it that you're so quiet about BDS?

But your duplicity is really probably best illustrated by your character assassination of Assange:

I'm for protecting Assange's freedom on principle but he is no sort of great man in any way shape or form.

In fact to me he is very much the typical media whore and drama queen.

If he wasn't bought off by Russia then he is certainly their dupe.

He's a rightwing libertardian which means he is an enemy of the masses at the end of the day ...

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 25 2019 22:31 utc | 45

The link for donkeytale quote

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 25 2019 22:33 utc | 46

@Zachary Smith (15) Because Omar is too young to run for President, she is likewise too young to run for Vice President, as that would place her next in the line of succession.

Posted by: Rob | Apr 25 2019 22:56 utc | 47

The fact that Biden survived the "GropeGate" stuff from a view weeks ago reinforces how the msm is cooking coverage or withholding it altogether.

Take a look at some video compilations of ol' Gropey-Joe as he is swearing in elected reps and photo-documenting the occasion.

Irrespective of his Obama-esque policies and status as standard-bearer for TPTB, the guy is just a straight up creep. And a particularly bad Catholic.


I agree that Sanders-Gabbard would absolutely destroy Trump and garner perhaps even more backing than Obama c. 2008.

I put the scary Socialist angle that is used against Sanders as carrying the same weight as the whole Crouching Blackman, Hidden Muslim thing that followed Obama during his run.

It is just hard to tell as to how sensible they (Sanders and Gabbard) would be allowed to be WRT FP.

But Trump had an opportunity to love his country. And he chose orherwise. SAD!

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Apr 25 2019 23:02 utc | 48

Americas core values are genocide slavery and robbing the poor.
Thought everyone knew that.🤗

Posted by: Robert Mcneilly | Apr 25 2019 23:04 utc | 49

I think the doom and gloomers in here decrying Sanders/Gabbard chances as securing the nom are not being very sensible.

There is no doubt in my mind that Sanders will be the nom. Whether he picks Gabbard or not will be telling.

Gabbard, so far, has been the straight-up most respectable, classy, and well-spoken candidate hitting the media circuit. Whispers abound about her legitimacy and should not be discounted.

And they already denied Sanders once. That was their free pass and you only get one of those. Ask the Syria-interventionists and they will say the same: "We already burned through the pass in Iraq and Afghanistan. Otherwise, Assad would have been publicly strung up and hung on MSNBC by now."

There will be hell to pay if they deny Sanders again.

But this is all contingent on the fact that you don't already think that TPTB are setting the table specifically for Sanders because he is already an owned man.

Here we go again with the same ol' question for the office of POTUS: "WHO ARE YOU?"

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Apr 25 2019 23:17 utc | 50

@ Mike Maloney #33

Read last week's front-pager from Jonathan Martin. Guaranteed if Bernie walks away with the primary in a rout, you'll see prominent Dems back a third party candidate.

This is possible, but it would take somebody doing a close imitation of Ross Perot (1992) to pull off such a stunt. Don't get me wrong, if it's possible it'll happen, but it might not be possible to find somebody able to suck in 10% of the votes.

I fear I'm seeing the beginnings of another Democratic strategy. If you look at the past week search results for "Impeach Trump", there seems to be a bit of a surge. In my humble opinion this would be a gift beyond price for him, especially as it comes on the heels of the fraudulent "RussiaGate" BS.

In the first place, it would be an obvious political ploy, for there is no chance at all the Senate would convict/remove Trump if the impeachment case came to them from the House. NONE! Back in the days of Nixon the Republican Party wasn't populated by swine like Mitch Mcconnell. There is no imaginable offence which would rise to the "conviction" level for this person. A Senator who arranged for the actual theft of a US Supreme Court seat has no scruples at all. When McConnell pulled the Supreme Court stunt he violated his solemn oath to uphold the Constitution. He's a criminal himself.

Because an Impeach Trump case would be both obviously political theater and doomed from the outset, it would gain immense levels of sympathy for the most unsympathetic person ever to sit in the White House.

