Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
February 20, 2020

Sanders Wins Democrats Primary Debate

The various reflections of last night's debate between Democratic party primary candidates give a consistent picture.

  • Bloomberg lost. He had brought a wallet to a knife fight and made a generally bad impression. Even the news service that carries his name headlined: Bloomberg Hammered.
  • Buttigieg was again exposed as the soulless fluff he is.
  • Biden is frail, confused and talks too much.
  • Warren gets some points for hammering Bloomberg. But that is it.
  • Klobuchar gets points for hating Buttigieg but is otherwise too robotic to attract votes.
  • Sanders ably defended his positions against attacks from all sides.
  • Tulsi Gabbard was unfortunately not invited.

This impression seems to be correct:

Carl Beijer @CarlBeijer - 3:01 UTC · 20 Feb 2020

Bernie Sanders is debating like a frontrunner, confidently advancing his agenda and fending off attacks.

Everyone else is frantically trying to make some kind of game-changer happen, throwing up one-liners and cutthroat attacks like Hail Marys with the clock winding down.

The Democrats will likely have a brokered convention. If there is no candidate who gets a majority in the first round, hand selected 'superdelegates' will also vote. They will select the candidate the party's paymasters want. They may even try to rerun Hillary Clinton through this backdoor.

Op-eds that argue for such sham democratic processes are already getting published. Even under the slogan "Democracy Dies in Darkness":


bigger

(The Washington Post changed the above headline after it had caused an outrage on social media.)

All candidates but Bernie Sanders seen to be fine with such anti-democratic schemes. When the moderators asked if the candidate with the most delegates should automatically become the party nominee the answers were:

- Bloomberg: No
- Warren: No
- Biden: No
- Buttigieg: No
- Klobuchar: No
- Sanders: Yes, the inclusion of superdelegates is not indicative of a democratic process.

Sanders economic and domestic policies seem generally okay to me. But his foreign policies are still too aggressive:

In Hungary, far-right authoritarian-nationalist leader Victor Orban models himself after Putin in Russia, saying in a January interview that, “Putin has made his country great again.” Like Putin, Orban has risen to power by exploiting paranoia and intolerance of minorities, including outrageous anti-Semitic attacks on George Soros, but at the same time has managed to enrich his political allies and himself.

Where please is Putin "authoritarian"? When has Putin "exploited paranoia and intolerance of minorities"? When he opened the Grand Mosque in Moscow? And to put the dully elected Duterte of the Philippines and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un into one "authoritarian leaders" pot, as Sanders does in other parts of that speech, makes little sense to me.

Sanders current foreign policy advisor is an aggressive know-nothing:

Matt Duss @mattduss - 1:37 UTC · Feb 20, 2020

"It should come as no surprise, therefore, that those who understand Putin’s kleptocratic system – such the leader of the Russian opposition, Alexei Navalny – are now rooting for Sanders."

Guardian: Hawks say Sanders will be weak on Russia. But Putin should fear a President Bernie

Navalny is a xenophobe and racist nutter. He compared Muslims to cockroaches who should be killed. He does not lead anything and certainly not the Russian opposition. Polls in Russia have him at 1%.

Still - Sanders foreign policy is probably the least aggressive in the field with the exception of probably Gabbard's. Sanders should select her for the vice president position. As a woman of color she would also tick off two now necessary categories.

But first he will have to win the big fight to become the nominee. The powers that be will do their best to prevent that.

Posted by b on February 20, 2020 at 16:50 UTC | Permalink

Comments
« previous page

Frankly some people here seem to be living in la-la-land where impossible dreams come true.
How about some realpolitik as practiced by both halves of the amerikan empire party when the VP decision time comes around. Does anyone imagine Kennedy wanted Johnson as VP or Bush I, Dan Quayle or Oblamblam the crookedest man in the senate, Joe Biden?
Of course not they were told to take these hacks as a way for 'the party' to keep the hairy eyeball on 'their' Prez.

Let's just pretend for a moment that Sanders came to conference with sufficient delegates that the hope of the DNC to override Sanders with superdelegates was simply too much for the dem party to achieve without alienating a sizable chunk of potential dem voters for life (the odds of that occurring are slimmer than a 2 year old Yemeni, but let's pretend).

Even if Sanders had sufficient delegates to obviate a brokered conference, it wouldn't matter, the DNC would still insist on a 'sit down' with the Sanders crew and insist he took a particular person as his VP. Sanders could refuse, in which case he could expect zero $$$'s for his campaign from the dems and worse the DNC would tell him that the party money, in many cases donated to the DNC by naifs who 'wanted to give Bernie a hand', was going to be spent 'down ticket' assisting all the dem pols up for re-election who were committed to opposing Bernie's favourite policies such as single payer healthcare.

Bernie would be screwed as even if he beat orange moron as he wouldn't stand a shitshow in hell of getting any of these "radical pinko policies" through, which would be justified by the rightist dem senators & congress-creeps saying "Democrat voters, voted for a democratic president not a marxist president" over and over until the idiots among the public had been sufficiently indoctrinated to believe that tosh. There is no way Gabbard will be permitted as Sanders' running-mate unless she has totally sold out already.

Maybe Sanders should open the bidding with Gabbard, after which the DNC might offer up 'Pete the cheat' to ensure Bernie is defeated, or some other less power-hungry, more malleable dem lick-spittle.
If Sanders is smart enough to play this game, he will already have worded up one or two slightly conservative DC hacks on the qt, then make out he's making a huge compromise by selecting her/him.

He could conceivably get away with that as long as the DNC mobsters are blindsided - remember most of those DC lowlifes will leap at the chance of the veep's gig since it puts you in the inside running to be the prez after yer running 'mate'. And offering it quietly early on would give Sanders the right to insist on blind loyalty - which he prolly wouldn't get totally, but he would have something close to that

Trouble is I don't reckon Sanders has the smarts to pull a rort like that off - we shall see. Whatever he does do the odds are high of him being stymied every time if he does make it

Posted by: A User | Feb 21 2020 3:04 utc | 101

Posted by: Krollchem | Feb 21 2020 1:55 utc | 92

In reply to my comment on the process, you wrote

"Actually this is not technically correct…
and then you quoted Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution.

You ignored the process

I wrote on the process in which jim and jane mainstreet vote [the 2nd part of the process] to select the State electors to the Electoral College: from Link (Archives.gov) provided @ 24 and fully detailed below:

November 3, 2020—Election Day

During the general election your vote helps determine your State's electors. When you vote for a Presidential candidate, you aren't actually voting for President. You are telling your State which candidate you want your State to vote for at the meeting of the electors. The States use these general election results (also known as the popular vote) to appoint their electors. The winning candidate's State political party selects the individuals who will be the electors.[.]

Who selects the electors?

Choosing each State's electors is a two-part process. First, the political parties in each State choose slates of potential electors sometime before the general election. Second, during the general election, the voters in each State select their State's electors by casting their ballots.

The first part of the process is controlled by the political parties in each State and varies from State to State. Generally, the parties either nominate slates of potential electors at their State party conventions or they chose them by a vote of the party's central committee. This happens in each State for each party by whatever rules the State party and (sometimes) the national party have for the process. This first part of the process results in each Presidential candidate having their own unique slate of potential electors.

Political parties often choose individuals for the slate to recognize their service and dedication to that political party. They may be State elected officials, State party leaders, or people in the State who have a personal or political affiliation with their party's Presidential candidate. (For specific information about how slates of potential electors are chosen, contact the political parties in each State.)

The second part of the process happens during the general election. When the voters in each State cast votes for the Presidential candidate of their choice they are voting to select their State's electors. The potential electors' names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the Presidential candidates, depending on election procedures and ballot formats in each State.

The winning Presidential candidate's slate of potential electors are appointed as the State's electors—except in Nebraska and Maine, which have proportional distribution of the electors. In Nebraska and Maine, the State winner receives two electors and the winner of each congressional district (who may be the same as the overall winner or a different candidate) receives one elector. This system permits Nebraska and Maine to award electors to more than one candidate.[.]

(empasis added)


Posted by: Likklemore | Feb 21 2020 3:25 utc | 102

Rob @ 99 - I don't think evidence of this form has been archived anywhere on the Internet. I would be particularly interested in seeing how much of a favorite Clinton was in 2016. I doubt she would have been more than 2/3, and the result not as shocking an upset were Trump actually 1/1. In any event, if the favorite an hour before the books closed always won, who then would ever consider the price on an underdog as an overlay? I'm not addressing any prediction of a winner; I'm observing the changes in public opinion as expressed through those who are willing to take a money position along the way. There would be no other prominent reason for Sanders to reclaim over Bloomberg in less than a week, the Democratic candidate top spot in betting odds, than his strong showing Wednesday night.

All of the legal gambling outlets will tend to keep fairly close in sync with changes in odds offered. Any one of them getting significantly out of sync is taking a position, attracting layoff action from one of the others. When someone makes an investment in this type of futures, it's with an eye toward spotting an overlay. That means a current line which is offering too strong a return on the investment. The books have several ways of adjusting. They can change the odds offered, lay off action with each other to balance their money position, or offer early resolution to certain ticket holders. For example, Trump opened at 5/2 and toward the end of 2018 had been bet down to 3/2. He is currently 8/13 which represents an extreme overlay if someone is holding a ticket with 3/2 odds. When this kind of situation occurs, all of the books are likely to sustain a loss. So, they will offer early resolution. A $2000 ticket on Trump at 3/2 will return $5000, however anyone holding this ticket may be offered $2750 today for early resolution. That's an immediate $750 profit for giving back their position.

Now to illustrate just how drastic changes in the futures betting can be, a few hours ago Sanders was 7/2, he's now 10/3. Bloomberg continues to slide, from 4/1 last week to 11/2 a few hours ago to now 7/1. Perhaps Bloomberg will be attractive enough to become an overlay at 10/1? I would consider that price might be worth taking a position on, if one thinks convention shenanigans will place him as the candidate. At that point (if correct) he'll drop to say 8/5 and will return a good profit from early resolution.

The changes in the betting lines appear more discernible to me, than a shift of a few percentage point amongst pollsters. Notice Pence is back on the board, so obviously some people think there's greater than a 300/1 chance Trump is deceased during this term.

Posted by: psychedelicatessen | Feb 21 2020 4:04 utc | 103

Aren't you being somewhat disingenuous by selectively nitpicking a few sentences out of Bernie's speech that merely express an opinion, not a declaration of political meddling, intervention or war, while leaving out the positive 90%, like his criticism of Bolsanaro, Netanyahu and Israel's racist unjust policies and his concern for the dire situation in Gaza?

He rails against Saudi Arabia and MBS and the war on Yemen. He's critical of Sheldon Adelson's influence, the Koch brothers and Mercer and the corruption of goverment and the greed they represent. He's critical of the massive amounts of funding spent on the military. That's great, no?

He's sympathetic to the unjust imprisonment of Lula da Silva and talks about the necessity of addressing climate change and poverty and much more. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT??? There's a Ziofascist in the White House right now who just brought on board Richard Grenell for DNI, (ironically mentioned in Bernie's speech last October...prophetic? Yes.), yet another Iranophobe! So you can guess what direction we're headed in?

Out of all the good that Bernie spoke you gripe about that small paragraph and use it to distort as still too aggressive his entire foreign policy vision and pov on issues few in Congress have the spine to address?

You think I'm just going to let slide this perversion of his message?

Just see how so many comments reek with that same type of distortion parotting YOUR CUE. Do you not feel any responsibilty to the truth and to the power your word may have to influence others to misjudge Bernie Sanders unfairly through your distorted lens?

I am sickened reading the comments that emanated from your small paragraph and bet you NO ONE BOTHERED TO READ THE ENTIRE SPEECH IN THE LINK AND RELIED INSTEAD ON THAT DROP FROM POISON PEN TO FORM A TOTALLY IGNORANT, BIASED OPINION.

I'm glad you at least gave him credit for defending well his positions in the midst of multiple attacks in the debate.

If Bernie can withstand the onslaught of unfair, disproportionate establishment and media attacks (your's included) and win the Nomination, it won't be thanks to the majority of you, but you will all in some way benefit from an improvement in foreign policy under a Sanders administration. OR DO YOU ACTUALLY PREFER TO DISCUSS WAR AND ATROCITY AND CONSPIRACY MACHINATIONS HERE ALL DAY, EVERY DAY IN PERPETUITY? Maybe that's the problem, maybe with Bernie as President you'll be less involved as armchair generals and have to settle for criticizing boring diplomacy for a change!

I don't know about you, but I really welcome most of what Bernie talked about and his vision for the future on this planet much more than discussing war with Iran, famine and climate disaster.

Bernie will make it in spite of haters, never Sanders, maligners, and distorters of the truth.

Oh, and he'll DESTROY Trump in November.

▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪
Jared suggests Bloomberg/Gabbard.

Gobbledygook!

I guess you don't really know what Bloomberg's about. And you especially don't get Gabbard! She wouldn't be caught dead working for that Neocon warmonger!

SharonM and Jackrabbit

Get a room you professional koo-koo spinbots...preferrably in another Solar System where you can't damage impressionable minds. Ugh.

Posted by: Circe | Feb 21 2020 4:33 utc | 104

I feel bad for the Bernie Bros.
He’s gonna sell them out again.
Dude has zero pull with his “party”, and is facing a steamroller in Trump.
I would be happy to have a small dinner with Circe and friends after the convention.
We can commiserate over a few wodkas and goulash.

Posted by: Cadence calls | Feb 21 2020 5:04 utc | 105

@104 Circe

"SharonM and Jackrabbit
Get a room you professional koo-koo spinbots...preferrably in another Solar System where you can't damage impressionable minds. Ugh."

I'm against war. You're obviously just another loser imperialist.

Posted by: SharonM | Feb 21 2020 5:14 utc | 106

Since medical care figures so prominently in the election, might be a good idea to know why it costs so much now:

The Oligarch Takeover of US Pharma and Healthcare by Jon Hellevig
"The Awara study shows https://www.awaragroup.com/blog/us-healthcare-system-in-crisis/ that in addition to the original sin of corporate greed, the exorbitant costs of the US healthcare system stem from layers upon layers of distortions with which the system is infested. Each part of the healthcare industry contributes to what is a giant monopoly scam: the pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment manufacturers, drug wholesalers, drug stores, group purchasing organizations, health insurance companies, doctors, clinics and hospitals, and even what should be impartial university research. And on top of that, there’s the government as a giant enabler of monopolized corporations running roughshod over the American consumer and patient.

"But it is worse than that. All the monopolists (in official parlance, oligopolies) are in turn owned by the same set of investors in what is called horizontal shareholding. The same some 15-20. investors have the controlling stake in all the leading companies of the entire pharma and healthcare industry.

"That’s not all. Two of the investors, BlackRock and Vanguard, are the biggest owners in almost every single one of the leading companies.

"Furthermore, BlackRock is owned by Vanguard, BlackRock’s biggest owner being a mystical PNC Services, whose biggest owner in turn is Vanguard. Vanguard itself is recorded directly as BlackRock’s second biggest owner. Moreover, BlackRock and Vanguard are the two biggest owners of almost all the other 15-20 biggest investors, which most are cross-owned and together own the entire US pharma and healthcare sector. Ultimately, then we might have the situation that the whole healthcare sector and Big Pharma are controlled by one giant oligarch clan (and the very real people who stand behind them), one single interest group of oligarch investors." -- http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52658.htm


PS: US is now 33d in life expectancy.



Posted by: Penelope | Feb 21 2020 5:30 utc | 107

Yesterday some dirty dog, Bloomberg or weasel Buttigieg, brought up the fact that Bernie has 2 million, and 3 homes, one in Washington, a house in Vermont his wife inherited from her parents and a cabin by a lake! OMG! QUICK! Call the Socialist police! He's 78, has a career in politics, wrote some bestsellers and he has to live like a monk otherwise, he's a hypocrite???

The hypocrites are the ones criticizing him and not Warren who appeared in Forbes cause she has two expensive homes, and 12 MILLION. But, at the debate she was coy and uncommonly silent when they attacked Bernie for what is perfectly normal given his career, success as an author and his age!

But Lizabeth, she cares so much about poor mothers and babies, and shares Bernie's platform, and yet is too chicken to call herself a democratic socialist. Yeah, with 12 Mil in the bank and different investments she's got a big stake in Capitalism! And someone mentionned that during the commercial break she was getting quite friendly yacking it up with Bloomberg, AFTER she put on the Non-disclosure artifice (watch out for hidden mics, Mike!). And she's not big on democracy either, since she would rather go to a brokered convention, than give Bernie the nomination when he gets the majority of pledged delegates. Screw her!