So as I see it, the Democratic Big Brass are going to move heaven and earth to prevent Sanders from getting the nomination. Step Two is to Elevate Trump in as many ways as they possibly can in case the first Strategy fails. A klutzy and futile Impeachment would be one such way.

The option of running a Third Party seems far-fetched to me, but it's still a long time before things start hopping 2020.

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Apr 25 2019 23:20 utc | 51

As long as Hunter Biden is still a director of Burisma Holdings (which includes at least one other unpleasant individual on the Board of Directors), there is always a chance that elements within or connected to the Ukrainian government (even under Volodymyr Zelenskiy's Presidency, when he has his back turned on his fellow politicians), the previous Poroshenko government or Poroshenko himself, and / or the Maidan Revolution - Crowdstrike, Dmitri Alperovich and Chalupa sisters, we're looking at all of you - might try to derail any or all of the Democratic Party presidential candidates in attempts to have Joe Biden declared the official Democrat presidential contender in 2020. The only question is how openly brazen these people are going to be in order to save their pet project in Kiev before Ukraine erupts in civil war (and it won't be civil war in the Donbass area) and the entire country goes down in flames.

Maybe someone who really, really hates Biden in the Democrat camp could remind the DNC of this little episode where Biden threatened Poroshenko in 2016 that the US would pull US$1 billion in guarantees if the Porky one didn't pull his Prosecutor General.

As for the rest of the 20 candidates, I would prefer Tulsi Gabbard out of the lot. In this respect India's general elections, already under way, are going to be important. Gabbard needs to let go of Narendra Modi and his Hindutva BJP party - her friendship with Modi and his association with Hindutva are sure to come under scrutiny as will also any connections she and her office staff have with The Science of Identity Foundation organisation.

Posted by: Jen | Apr 25 2019 23:22 utc | 52

@ Ma Laoshi #31

Instead of Sanders, your personal choice would be.........Who?

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Apr 25 2019 23:42 utc | 53

Joe Biden is hard wired to the corruption in the corporate DNC. The tell on this will be when the media starts to roll him out with the fanfare of a new model car. It is hard to imagine that he can inspire voters in the primaries. But if the sell goes overboard and it becomes obvious that the fixers are determined to hand him the nomination; then it will be a real poke in the eye, and another PSYOPS to grossly demoralize voters in this country. Biden is about as exciting as a glass of milk that's curdled overnight on the end table by the bed.

Posted by: Copeland | Apr 25 2019 23:45 utc | 54

@ Jackrabbit with the donkeytale troll issue

It is time to put donkeytale on ignore for the sake of MoA comment threads, please and thank you. You and I and every other thinking person saw Sanders being a sheepdog in the last election but donkeytale has an agenda and you are it rather than the elements of what you write.

Hey donkeytale! Go check out Tacoma Power as a purely American example of socialism. Don't get too close though or you might get infected. And don't ever listen to KNKX from the same region because it is owned by the public....I don't like that they carry n(PR) but one doesn't often get everything.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Apr 25 2019 23:50 utc | 55

Discussing the farce of USA political theater wastes our host’s and readers’ talent and time.

Posted by: oglalla | Apr 26 2019 0:01 utc | 56

@59 oglalla

I understand the fatigue. But which country's politics should we talk about in the west that is worthy of expounding on their superior framework.


Thought so. I don't like shit sandwiches either, but c'mon.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Apr 26 2019 0:12 utc | 57

JackRabbit, I agree with psychohistorian. donkey is not worth your time. I no longer read donkey’s posts and doubt I’m alone. And I prefer to read what you write on matters other than defending yourself against donkey. (Huh... it seems my advice is borne of self-interest... So, of course, you do what you think best.)

Posted by: oglalla | Apr 26 2019 0:17 utc | 58


Smearing you? By pointing out how you smear others (like Putin and Assange)? Yeah, right.

Oh, And I never got an apology for your bogus claim that I "physically threatened" you with a "punch in the nose".

Your 'tale' wagging isn't fooling anyone.

= = = = = = = =

And you didn't debunk sh*t. My link @16 (here it is again) prooves his sheepdogging.