Oh Lizzie, you showed all your true colors!
DONE, put a fork in it!

▪▪▪▪▪

SharonM

Against war and for Trump? 🤣🤣🤣

Trust me, Bernie's not starting any war at his age, and he's from a bucolic state. If you think Bernie's for war and I'm an imperialist, then must be a real bad judge of character.

You fool no one. You hate Bernie for some other stupid reason.

Posted by: Circe | Feb 21 2020 5:45 utc | 108

Really, the Oligarch party composed of the Republican and Democrat branches will not make any significant changes to the status quo, even if Sanders is voted in to the presidency. Sanders' foreign policy is the Oligarch policy; Sanders domestic policy would never get past the Oligarch house without significant watering down to be totally irrelevant. Sanders only "threat" to the Oligarchs is that the presidency would give him a 4-year platform to continue to put forth his semi-socialist domestic views, seeding the brains of the ignorant masses with dangerous thoughts.

Voting for either branch of the Oligarch party is to vote for the status quo. All that is guaranteed are a few cosmetic changes of zero significance. Vote, but vote anyone but the Oligarch Party!

Posted by: Blue Dotterel | Feb 21 2020 6:19 utc | 109

A positive assessment of the chances of Sanders to win the nomination:

"Former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg's presidential campaign called on former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to drop out of the Democratic presidential primary race in a memo released on Thursday, warning that Bloomberg's presence in the race would propel Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to the Democratic nomination. "

Pete could be more incisive by pointing that unlike his much more financially successful colleague from the race of nomination, he has no track record on making unwanted passes on women, or jokes that cannot be revealed to the publics. More seriously, American establishment is so vast that it is internally divided into various groups or cliques that detest each other. Pete is a darling of CIA circles, Bloomberg is so rich that he nearly makes an influence group by himself., but he may be popular among Wall Street denizens who donate to Metropolitan Opera and snicker at Trump who could not tell Verdi from Barbie doll. On political positions, I wonder if there is an ounce of difference.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Feb 21 2020 7:26 utc | 110

There is a lot of criticism in these comments about Sanders not going all out against the Democratic Party and playing too nice, but a counterpoint to consider is that we have a perfect example to contrast his behavior with: Tulsi Gabbard. Tulsi was vice chair of the DNC and considered one of their "rising stars" in part because of the elites' insipid love of identity politics, and she is demonstrating the country what happens when you go nuclear against the establishment. She burned her political capital to back Bernie in 2016 and went on the attack during the debates she was able to get into. Would Sanders really get better results doing what Tulsi is doing, and if so, why would he going that course be different?

Posted by: YnO | Feb 21 2020 7:41 utc | 111

Likklemore@102

What you describe is what is generally done. If the State legislature chooses to ignore the vote then your argument is not valid.

Please see the US Constitution that I linked...

Posted by: Krollchem | Feb 21 2020 8:27 utc | 112

@95 sharon.. thanks.. that sounds reasonable.. however at present either one of the war parties is going to win.. i suppose some will think bernie i war party lite or something, but regardless if he gets the nod - which i highly doubt - the war party is still in control.. something bigger has to happen for this to change.. collapse is a popular fantasy for some.. i am not sure if or when that could happen too.. it is hard being reasonable in this atmosphere.. i am inclined to more radical thinking as the answer at this point..

Posted by: james | Feb 21 2020 8:29 utc | 113

"It's time to give the elites a bigger say in electing the President"

Under Trump Bezos lost highly profitable interests, and under a second Trump term he would likely lose still more. If any of the elites' choices get the Dem nomination, Trump is certain to win. Perhaps Bezos' reasoning was to try to provoke Dem supporters to reject the elites because that is the only chance of getting back the business interests he lost.

Bezos is a nasty piece of work indeed, but to his credit, maybe he at least sees the need of a more acceptable candidate.

Posted by: BM | Feb 21 2020 8:58 utc | 114

"They" have thrown down everything against Sanders yet he continues to rise. His support base is HUGE. Competition can't touch him. His victories will put him up so much that the DNC is rendered powerless.

Of all the candidates, Tulsi Gabbard is far away the closest in ideology to Sanders. She entered the race with Bernie's approval, before Bernie announced. Bernie knows that Tulsi is the only one (other than Nina Turner) that would totally have his back. I actually believe that Gabbard is the best candidate that the US has had in a LONG time. If she were selected as VP she would get a lot more exposure; the more exposure the more support she gets. I don't believe that Bernie needs to pick a VP in order to garner more votes; that is, it's not as strategically necessary as other candidates have required: I repeat: Bernie's base is HUGE. Tulsi is a BIG insurance policy. VP isn't a do-nothing position: it can cast a tie-breaking vote in the senate; it can act as collaborator with POTUS. In a more correct positioning of talents it would be Gabbard as POTUS and Sanders as VP. I'd be happy to see Nina Turner as VP but am worried that the pairing with Sanders would create too stark of a picture, one open to really ugly attacks: it's hard to attack Tulsi given her military experience (I hate that this needs to be played, but it's the reality we face). AND there's the VP debates: Tulsi vs Pence would be one for the history books.

Posted by: Seer | Feb 21 2020 10:26 utc | 115

Turkey closed its airspace to russian airplanes flying to Syria and slowed down the so called Syrian Express. The straights would be closed in case of declared war but the flow can be slowed down by other means. Hard to think that war will be officially declared with all the joint projects in energy, but logistics would be a real problem for Russia if things get uglier.
http://www.ng.ru/politics/2020-02-20/1_7800_bosphorus.html
The second question of the 20 series to Putin is about Ukraine, as usual he comes across as well informed and with ease of verve.
https://putin.tass.ru/ru/ob-ukraine/

Posted by: Paco | Feb 21 2020 10:29 utc | 116

Circe

I guess you don't really know what Bloomberg's about. And you especially don't get Gabbard! She wouldn't be caught dead working for that Neocon warmonger!

Please advise - What is Bloomberg about.
In my experience he is a conservative moderate.
Do we just describe everyone we dont like as zionist?

Posted by: jared | Feb 21 2020 11:21 utc | 117

- The american writer Thomas Frank has put this way: The Democrats had every opportuniy to win the presidential election of 2016 by focussing on the people in "fly-over land", on the people who felt "left bhind" but instead they focussed on the "creative class" (laywers, the "professional class", hollywood and people from the tech sector (GOOGLE, Facebook, etc.).

- It was the presidential campaign of Trump who saw the chance to win over the people from "fly-over country".

Posted by: Willy2 | Feb 21 2020 11:34 utc | 118

@Jared (#117):

- Yes, Bloomberg is a moderate republican but he is also an establishment figure/person. So, he won't be the one that will bring about MAJOR changes that are going to hurt that same establishment. Including the "zionists" (with or without quotation marks).

Posted by: Willy2 | Feb 21 2020 11:38 utc | 119

- The people who are commenting on this topic should take into account one thing. Over the years the Republican party has purged the party of "moderate Republicans". As a result of that Republican party shifted more and more to the right side of the political spectrum.

Posted by: Willy2 | Feb 21 2020 11:47 utc | 120

About Butt-gig...

If you were running a giant organized crime group with cash flow in the hundreds of $billions, with tentacles deeply penetrating all of the mass media, with connections at the top of all major western multinational corporations, and you wanted to "manage" the political system of the country that finances the military that you occasionally need, how would you do that?

Run you own candidates, of course!

So it is 2015. You've already gotten one of your candidates elected twice, and you are confident that mass media cultivated "identity politics" played a big part in getting him into the White House. Because of this you are now running another "identity politics" compliant candidate, but you have some tricks up your sleeve to guarantee she wins. Most importantly you have an utter heel running against her who cannot possibly win.

So you [big mafia don] are confident that you have the 2016 and 2020 elections sewn up, but even though it is only 2015, now is the time to be thinking about 2024. You've already used up the woman and Black man identity issues, so what next? The gay man "identity politics" angle, of course! So now you need to introduce to the public a gay candidate that is under your control so the public can start to get used to him and he can become widely known by the time campaigning starts in 2023.