You're assertion that Sanders "... fucked Hillary instead of being her sheepdog" is laughable BS. Hillary alone is responsible for losing the election. This is widely recognized, although WHY this seasoned politician made such grievous mistakes is disputed.

IMO, which I've expressed many times,, Hillary THREW the election to Trump. Evidence for this includes:

> Kissinger's (whom Hillary often lauds) WSJ Op-Ed called for MAGA in 2014 and Trump was the ONLY populist MAGA candidate in the race;

> Hillary's alienation of key voter groups (which she alone is responsible for);

> within days of being elected, trump reneged on his vow to have his DOJ investigate Hillary;

> and now Hillary's support for Pelosi's no-impeachment position as I've explained here and here.

The Deep State wanted a MAGA nationalist to counter the challenge from Russia and China and that's what they got.

Sanders is a sheepdog/stooge that works for the Zionist establishment and Deep State just like Biden and a few others that are in the race. As much as you wag your 'tale', the stink remains.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 26 2019 0:23 utc | 59

oglalla @61

Thank you. Good advice.

From now on, I'll limit my responses to those that fall for donkey's BS.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 26 2019 0:27 utc | 60

@ Copeland #57

In parts of the US with no-verify electronic voting machines, what the Final Totals say may or may not reflect what the citizens using those machines put down as their preferences.

Imagine you or I are Big Moneybags with an interest in how an 'election' comes out. We'll tell our TV anchor employees to breathlessly report how Our Candidate is surging, and that person will wave around poll reports as evidence. It might or might not be necessary to buy some special polls - bald-faced lying is so successful these days we could possibly skip that step. Repeat with the free articles from Respected National Columnists we supply to the local newspapers we own. Since money isn't really an object, we'll have some of our other hired hands break down the big bucks we're giving our guy into little checks so it'll look like Joe Sixpack is getting excited about Our Candidate's prospects.

Finally on election day, watch for the results which our Election Employees outsourced to some reliable Diebold-type hackers. Because of all the previous "Elevating" of Our Candidate by all those media people, his/her victory will be considered unsurprising. And no matter what happens, there won't be a recount. Can't be - the last part was done by making a few quadrillion electrons go different directions than the voter meant for them to go and there is NOTHING to verify!

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Apr 26 2019 0:28 utc | 61

Calling Bernie Sanders a sheepdog and using the term as an unrelenting jab is just an abuse of rhetoric. It is a cheap political cliche. The quality of imagination is in decline in this bar when two posters manage to chew up yards of column inches revisiting the same used up arguments. Nothing is to be revealed in US politics unless the political conversation gets elevated; and this is a movement that actually seems be happening. Those who do participate in actual political struggle can add something new. No man's life is finished until he is dead, and no one has the right to circumscribe the meaning or the moral content of the person (even a politician) who is seen evolving for the better, or who demonstrates a real capacity to change,--not so long as that person still breathes.

Posted by: Copeland | Apr 26 2019 0:36 utc | 62

There's a limit to how many assassinations the deep state can perform without making it obvious what it's doing.

As a matter of fact, I think that's wny Nixon was allowed to live after he was removed from office by a CIA-led cabal in 1974.

Posted by: lysias | Apr 26 2019 0:38 utc | 63

@ Farragut #14

Let's put on our thinking caps and see if we can turn this ... habit ... into something positive. Since the term seems to be copyrighted, I'd better include the symbol here:

You'll be in Good Hands ® with Uncle Joe

BIDEN 2020

I wonder where we go to sign up for a regular paycheck.

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Apr 26 2019 0:51 utc | 64

Regarding the qualifications to become POTUS or VEEP, the following is from 1787 Constitution:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Omar cannot be POTUS or VEEP, although she might be allowed to become Speaker with the qualification that she cannot become POTUS. AOC is also too young. There are a few other naturalized citizens within Congress affected by this too. Likewise, Biden could be impeached for his previous crimes and become ineligible, which would be just.