Remind me now when it was that Butt-gig "came out" as gay? Oh, yeah, that's right! It was 2015. He then "married" in 2018.

"But Butt-gig is so young!"

Sure. Realize that he wasn't supposed to be running until 2024, when he would be in his forties. 2016 and 2020 were supposed to be Clinton's turn in the White House, but things went all sideways for some reason. Now you have to move up the timetable.

Butt-gig is CIA.

Posted by: William Gruff | Feb 21 2020 12:18 utc | 121

- Bernie Sanders has promised FREE education/college and FREE Healthcare. Although I have SERIOUS doubts how he is going to pay for all that FREE stuff, the large support he enjoys shows very well how Joe Sixpack is thinking about his own economic situation.
- There were A LOT OF voters who voted first for Sanders in the primaries. When it became clear that Sanders wasn't going to be the Democratic candidate these voters votes for Trump in november 2016.

Posted by: Willy2 | Feb 21 2020 12:43 utc | 122

Blue Dotterel is not satisfied: >>Sanders only "threat" to the Oligarchs is that the presidency would give him a 4-year platform to continue to put forth his semi-socialist domestic views, seeding the brains of the ignorant masses with dangerous thoughts.

Voting for either branch of the Oligarch party is to vote for the status quo. All that is guaranteed are a few cosmetic changes of zero significance. Vote, but vote anyone but the Oligarch Party! Sanders only "threat" to the Oligarchs is that the presidency would give him a 4-year platform to continue to put forth his semi-socialist domestic views, seeding the brains of the ignorant masses with dangerous thoughts.<<

But the oligarchy and sectors close to oligarchy are already worried exactly about that. For example, certain David Brook is almost morose. A nightmare that is at least 170 years old reappeared:

>>Bernie Sanders is also telling a successful myth: The corporate and Wall Street elites are rapacious monsters who hoard the nation’s wealth and oppress working families. This is not an original myth, either. It’s been around since the class-conflict agitators of 1848. It is also a very compelling us vs. them worldview that resonates with a lot of people.

When you’re inside the Sanders myth, you see the world through the Bernie lens.
-----
This brings memories... agitators of 1848, revolution spread around Europe, Hapsburgs quelling a revolution in Vienna only to watch Hungary, nearly half of the empire, raising in rebelion that lasted until Czar send help a year later, stimulating dense Romantic poetry that till today children in Central Europe are forced to learn. Final stanza translated into English (it has a very compelilng rhytm in the original)

[the funeral of an agitator of 1848 turns into a march of specters that disturb comfortable city dwellers]
And we shall drag on the funeral procession, saddening sleeping cities
Banging upon gates with urns, whistling into the notches of hatchets
Until the walls of Jericho fall like logs
Fainting hearts shall be revived; nations shall clear their musty eyes

Onward-Onward

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Feb 21 2020 12:50 utc | 123

William Gruff:
So, do you basically imply that the next run, after Black, Woman and Gay, would be Latino? In which case they actually planned well ahead and AOC could be their card for 2032? Or would that be too far-fetched? (she seems to go a bit too far into leftism for that after all)

Posted by: Clueless Joe | Feb 21 2020 13:04 utc | 124

@108 Circe

"SharonM
Against war and for Trump? 🤣🤣🤣
Trust me, Bernie's not starting any war at his age, and he's from a bucolic state. If you think Bernie's for war and I'm an imperialist, then must be a real bad judge of character. You fool no one. You hate Bernie for some other stupid reason."

Here are some relevant questions with Bernie's answers:

*Question: Would you consider military force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean nuclear or missile test?
Sanders: Yes.

*Question: Would you consider military force for a humanitarian intervention?

Sanders: Yes.

*Question: If Russia continues on its current course in Ukraine and other former Soviet states, should the United States regard it as an adversary, or even an enemy?

Sanders: Yes.

*Question: Should Russia be required to return Crimea to Ukraine before it is allowed back into the G-7?

Sanders: Yes.
https://www.greanvillepost.com/2020/02/14/sanders-tells-new-york-times-he-would-consider-a-preemptive-strike-against-iran-or-north-korea/

Don't care about your dumb opinion, Circe. But I don't want anyone else here to think I'm some supporter of the U.S. regimes two war parties. Bernie is just like Trump, Obama, the Bush and Clinton families--warmongering assholes all of them.

Posted by: SharonM | Feb 21 2020 13:14 utc | 125

@113 James
I agree. An actual revolution here would probably require masses of people on the verge of starvation. But perhaps there's a trigger event that we can't foresee?

Posted by: SharonM | Feb 21 2020 13:20 utc | 126

As long as Sanders treats Latin America with respect, I will vote for him. He just said that he backs Evo Morales in Bolivia. That is a good sign.

Posted by: Victor | Feb 21 2020 13:49 utc | 127

Willy2 @ 122 says:

Bernie Sanders has promised FREE education/college and FREE Healthcare. Although I have SERIOUS doubts how he is going to pay for all that FREE stuff,...

he's not.

and there's the rub, or the common denominator between domestic policy and foreign policy...i.e. lucre (and hellfire missiles are so much sexier, right?).

if a candidate is not clamoring loudly that the defense budget must be cut by at least 50%, he or she is being disingenuous, if not downright deceptive, about enacting any kind of national healthcare, education, or whatnot.

Posted by: john | Feb 21 2020 13:59 utc | 128

james @113:

[If Bernie wins] the war party is still in control.. i am inclined to more radical thinking ... at this point.

When reasonable, level-headed people like james are "inclined to more radical thinking" then the establishment is really in trouble.

Will they take heed? Nah, they'll just send out more Circe dembots.

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Feb 21 2020 14:10 utc | 129

@125 SharonM

If you were an anti-war candidate running for President of a militarized security state that is so easily brainwashed by half a billion dollars in ads run by a war-mongering Ziofascist and one of the highest-circulated Zionist-run propaganda rags asked trap questions to test their definition of patriotism on you, you too would go through the motions and give them what they wanna hear so they would leave you the fock alone for the rest of the campaign.

Now, if you're looking to blow in 15 minutes your years in the making efforts to win the Presidency and use your power to change that security state mentality, then you would stupidly answer what you're suggesting.

You're a Trumpbot. AND I COULD GIVE A SHET WHAT YOU THINK.

Bernie wants to restore the Iran deal, and do diplomacy with Iran, and substantially reduce military spending. Bernie is as anti-war a politicisn as I've seen in my lifetime. I'll bank on his wisdom over your intellectual dishonesty ANY DAY, ANY TIME, ANY WHERE. Unlike you, a lousy judge of character, or just plain demonizing Trumpbot on a fool's mission, I am an excellent judge of character who had Ziofascist Trump pegged from day one and took two years of flak for it! Today, I've been vindicated in every way. Ziofascist Trump is the agent provocateur in the Middle East unilaterally, repeatedly resorting to multiple acts of war against the Palestinians, Syria, Iraq and Iran. If he didn't trigger war yet, it's not for lack of trying! Everyone is wisely on hold prevailing on their cool-headedness hoping Americans elect a SANE, and more humane President, and that President will be Bernie Sanders.

When Bernie shuts the door on that lunatic's orange-cake face the entire planet will breathe A COLLECTIVE SIGH.

Now go bark your fake purist bullshet at someone stupid enough to fall for it. I'm a firewall for the truth and you're barking up the wrong tree and messing with someone berning for justice.

PRESIDENT BERNIE SANDERS

Get used to it; it's happening.

Posted by: Circe | Feb 21 2020 14:25 utc | 130

@ Circe | Feb 21 2020 14:25 utc | 130

If Sanders actually got into the Presidency and threatened established interests, then he would be given a non-refusable invitation to vist Dallas and drive past the Texas Shoolbook Depositary.

Posted by: clickkid | Feb 21 2020 14:40 utc | 131

Or even the:

Texas schoolbook depository

Posted by: clickkid | Feb 21 2020 14:43 utc | 132

@130 Circe

Oh sure, Bernie is just playing 4d chess, right? We've been hearing that for years about Trump as he bombs countries, assassinates people, and overthrows governments. We'll have to relive it all hearing about Bernie's grand scheme to undermine the MIC by doing exactly what the MIC wants. You're just another fake following a warmonger.