It appears few noted my earlier posting of the declaration made by DNC head Tom Perez that "we are at war" with Russia, which clearly shows how the D Party establishment--Biden--intends to use the Russiagate narrative.

Posted by: karlof1 | Apr 26 2019 0:58 utc | 65

Zachary @64

I understand what you are saying, but the struggle has to yield results on some level or people will give up. There are many in Trump's base who are exited at the prospect that he will tear up the system; and he very well might do that--but clearly not with the results that they are expecting. The system could be reformed to some degree by getting rid of the Electoral College, and limiting presidents to one term. People often think there's nothing worse than losing an election; but a far greater catastrophe is having to accept that there is no effective opposition party in which to invest ones efforts. The progressive young Dems who want to shake up and change their Party will not accept an opposition party that is nothing more than an artifice of a political organization, dancing to the whims of the corporations.

Posted by: Copeland | Apr 26 2019 1:02 utc | 66

I donated to Tulsi Gabbard’s campaign so there would be one anti-war candidate in the Presidential debates. Having served in the first one, the restart of the Cold War is gut wrenching. Today it is far more dangerous than 40 years ago. “Détente” is archaic, Inequality in the West has reached the Gilded Age levels. The USA occupies East Syria even though its regime change campaign failed. With the estrangement of Western Allies, trade wars and economic sanctions against Russia and Iran, plus Joe Biden’s trench war in Ukraine, the slightest misstep and the global economy will crash. If a conflict breaks out with Russia or China, the Trump Administration is too incompetent and arrogant to back down to avoid a nuclear war. The 2020 election may well be the last chance to save the earth.

Posted by: VietnamVet | Apr 26 2019 1:08 utc | 67

Whatever Sanders and Gabbard are, remains to be seen, but I agree with b, they are the two best we've got.

Those who feel differently, no worries, unless I miss my guess, Biden is the one the party of $ will push.

Posted by: ben | Apr 26 2019 1:16 utc | 68

This from Truthdig on Biden;

Posted by: ben | Apr 26 2019 1:38 utc | 69

The oligarchy reels out all tired scams over and over, until you want to cry out in anguish. Don't let them wear you down. Never capitulate. If Biden by some horrible chance has the winning hand, I'm guessing he will pick Gillibrand for his VP, a centrist of compromising kind, a shapeshifting clone to remind people of Hillary on some subconscious level. More of the same will fix us right up, on our journey to virtual political reality, and the end of humanity. These fucks will use the "little nukes" as they tuck us into bed.

Posted by: Copeland | Apr 26 2019 1:41 utc | 70


Nothing is to be revealed in US politics unless the political conversation gets elevated

Yes, let's elevate it.

Sander's failure to be a real candidate in the 2016 election, is just one example of the corrupt "managed democracy" produced by our money-driven duopoly and Deep State. Obama was another example. He was a faux populist that served the establishment, not the people.

A Princeton University study determined that USA is not a democracy but an oligarchy:

... our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes.When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover,because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.
And this study used data from 1980-2002 - it's only gotten worse after that!

The question we should be asking ourselves isn't what establishment stooge should we choose? but how do we ensure that the establishment can't continue to play us?

In that light, we should not tolerate the continued participation of ANYONE that's already participated in the establishment's "illusion of democracy" game.

Furthermore, the reason we are having this conversation a full 18-months before the election is that the establishment doesn't want us to explore alternatives. They want your mind engaged with their con. They employ shills like donkey to ensure that you are so engaged.

= = =

no one has the right to circumscribe the meaning or the moral content of the person (even a politician) who is seen evolving for the better

Bernie Sanders is nearly 80 years old, I think he's "evolved" as much as he's going to evolve.

The only thing Sanders had going for him was his "moral content" yet he used that to help Hillary in 2016. IMO, "truth-tellers" should tell the truth and whose who claim to have principles should live by them. By that standard, Sanders failed us.

Lastly, the same appeal that you make could be made for other egregious acts. And would you make the same argument for a child molester or serial killer? Don't be so quick to say it's not the same. The AZ Empire has the blood of tens of thousands of people on its hands.

IMO accountability is at the core of any democratic system.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 26 2019 1:42 utc | 71

I endorse oglalla @ 59. It’s been non-stop BS since 4Q15, because it keeps your eyes off the ball.

uncle tungsten | Apr 25, 2019 5:07:29 PM | 35
“I look forward to the switch being revealed. Nothing will surprise me.”
It’s hiding in plain sight, but few see it. Michelle Obama will be dragged (kicking & screaming of course) to the stage @ the Dem Convention to “unite” the Party and become the “Trump Slayer”.

As for Jacktale & donkeyrabbit – just take it outside in the alley and leave the barflies in peace, eh!

Posted by: Desolation Row | Apr 26 2019 2:06 utc | 72


The accountability that is on offer in the upcoming election is to alter the structure of the Democratic Party. The deck was stacked against the progressive challenge in the last presidential election. Only a candidate who has genuine "fire-in-the-belly" has a chance to beat Trump. Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and Elizabeth Warren are the only ones I see who are holding these credentials. I think you are wrong when you say that Sanders is finished evolving, --and despite his age-- he is the most dynamic, among the older people Americans seem to prefer to be president. It would do him some good and improve his chance of success, if he chose for his running mate someone whose passion was equally sincere.

Political sour grapes and fatalism offer us no hope of coming through the next few years intact.

Posted by: Copeland | Apr 26 2019 2:10 utc | 73

Sanders is NOT anti-estblishment. He's just good at hiding his support for the establishment so that he can be used as foil / sheepdog / spoiler.

"Enough with the emails" - Bernie refused to raise "character issues" about Hillary despite the fact that she would face those same issues in the general election;

faux populist sell-out Obama campaigned for Bernie;

Bernie admitted that Hillary "a friend of 25 years";

Schumer refused to fund any Democratic Party candidate that would run against Sanders in Vermont;

Sanders votes with the Democrats >95% of the time.

<> <> <> <> <> <> <>

We can debate the merits of each establishment stooge until we're blue in the face but establishment plans for gaming the race are likely to have already made. It's be another good show that millions of American's tune in to watch.

My best guess: gay Mayor Pete gets most of the primary media coverage which focuses on his oh-so-sensible agenda, Obama-like likeability, and "historic" (did I mention that he's gay?) run for the Presidency. But Pete and his running mate Biden fail to unseat Trump.

2024: Mayor Pete loses Democratic nomination to a women (Chelsea Clinton? she'll be 44) and she wins the Presidency.

Unless, that is, Americans wake up and demand a real democracy.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 26 2019 2:17 utc | 74

Copeland: Political sour grapes and fatalism

Sorry, I don't think this is sufficient to dismiss the "managed democracy" charge.

Hope and Change has failed. We need a system reset.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 26 2019 2:20 utc | 75


Please don't discriminate! The king of the sexual harassers is the Pussy-grabbing Prez.

Posted by: Circe | Apr 26 2019 2:32 utc | 76


Americans don't have real democracy yet, in the way that democracy matters most. How do Democrats demand a real democracy if the party machinery subverts democracy in primary elections, and stacks the deck at the convention with "superdelegates", and manipulates procedure at the convention with the Party Chair. It was not all Bernie's fault. Which mealy-mouthed, run-to-the-center contender would be better? Jackrabbit all you can seem to do is wring your hands. Trump is not going to be unseated by political histrionics or theatre; he has cornered the market on those things. No bi-partisan-loving film-flam is goin to unseat him. The only thing that is going to send Trump packing is a candidate who is willing to talk about American reality, as opposed to fantasy.

Posted by: Copeland | Apr 26 2019 2:40 utc | 77

Copeland: Which mealy-mouthed, run-to-the-center contender would be better?

I'm advocating that the system be overhauled and you return with a demand that I choose a candidate. LOL.

The establishment fears a Movement like the French Yellow Vests, NOT Bernie Sanders.