Posted by: SharonM | Feb 21 2020 14:43 utc | 133

Piotr Berman,

"But the oligarchy and sectors close to oligarchy are already worried exactly about that. For example, certain David Brook is almost morose. A nightmare that is at least 170 years old reappeared"

Well if Sanders does manages to get the Dem. nomination, then go ahead and vote for him. Just, do not expect anything to change during his administration.

Otherwise, if someone else gets it, Sanders will be put out to pasture, and no one will hear from him again. He was pretty quiet the past three years. For Sanders, and his domestic ideas to blossom, he needs to be able to win the presidency, not just run for it. This is why the Oligarchy will probably tank him. Right now, very few people in the US are politically active. It is only the primaries after all. They are mostly ignored by the vast majority of the electorate despite CNN's propaganda polls (which read only 52% interest anyway). In fact, US elections for pres are regularly ignored by almost half the population, anyway.

If anyone else gets the dem nomination, there is no point voting for the Oligarch Party.

Posted by: Blue Dotterel | Feb 21 2020 14:49 utc | 134

@117 jared

Do you realize the damage you're doing to your credibility and reputation tooting Bloomberg's horn here?

Bloomberg is a rabid Zionist who defied a flight ban making a cruel, pompous spectacle of himself flying into Tel Aviv during Israel's massive criminal assault on Gaza while vociferously supporting Israel's shelling of children, schools and hospitals.

Bloomberg is a Ziofascist Israel shill Neocon BUSH jr REPUBLICAN. Complete Presidential disqualification in one sentence.

Now run along with your leaky can of Bloomberg whitewash.

Sheesh, how pathetic!

Posted by: Circe | Feb 21 2020 14:52 utc | 135


Posted by: Krollchem | Feb 21 2020 8:27 utc | 112

If the State legislature chooses to ignore the vote then your argument is not valid.

Please see the US Constitution that I linked...

And you continue to ignore Process. Well, in Constitutional Law courses that very scenario is addressed. In Law, Process matters.

if the State legislature choses to ignore the vote.."[..]
if not members of the Parties elected to the Legislature, pray tell how is the Legislature comprised?

You do know when (ahead of the general election) the Republicans and Democratic Parties appoint their respective representative slate of electors they take into account Party Loyalists who are pledged to vote the presidential ticket?

On pledges of the electors: 29 states have laws forbidding the electors to violate their pledges.

In recent history: December 2016, Trump had the required electoral votes and the Hillary Mob attempted a full-throated campaign to have some of the Republican electors switch their votes at the Electoral College!!

How did that work out?

There were 7 "Faithless electors" who ignored their pledges. Oeps of the 7: five defected Democratic-loser Clinton and two the Republican president- elect. [Cases are on appeal before the Supreme Court; to be heard in 2019-2020 term]

When the Electors' switchero campaign did not succeed, Russiagate was the lever to frustrate Trump's presidency. Russiagate will continue as long as the orangeman occupies the White House.

Posted by: Likklemore | Feb 21 2020 14:57 utc | 136

WP > "...After a senior U.S. intelligence official told lawmakers last week that Russia wants to see President Trump reelected..."

UNZ> "...Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Vice President Biden are being told that if they do not get out of the race and clear the lane for the mayor, they will get a socialist as their nominee, and the party will deserve the fate November will bring — a second term for Trump..."

Now then, when will the intel dudes claim Buttboi and Buyiden and Klob are commie agents? Why already Wally suspects Putin's on the secret Badenov Shoe-phone with his vast army of verraters... I mean, there must be Some Truth, right?

And if (mirabele dictu) Burner get's 'lected and avoids Dallas... if that, then how will they change the story and tell us Burner is a Putin controlled Putin versteher?

("We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." (CIA Director Casey)

Karlofi mooted Beard's "Republic"... A proud attempt by Beard, but, alas (!) it reads like a sad comic... Painful.

Perhaps one interesting point there though > Lincoln's first inaugural.

I'll leave that for K-Man to discuss, if he likes.

Posted by: Walter | Feb 21 2020 15:03 utc | 137

I'm all for disrupting the Democratic Party by voting for Sanders in the Primary.

But anyone that thinks that Sanders will be allowed to actually win the Primary is smoking something. And anyone that thinks that Sanders isn't working with the Democratic establishment to accomplish their goals is snorting something.

Sanders is there as window-dressing and to lure young voters into the Democratic Party fold as a "Democracy Works!" ploy (a form of 'stay in school' PSA).

The Democratic Party won't actually nominate him because Americans would vote for Bernie's anti-oligarch program in droves. Anyone with any sense knows that the oligarchs have too much money and too much power and that government services monied interests instead of the people.

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

We are now in a new Cold War. And we are on the brink of ANOTHER major war in the Middle East. It's long-past time to see through the bullshit propaganda, fakery, and scheming.

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Feb 21 2020 15:08 utc | 138

Copy/paste Jackrabbit who hasn't hatched an original thought in quite some time tries to project his professional troll gig on me. Dembot? Is that all you could come up with?

As with Bernie, I might be more like, hmmm... how would I describe myself?

The Dems worst nightmare⁉️ 😜

...soon to become the Trump-era TERMINATOR.

or, better yet, Circe unleashed.

Posted by: Circe | Feb 21 2020 15:23 utc | 139

Jackrabbit | Feb 21 2020 15:08 utc | 138

"Smokin' ??"

"...This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it..."

Wally is a bit shocked...here's Lincoln saying the Revolution is a Right... And he wuz smokin...what?

But yes, context matters...read the entire document>

First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln

MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861
Fellow-Citizens of the United States: (avalon / yale / edu an' all of that)

Posted by: Walter | Feb 21 2020 15:23 utc | 140

All the slander being heaped upon Bernie is not going to drain one jot of energy from the momentum of his campaign. The trolls desire above all for a tide of chaos to wash over the country. The energy in this movement is going play out on the convention floor and beyond; and the spirit of the people is not about to be diminished or crushed.

It is best not to give up on the struggle, especially when the stakes have been made so clear as Bloomberg plants the flag of oligharchy in this election. Only Sanders and Warren had the decency to react with moral vigor to this outrage.

This is far from over. This is just getting interesting.

Posted by: Copeland | Feb 21 2020 15:55 utc | 141

Clueless Joe @124

Correct, as I see it that would be too far-fetched. I cannot see AOC being managed opposition, even if her behavior doesn't seem very leftish sometimes. The establishment's biggest concern with their management of the political process is to make sure that some of the things that AOC discusses remain outside the scope of acceptable political discourse. See Willy2 above with his "Free stuff!" narrative for how the establishment wants people to react... the establishment wants to prevent the public from even considering reallocating resources away from the military and corporate subsidies to so-called "Free stuff!" While AOC's ideology and support for Pelosi and such might leave some leftists unimpressed, the fact that she even discusses free-at-the-point-of-use healthcare and education as well as living wages strongly suggests that she is not part of the establishment's operation.

I honestly do not think the establishment has any plans for pandering very much to Latin American identity... there is far too much revolution in that identity. My guess is that the plans post-Butt-gig are to mix things up... say a Black lesbian or Black transsexual, for instance. Keep in mind this would be planned for 2028 (previously 2030) so whoever they have in mind would only be starting to get publicly groomed for the job now. The potential individuals may not have even had their debutante unveiling to the public yet.

Posted by: William Gruff | Feb 21 2020 16:29 utc | 142

@Copeland, 141

The trolls desire above all for a tide of chaos to wash over the country.

Well, true, but we don't need much help. The Sanders campaign has been a gift to socialists who can piggy-back off of his demolition of decades of John Birch Society indoctrination against socialism. But as far as I'm concerned, that's the only good thing he's done. Him losing will be better for socialists - who can benefit from his supporters flocking to our organizations - rather than him winning and forcing us to take him in as "our guy" or us being tarred with any failures of his presidency.

Posted by: fnord | Feb 21 2020 16:40 utc | 143

"[Sanders] losing will be better for socialists..." --fnord @143

Not good strategy. People are not ready to go for real revolution yet. They need to try half measures first and see those half measures fail or be attacked and defeated by the oligarchs. Sanders losing will cause many people to either drop out of the movement or switch to the far right. Sanders victory is needed just to show the masses that victory is possible. People pursue socialist revolution out of a sense of optimism and open possibilities, not desperation. Desperation leads to fascism.