You are free to waste your time with Bernie or whatever stooge the Democrats put up there. It will change NOTHING. How do I know? From the "hard lessons" learned from the falseness of Obama, Hillary-Bernie, Trump, et al.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 26 2019 2:54 utc | 78

Yall ready for Chelsea Manning Clinton 2024!! Ahhh, the never ending theatre. Reminds me of the story of the dancing nymphs, they enchant with their spell, and you to dance until you grow old and die.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 26 2019 2:56 utc | 79

Jrabbit vs. Sanders; We'll never know all about Sanders unless he's the nominee. Trump ran on a Sanders platform, and did well. He fooled a lot of people, but in the, end we now know the real DJT. IMO Sanders deserves the same kind of chance. But, we all know that won't happen because most of the Dems serve the $ party.

So, in your estimation we should do nothing. That's total BS, and you know it.

Posted by: ben | Apr 26 2019 2:56 utc | 80

You would actually vote for one of these dem retards?
You're more forking stupid than I thought.

Posted by: Freemon Sandlewould | Apr 26 2019 3:03 utc | 81

Pantomime, nothing will change. Trump is just continuing the rule of the oligarchy, it's more obvious because of Trump but the slaughter continues unabated. One of the "great" global families the Saud family - an important part of the global oligarchy just beheaded 37 +/- and shot some others crucified one and put a body on a pike in public. These are our rulers - Trump is part of the pantomime.

Posted by: Babyl-on | Apr 26 2019 3:03 utc | 82

A Biden-relevant headline:

Anita Hill Eviscerates Joe Biden’s ”Apology” in Scathing Interview

Can't say I blame the woman. I smell "expediency". Now if this happened three or thirteen years ago I might not be so skeptical.

Personally, I don't believe we need a 'friendlier' version of Trump.

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Apr 26 2019 3:06 utc | 83

@ Freemon Sandlewould #83

For whom will you be casting your ballot?

Posted by: Zachary Smith | Apr 26 2019 3:07 utc | 84

OK Jackrabbit, but you must notice that our host does not seem to despair of Sanders. He is not filled with the distaste that seems to overwhelm you. You can't be expecting deus ex machina. My friends and I have talked about Bernie's last campaign and we were disappointed in him; but was he supposed to lead an insurrection on the convention floor? Was he supposed to take up Jill Stein's offer of the Green Party nomination? If he had burned all his bridges, would the opportunity of running for president again with the chance of winning even exist? No.

Well Bernie admitted to friendship with Hillary in the past. Well damn his eyes I guess, Jackrabbit. Aren't many of those Senators friends in that august chamber, the "great cooling saucer of democracy"? I agree with you that we need a system reset. We arrive perilously near the end of things now; but I think there is a change beginning; not the mirage of hope and change, but a moment in which that understanding is advancing, and real reform may come.

Posted by: Copeland | Apr 26 2019 3:13 utc | 85

None of the duopoly puppets will ever change anything for the better.

Neither of the "two-parties" offer the slightest hope.

Only a simple score voting revolution does.

Posted by: blues | Apr 26 2019 3:28 utc | 86

ben @82: ... in your estimation we should do nothing.

No. I didn't say that.

I'm saying this is a game that you can't win. They make it seem like you CAN win, but you can't.

Because it's not 'America First', it's 'Empire First' and 'Money First', and it has been that way for decades.

But hey, let's pin all our hopes on a 78-year old Jewish man who's already betrayed us and is on friendly terms with key members of the establishment that oppresses us. What could go possibly go wrong?

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 26 2019 3:29 utc | 87

@ 87; Well said, and from your mind, to the universal ear..

Posted by: ben | Apr 26 2019 3:32 utc | 88

Copeland @87: ... real reform may come.

So you're telling me there's a chance? ... Yeah!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 26 2019 3:37 utc | 89

@ 89 said; "What could go possibly go wrong?"

Absolutely nothing, except, we might learn the truth.

" Nothing ventured, nothing gained "

Posted by: ben | Apr 26 2019 4:20 utc | 90

I find the fact that Hillary is against the impeachment of Trump very telling. Hillary is helping Trump again. In 2016 Hillary gave Trump the Presidency. Trump is the chosen stooge and the same oligarchy that put him in office in 2016 will sabotage everyone else except the foils who don't stand a chance and are there solely to ensure he gets back in to complete the mission. Trump's second term will be all about aggressive moves to ignite war. Trump is pumping up the military in preparation for war. All signs point to war, and it won't end with the end of his second term.

The oligarch masters will never allow Sanders to make it past the primaries again. This is why I'm not buying Jackrabbit's sheepdog malarkey. If by some miracle Sanders makes it, the oligarchy will throw their weight behind Howard Schultze to spoil Sanders chances against Trump.

Jackrabbit knows Trump is slated to win. He's on a mission to ensure Bernie loses as much support as possible. He has no viable option to offer because in fact, he wants Trump to get back in.

The rebels in the Democratic Party, AOC, Omar, Tlaib and even Warren and a few others need to mobilize for impeachment. IMPEACH THAT SOB! It's the only way to stop the bastard from a second term, and he must be stopped. Trump is a Neocon and a rabid Zionist and if people have to occupy the halls of Congress to get that lunatic out of the White House then that's what needs to be done! He is a menace to this planet!!! He is the epitome of corrupt power!


Posted by: Circe | Apr 26 2019 4:39 utc | 91

'Bernie Sanders may well have the best chance to beat Trump on domestic policies. But he is no progressive on foreign policy issues'

He campaigned against the Vietnam war before he got elected, he later opposed the Iraq invasion, and recently led the Senate to oppose US involvement in Yemen. What is your standard for calling him a progressive? Does he have to be to the Left of Noam Chomsky (who, incidentally, says Sanders has the best policies out of any candidate)?

Posted by: Sigil | Apr 26 2019 4:41 utc | 92

Trump really has little chance of winning. His electoral victory was huge but the swing states were pretty tight. Florida, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and some other states were close. Do the numbers yourself. I would expect a higher turnout on the other side. Trumps base was maxed out.

If he faces off against Biden a bumbling Biden campaign could win it for him and that is very possible. A peace treaty with North Korea would help him. Trump is going to run the same campaign he ran before and I do not think that will help him. I notice the crowds are still big but the crowd noise is very different. Not jubilant like the first run. It sounds like an angry murmur this time.

95% negative press has taken its toll. I see the economy turning down. High oil prices will cripple a weakening economy. War with Iran will not be popular, he would have to save that for a second term unless our friends can pull it off behind his back. That is possible as they have gotten a boatload out of him and the "peace deal of the century" will be a big gift to them. It might be time to "off" Trump politically and move on as Biden would be good to them.

He has to deliver the next two years and nothing will get done beyond executive action. If the Democrats go with the establishment candidate, and that is most likely then Trump has a outside long shot chance.

Posted by: dltravers | Apr 26 2019 4:43 utc | 93

@94 Sigil

He campaigned against the Vietnam war before he got elected, he later opposed the Iraq invasion, and recently led the Senate to oppose US involvement in Yemen. What is your standard for calling him a progressive? Does he have to be to the Left of Noam Chomsky (who, incidentally, says Sanders has the best policies out of any candidate)?

Even though Sanders is the most progressive in the lot, and would not start a war, especially with Russia, his standard is that Sanders has to kiss Putin's ass and that's why he holds his nose and puts up with all of Trump's shet, even though he dare not whitewash it anymore, but still pretends that Trump is a hapless hostage suffering from Neocon Stockholm Syndrome.

Posted by: Circe | Apr 26 2019 4:54 utc | 94

@ 93; You bet, but, I'm afraid Pelosi and Schumer, & their ilk,, will prevent it.

The party of $ owns them, and many others..

Posted by: ben | Apr 26 2019 5:00 utc | 95

@97 ben

If we were to query every Democrat who shamelessly showed their face at AIPAC's Convention this year, all would be in agreement that Trump must not be impeached. What does that tell you?

Let me answer: The masters want Trump and he is untouchable. Even Mueller was forced to reserve his judgment call.