Posted by: William Gruff | Feb 21 2020 17:01 utc | 144

Uh-Oh, Jackrabbit just got scorched by Walter's bern brilliance.

I'm a lover of pithy truth, and here's one to describe Bernie's movement:

The real revolution is the evolution of consciousness.

Here's one to prepare for Trump's Bernie strategy:

When a narcissist can no longer control you, they will instead try to control how others see you.

(In other words, always keep in mind; they're coming at you from a position of weakness.)

In my words:

The key to triumph over evil is to take the fight into the light and INSPIRE ALLEGIANCE.

That's Bernie's strength, and that's why Bernie Sanders will become the 46th President of the United States.


Posted by: Circe | Feb 21 2020 17:03 utc | 145

While Trump boasts he's the master of 4D chess; he will be outplayed by Bernie Sanders, the 4D Master of CHESED.

Bernie Sanders will defeat Donald J. Trump to become President of the United States.

Posted by: Circe | Feb 21 2020 17:28 utc | 146

William Gruff | Feb 21 2020 17:01 utc | 144 > I have seen it said - I think it was Chris Hedges recently in dialogue with Wolff - that socialists always surrender when confronted with nationalism. The example was the Socialist against the Kaiser...

In re Bernie, that may possibly be significant, if it happens.

As to ready... They're never ready, Brother, they only act when they have nothing left - of course this is variable according to their perceptions and general character, "race" if you like, or Tribe, and humans are famously variable hybrid critters...hence the vital nature of a vast propaganda so powerful as to create generations of absurd belief...

What a grand rude freak show...

Posted by: Walter | Feb 21 2020 17:43 utc | 147

My word! Has our brother, William Gruff, undergone a quiet conversion?

Welcome to the light. 😇

Posted by: Circe | Feb 21 2020 17:43 utc | 148

@ 126 sharon quote " But perhaps there's a trigger event that we can't foresee?" yes.. that is usually the case.. it might be a short or long ways off though! we can't foresee that either..

@ 129 jackrabbit... i am not sure when this madness will end..and as for dem or trump bots - it is endless!

i see the word oligarchy being mentioned.. it is always pitched as 'russian' oligarchs, but in fact there are a good number of 'american' oligarchs too... personally i can't really see the difference, other then as a propaganda tool to slander one side, but not the other...

Posted by: james | Feb 21 2020 17:48 utc | 149

@ John (128):

- Agree. Sanders can pay for those promises by cutting or eliminating the defense budget. But I never heard Sanders say anything on the topic "Defense Spending". I fear that he doesn't want to cut defense spending or that he knows that talking about cutting defense spending will harm his chances of becoming president.

Posted by: Willy2 | Feb 21 2020 18:10 utc | 150

My word! Has our brother, William Gruff, undergone a quiet conversion?

Welcome to the light. 😇

Posted by: Circe | Feb 21 2020 17:43 utc | 148

Tactless as usual, aren't you?
---------
If anyone else gets the dem nomination, there is no point voting for the Oligarch Party.

Posted by: Blue Dotterel | Feb 21 2020 14:49 utc | 134

--------

“And hast thou come the Sanders side?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh Colide!”
He chortled in his joy.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Feb 21 2020 18:28 utc | 151

If throwing the kitchen sink don't work at stopping Bernie Sanders; try throwing the refrigerator. That's the rabid Zionist mag, The Atlantic's, latest strategy with this headline.

Bernie Sanders Is George McGovern

Don't bother reading the whole thing. Just scroll to the last two sentences.:

But the most important thing about the upcoming election is where those similarities end. America in 2020 is not America in 1972. And Donald J. Trump is no Richard M. Nixon.

EXACTLY. So why bother with this scaremongering? Trump is the most hated man on the planet; while in 1972 (I viewed all the Nixon documentaries on CNN), Nixon's popularity poll was higher than Obama's!

Don't use ancient history with young demographics. The Atlantic is preaching to their converted choir. Okay, so what'll they pull next?

Posted by: Circe | Feb 21 2020 18:32 utc | 152

Gabbard would be a fool to sign on as Vice President to Sanders.
I was impressed by her content and bearing on Joe Rogan; that same impression makes me believe she is far too smart to take on the risk of being a Sanders VP.
And the risk of being a Sanders VP is: he gets elected, and gets nothing done. Gabbard is in her 30's; being tarred with a failed presidency means she will have thrown away her own opportunity to attack the problem.
If she is really as smart and politically astute as she seemed to be, she won't risk her own political capital by throwing in with Sanders.
Sanders, in turn, should pick a DNCC insider as VP - that's the one way he can split his corporate Democrat opposition.

Posted by: c1ue | Feb 21 2020 18:48 utc | 153

Milomilo@88 if you get to spew unprovable nonsense then so does JR. Don't like what the rabbit says then don't read it. Yours is more an attempt at derailment than JR's. Please stop

Posted by: Tannenhouser | Feb 21 2020 19:10 utc | 154

Actually, state legislatures no longer have "plenary (full) power to do whatever they like with electoral votes. Combine Section 2 of the 14th Amendment with the Supreme Court's one-person-one-vote precedents -- especially the cases holding that one way to deny a group's voting rights is to dilute its voting power -- and you come to the realization that states which don't allocate their electoral votes in proportion to the percentage of each ticket's share of popular votes is violating the Constitution and should lose a matching share of its US House seats AND the associated electoral votes. For more, see this site.

Posted by: jalp | Feb 21 2020 20:15 utc | 155

Thank you Tanenhouser. My sentiments exactly. Scoffs, insults & snorts are not rational arguments, and merely confirm the inability to think.

Posted by: Penelope | Feb 21 2020 20:32 utc | 156

"Has our brother, William Gruff, undergone a quiet conversion?" --Circe @148

Nonsense! I remain just as cranky and unpleasant as ever!

Posted by: William Gruff | Feb 21 2020 20:42 utc | 157

b4real @73--

Your refined query:

"Asking my question again, and should you have the time, is there an instance you can cite where people properly petitioning their government for change that would benefit the common man via the electoral process has been answered in the affirmative? Doesn't have to be in the USA, because I am sincere in my belief that organized government doesn't give a damn about the governed."

I'm going to include the making of electoral political platforms as a form of petition as that appears to be their purpose.

Along the lines as I wrote earlier, the 1787 Constitution resulted from citizens petitioning their government--the Continental Congress--to modify the governing structure so it would become more efficient. It must be observed that the nature of the political process within the USA has greatly evolved since 1786 as more states were added, the franchise was expanded and made more democratic, and political parties became established, died, and resurrected mostly along economic class lines at first then along sectional lines with the election of Polk. Jackson's election in 1828 after his being denied the office in 1824 occurred in response to popular clamoring as revealed in the press of that era--most political opinions and grievances were published as there were a plethora of newspapers being published. The national election of president and vice-president often took the entire month of November. One way to determine if citizens's petitioning was effective and brought about change in their favor is to compare what was being written and published prior to what occurred after an election. IMO, 1828 and 1832 both qualify. One could say that the South's secession after the 1860 election was done in response to popular demand, although it generated a massively negative outcome instead of the positive that was envisioned.

As far as a citizen-generated manifesto for change goes, the most famous yet still mostly unknown is the People's Party Omaha Platform:

"Many of the specific proposals urged by the Omaha Platform—the graduated income tax, the secret ballot, the direct election of Senators, the eight-hour day—won enactment in the progressive and New Deal eras of the next century."

Those cited above weren't all, however. Many of the regulatory additions to the federal government were established during the so-called Progressive Era as a result of Muckrakers like Upton Sinclair. One of the People's Party main demands was a change in the financial system that would benefit their businesses--they were mostly farmers and ranchers. Unfortunately, the change implemented wasn't at all what they had in mind, although it did meet their needs. The Abolitionists got their wish with the Volstead Act that provided a massive boost to civic corruption and Big Crime with Prohibition. Then of course the Wets got their wish with its repeal. One might say that protesting war also brought about changes that were mostly negative for the rights of citizens beginning with the Alien & Sedition Acts and the later Espionage Act. 1932 & 1936 saw nationwide demands for change and relief. 1964 was marked by the demand for Civil Rights; 1968, Poverty relief and withdrawal from Vietnam; 1972, Vietnam again; 1976, investigation into corrupt government actions--The Church Committee; 1980, redress of economic stress; 1992, universal healthcare, denied by Hillary Clinton's sabotage. A better economy's been a pretty universal demand since the mid 1950s. But since the age of TV began, most citizen generated demands for change were ignored, which is why a semi-populist rising began in 2000 with Nader, supposedly won with Obama only to be immediately betrayed, and now even more virulent with the denial of Sanders in 2016 and his 2020 attempt.

The regulation of Big Business--the Trusts--began in the 1880s due to popular demand and was eventually capitalized on by Conservatives as Kolko describes in The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900–1916. The response to economic issues are both contained within the plans forwarded by T Roosevelt's New Nationalism and Square Deal plus Wilson's New Freedom. It's very worthwhile to examine the Wiki on the New Nationalism as it was very radical and sprouted from his 1910 Osawatomie speech, one of the most radical contextually in US History.

And I'll conclude by noting the ability of the public to enact legislation through Propositions/Initiatives/Referenda and to replace elected politicians via the Recall. Via those processes, the public has made choices that affected it both positively and negatively. As with California's Proposition 13, self-government doesn't always lead to positive outcomes, and some were later litigated and deemed unconstitutional. Your answer is on far more than one occasion has a citizen grievance resulted in a positive outcome for common people, but they have also had negative results, too. Sorry this remains an overview, but to get more specific would require far more research, time, and result in a book.

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 21 2020 21:07 utc | 158

@karlof1 | Feb 21 2020 21:07 utc | 158

" Sorry this remains an overview, but to get more specific would require far more research, time, and result in a book. "

Thank you for the response, and actually I appreciate the brevity. This response is less overwhelming than the previous and gives me sufficient areas to investigate.

Thanks you

b4real

Posted by: b4real | Feb 21 2020 22:08 utc | 159

B4real @ 73

Regarding actual effects of Brexit, see Craig Murray's parsing of the new immigration act in the UK, "Immigration-and-how-people-are-valued" at CraigMurray=dot=org.

Posted by: Really?? | Feb 21 2020 22:18 utc | 160

William Gruff @ 142

I cannot see AOC being managed opposition, even if her behavior doesn't seem very leftish sometimes...

While AOC's ideology and support for Pelosi and such might leave some leftists unimpressed, the fact that she even discusses free-at-the-point-of-use healthcare and education as well as living wages strongly suggests that she is not part of the establishment's operation.

I honestly do not think the establishment has any plans for pandering very much to Latin American identity... there is far too much revolution in that identity.

While I respect your opinion, I disagree that AOC is anything other than the camoflague version of a neolib Identity Politician. Being more of a self-promoting spokesmodel than a legislator, she is free to run her mouth to a corporate press that pretends to hate her. If they really did, she would get the Bernie/Tulsi silence or smear treatment. Instead, they just keep fluffing her. She is there to give the rightwing a target. To rile them up. As a bonus, she keeps doing "her masters' bidding in off camera votes.

I'm a firm believer in watch what they do, not what they say. Here's the latest doings of hers:

By contrast, a group of imperialist sympathizers who had been promoting the coup for months were granted instant access. On November 16, four days after the military coup that destroyed Bolivian democracy, Ocasio-Cortez met with a group of pro-Áñez, pro-Camacho activists led by one Ana Carola Traverso. Traverso’s connections to the Bolivian coup plotters have been extensively documented online.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez symbolically embraced the coup by posing for a photo with this group as they brandished the tricolor Bolivian flag, which during that period had become a signal of support for the golpistas (as opposed to the Wiphala flag, which symbolized popular resistance to the takeover). She told them that she supports their “democratic grassroots movement” and offered them “direct lines of communication.”

In sum, a gang of coup supporters, not constituents, were granted instant access, a photo op and promises of ongoing support. Actual constituents, opposing the coup, were shown the door.

Ocasio-Cortez to Constituents on Bolivian Coup: Drop Dead

She was also completely on board with Russophobia and the odious Adam Schiff. Here is Michael Tracey on AOC retweeting a xenophobic blurb by Schiff.

https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1112339062378115072

She also voted (an actual legislative "doing") for fracking.

House Democrats Voted for a Natural Gas Future, and Nobody Noticed

Then she dissed FDR and claimed the New Deal was racist, leaving out the historical situation in which racists had veto power in the Democratic Party, and FDR got what he could get. These anachronistic slams are into Amity Shales territory.

'The New Deal was an extremely economically racist policy that drew little red lines around black and brown communities and it invested in white America,' the Democratic socialist said during her interview on Saturday evening. 

'It allowed white Americans access to home loans that black Americans didn't have access to, giving them access to the greatest source of intergenerational wealth.' 

ridiculously long title at Daily Mail

-------

Bottom line: she keeps demonstrating she is a fake liberal. She grandstands, she gets publicity, and then she delivers for TPTB instead of the people. You are aware that she won an audition by Justice Democrats to run for her seat, aren't you? She is as phony as a three dollar bill.

Posted by: john brewster | Feb 21 2020 23:00 utc | 161

as far as a citizen-generated manifesto for change goes, the most famous yet still mostly unknown is the People's Party Omaha Platform:

karlof1 | Feb 21 2020 21:07 utc

It reminds me a nice contrapositive of "nobody goes to this restaurant anymore -- it's too crowded". I was checking info on trails in my area, and there was an enthusiastic description of Allegheny Front Trail as beautiful and "increasingly popular. And a comment "Yes, I loved it. We hiked for three days and we did not meet anyone". Upon personal checking, coordination with fellow hikers may fail on the Plateau if you rely on cell phones. Surely, you can get away "from it all" by driving a little from my town, and even by bicycling for about two hours (be prepared for up and downs etc.). The gist is that popularity or fame can by weighted by the quality of people who appreciate it, not by the size of mindless herds.


Posted by: Piotr Berman | Feb 21 2020 23:00 utc | 162

No U.S. state awards its electoral votes to candidates in proportion to their share of the popular votes. 48 states award all their electoral votes to the one candidate who gets the most popular votes statewide. 2 of them use a more complicated formula, but it is still not proportional to the votes.

Posted by: lysias | Feb 21 2020 23:03 utc | 163

"I disagree that AOC is anything other than..."

should be

"I disagree with you if you think AOC is anything other than..."

Posted by: john brewster | Feb 21 2020 23:04 utc | 164

Okay, so I asked earlier what the establishment will do next to take down Bernie?

Well, I got my answer! The Washington Post is claiming that intelligence officials warned Bernie Sanders that Putin and Russia are are trying to help him win the primaries. They're claiming they want him to get the Nomination because he's the candidate Trump can defeat.

Well I got news for all shet disturbers. Bernie IS the strongest candidate to defeat Trump! All the polls across the board show Bernie beating Trump or are the Russians fixing the polls too???

So to the fake media, the establishment and whoever the shet disturbers are: Bernie Sanders is the strongest candidate, he worked hard and is winning, the polls demonstrate he'll defeat Trump, and he has the best ground operation and all the enthusiasm and momentum on his side to defeat Trump!

Now, already the other failing candidates are starting to exploit this garbage by stating that Putin wants Bernie to win because Trump can defeat him.

This is dirty, this is shady, right before Nevada, South Carolina and a slew of big delegate states! This stinks. Stop messing around trying to derail Bernie's campaign with this low-blow trash!

Any other candidate who exploits this Russia is with Bernie because its good for Trump garbage to pump up their campaign has no decency, self-respect or integrity.

Enough! Stop messing with Bernie! This is just too much already.

I can't wait until Bernie gets through this and sends Trump packing in the general and the Russia conspiracy goes out the door with him!

How low can they stoop to stop Bernie from becoming President. Nothing they do or throw at him will succeed. I see Bernie becoming the 46th President. PERIOD.