Posted by: Circe | Apr 26 2019 5:08 utc | 96


Hillary is helping Trump again. In 2016 Hillary gave Trump the Presidency.

I'm glad that you agree with me on these points.

If only you could go a little further ...

= = = = =

Trump's second term will be all about aggressive moves to ignite war. Trump is pumping up the military in preparation for war. All signs point to war ...

I think you're being optimistic. The election is a long way off. We could be at war before the election.

= = = = =

The oligarch masters will never allow Sanders to make it past the primaries again. This is why I'm not buying Jackrabbit's sheepdog malarkey.

LOL. Sanders never made it past the primaries in 2016.

Funny how Sanders supporters scream "he's not a sheepdog!" but never actually refute the facts that demonstrate that was.

= = = = =

Jackrabbit knows Trump is slated to win. He's on a mission to ensure Bernie loses as much support as possible.

I never said said that I know that Trump will win. However, as a 'war President' (a possibility that YOU've alluded to), he might have an advantage that we are not anticipating today.

Please don't misrepresent my position. I've made it clear, multiple times: I'm opposed to "managed democracy", not any one candidate.

<> <> <> <> <> <> <>

Those who cheer Sanders are ignoring both the hidden-in-plain-sight evidence for "managed democracy" (e.g. duopoly, money-based electoral system; lapdog media; and Imperial Deep State) and in-your-face lived history: Obama and Trump have both sweet-talked their 'base' but ruled as servants of the establishment and a member of the Deep State.

What's needed for real change is a Movement that is outside duopoly politics. That is what the establishment really fears. And that's why we are being pressed to get emotionally engaged in this sh*t show 18-months before the election. Because they don't want people to think of alternatives. You enslave yourselves.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 26 2019 5:33 utc | 97

Both Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are clowns. They do not have a chance to win against Pres. Trump, who will be the bankrupcy president. No one else would be able to handle it and the oligarchs know it. Democracy ? It stopped being a joke.

Posted by: Friar Ockham | Apr 26 2019 6:21 utc | 98

I'm honestly disappointed Trump's nickname for Biden is "Sleepy Joe" rather than "Gropin' Joe."
Posted by: Farragut | Apr 25, 2019 2:55:13 PM | 14

A sitting president calling an opponent "Gropin' Joe" especially as a regular slogan would not be a good precedent, and would have problematic legal implications (insinuating Hillary as a criminal in 2016 was different because it was already so heavily documented to be true, and most people hated Hillary so much). On the other hand "Sleepy Joe" rhymes with "Creepy Joe", and can safely be repeated every 30 seconds by the president without adverse implications. With third party assistance, "Sleepy Joe" can easily be made to mean "Creepy Joe" by insinuation, without the legal hazards. (For example, if the audience chant "Creepy Joe" while Trump is saying "Sleepy Joe", Trump has no liability but the implied meaning is still "Creepy Joe".


Gabbard would never make it to the nomination, the establishment will certainly guarantee that. On the other hand if Gabbard were to run as INDEPENDENT with Omar as VP that would make a really good upset to the system (even if as independent she had too little penetrating power, that combination of Gabbard as independent would cause more of an upset to the system than a successfully nominated Gabbard as Dem). A shame Omar is too young to qualify as VP, but maybe there is someone slightly similar who would qualify instead.

The Democratic Party is finsihed anyway, it is too profoundly discredited.

I "nominate" Gabbard as Independent. If she runs as Dem in the primaries and is then demonstrably cheated in the same way Sheepdog was in 2016, that very cheating itself would make an excellent kickstart for a run as Independent. If as a result she made a demonstrable impact in the final election - almost certainly without winning, however - that would turn the entire two-party system upside down and provide an opening for real change in the election thereafter. Realisticly, that is by far the best prospect for real change in the future that exists, in my opinion, aside from revolution (which is not going to occur, or if it does it will only result in mincemeat).

Posted by: BM | Apr 26 2019 6:47 utc | 99

Who would make a good running mate for Gabbard? Someone verging a bit towards Omar, but qualified to run?

Posted by: BM | Apr 26 2019 6:50 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.