Posted by: Circe | Feb 21 2020 23:06 utc | 165

b4real @159--

I'm mostly ignorant of the history, but the rise of the post-WW2 Labour Party and its actions were the result of listening to its members and implementing the requisite legislation. For your purposes, that might be a better avenue of inquiry as parliamentary systems seem more responsive to citizen input. The current Chinese system relies on the concept known as Democratic Centralism where citizen input's gathered at the grassroots by local Party members and makes it up the chain to the Politburo for discussion and potential implementation. I first learned of this concept while reading Edgar Snow's Red Star Over China back in the early 1970s. It was installed as a mechanism of the Communist Party of China's Constitution in 1927, and you can learn all about it here. In that essay, Mao's 1940 essay "On New Democracy" is referenced. The vast majority of non-Chinese are ignorant of Mao's writings, particularly his earlier works like this one. Mao's other major essay on the subject from 1945 is "On Coalition Government". It will come as a great surprise to many that Mao was a democrat:

"Our congress is being held in the following circumstances. A new situation has emerged after nearly eight years of resolute, heroic and indomitable struggle waged by the Chinese people with countless sacrifices and amid untold hardships against the Japanese aggressors; in the world as a whole, decisive victory has been gained in the just and sacred war against the fascist aggressors and the moment is near when the Japanese aggressors will be defeated by the Chinese people in co-ordination with the allied countries. But China remains disunited and is still confronted with a grave crisis. In these circumstances, what ought we to do? Beyond all doubt, the urgent need is to unite representatives of all political parties and groups and of people without any party affiliation and establish a provisional democratic coalition government for the purpose of instituting democratic reforms, surmounting the present crisis, mobilizing and unifying all the anti-Japanese forces in the country to fight in effective co-ordination with the allied countries for the defeat of the Japanese aggressors, and thus enabling the Chinese people to liberate themselves from the latter's clutches. After that it will be necessary to convene a national assembly on a broad democratic basis and set up a formally constituted democratic government, which will also be in the nature of a coalition and will have a still wider representation of people from all parties and groups or without any party affiliation, and which will lead the liberated people of the whole country in building an independent, free, democratic, united, prosperous and powerful new China. In short, we must take the line of unity and democracy, defeat the aggressors and build a new China.

"We believe that this alone can give expression to the fundamental demands of the Chinese people. Therefore, my report will deal mainly with these demands. Whether or not a democratic coalition government should be set up has become a matter of deep concern for the Chinese people and for democratic public opinion in the allied countries. My report will therefore lay particular stress on elucidating this question." [My Emphasis]

IMO, China's political-economic system's more efficient and responsive to its public than that of any current nation. Great emphasis is placed on the bottom->up method of problem solving and information gathering. Their system was designed by humans and is thus imperfect. Here's a brief outline of China's political system. Contrary to Western propaganda, people do vote in China.

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 21 2020 23:18 utc | 166

lysias @163 (2020-02-21 UTC 23:03)

True that states are not allocating Electoral College votes proportionally. (Even the "House-based" votes; it might not be required for the "Senate-based" two per state.) But that doesn't make the winner-take-all or by-gerrymandered-House-district processes constitutional.

Posted by: jalp | Feb 21 2020 23:26 utc | 167

So, you all remember how Hillary slithered out from under her rock to trash Bernie right before Iowa and New Hampshire?

Well, it didn't work out so well so now what we have is wall-to-wall distraction, that Russia wants Bernie to get the nomination. It's the same M.O.! Why did WAPO come out with this now??? THINK.

They want to stop Bernie from becoming President. That's the motive for this scheme!

People have been through this Russia shet before. People not going to fall for this; they'll be pissed. This last-minute Russia distraction right before a series of important primaries to stop Bernie is stupid, it will backfire and it'll drive up massive support at the polls for Bernie Sanders.

AYE! I'm disgusted by all this. I really hope Bernie benefits big time.

Posted by: Circe | Feb 21 2020 23:26 utc | 168

So far I've seen Biden and Bloomberg exploit the distraction WAPO just came out with regarding Russia's alleged activities in the primaries to undermine Bernie.

No doubt, Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Warren will milk this as well.

This demonstrates how desperate they are and how low they'll go. They have no self-respect.

Bernie is laser-focused on people's needs, he's rising above the fray in stature, rising in the polls and demonstrating he's Presidential material.

Posted by: Circe | Feb 21 2020 23:58 utc | 169

I just heard that Nevada caucus volunteers are being asked to sign confidentiality agreements so not to speak to the media about the tabulation process. WHUT? WHYYY?

This smells fishy. Hope Bernie's campaign is on top of this.

Posted by: Circe | Feb 22 2020 0:04 utc | 170

@ Really?? | Feb 21 2020 22:18 utc | 160

Thanks for the input. I follow Mr. Murray pretty regular, but had not seen his last couple of posts. I don't have a trusted point for information specific to the U.K. and generally keep up on events there via links posted by contributors here at MOA.

b4real

Posted by: b4real | Feb 22 2020 0:15 utc | 171

Circe @168: last-minute Russia distraction

Circe @169: rising above the fray

Circe @170: Nevada caucus volunteers are being asked to sign confidentiality agreements

Rising above the fray?!? LOL.

He'll call for 'party unity'.

Rally around the cheating warmongers! ... we must defeat Trump!!/sarc

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Feb 22 2020 0:23 utc | 173

There's only one thing that will stop the establishment and the complicit, conniving media, and yes, WAPO came out with the Russia interference article on THE DAY BEFORE Nevada caucuses specifically to target Sanders.

The only thing that will crush the establishment machinations targetting Sanders is overwhelming presence at the polls for Sanders resulting in a YUGE SHELLACKING for the establishment's candidates.

That will shut down their dirty STOP BERNIE operation for good!

Posted by: Circe | Feb 22 2020 0:50 utc | 174

@karlof1 | Feb 21 2020 23:18 utc | 166

re:"China's political system"

Thanks for the link to the outline of the Chinese political system. I do have an itch to learn more about what China's government is doing. I do know that on paper, all forms of government are efficient and beneficial to their populace. In practical application however, they all fail. Monarchy, dictatorship, republic, democracy, socialist, fascist, communist, etc all have their benefits, but for some reason when put into practical application they all fail. I kind of get a kick out of people arguing the value of various forms of government, because they have all been tried and all have typically evolved into oppressors and the oppressed.

b4real

Posted by: b4real | Feb 22 2020 0:57 utc | 175

@ john brewster | Feb 21 2020 23:00 utc | 161

I think you are wrong about AOC. She is a product of the American education system and allowances must be made. She may surprise everyone.

b4real

Posted by: b4real | Feb 22 2020 1:04 utc | 176

Circe @ 170

It's my understanding that staff and volunteer NDAs are routine for the Nevada Democratic Party. They were at least required in 2018, so there is precedent. It would be more suspicious if this policy was only introduced recently. In any event, Sanders' campaign should be more concerned about momentum breaking South Carolina and its 54 delegates.

Posted by: psychedelicatessen | Feb 22 2020 1:58 utc | 177

Nothing anything rank and file America can do about the endless BS connected to this election but be involved, as best you can,and, enjoy the show.

I'll support Bernie and his movement with more than lip service, and let the chips fall where they may. If nothing else, those that have an interest can plainly see, this nation doesn't, in any fashion, live up to it's rhetoric.

Others can do as they like, especially the paid nay- sayers who counsel "do nothing" it's hopeless.

Participation is therapy....

Posted by: ben | Feb 22 2020 2:21 utc | 178

P.S.- With all the BS flying about this election season, I'm waiting for some morons on Facebook to insinuate the Sanders camp is responsible for the Corona virus, to boost support for his national healthcare proposal...

Posted by: ben | Feb 22 2020 2:59 utc | 179

I think RussiaGate must be up to version 4 or 5 at least by now. . . .

Posted by: jalp | Feb 22 2020 3:48 utc | 180

The Military/Industrial Complex shall NEVER approve Tulsi Gabbard (the ONLY contender that has a "snowball's chance in hell" of beating Trump) or Bernie Sanders for the nomination. Biden is too senile to survive the campaign. Warren et al are too "flaky" and divisive to garner the votes that a Bloomberg/Clinton ticket could. Bloomberg has the money and Clinton has the connections (and dues) to cinch the nomination. The DNC is still in the pockets of the corporate donors and I'm sure that Bloomberg/Clinton shall prevail.

Posted by: Barbarossa296 | Feb 22 2020 4:49 utc | 181

I'm not a citizen of the United Shitholes of AmeriKKKa, but if I were I would definitely NOT vote for Bernie Sanders, now that I've heard him buy into the Russia Meddling trope. He's either a liar, a fool or a cretin.

Russia Meddling is a DNC trope dreamt up by Killary Klinton and if Bernie is ignorant of that fact then what else doesn't he know? The so-called "proof" of Russia Meddling is of such dubious quality and so microscopic in scale, that Bernie should be capable of figuring out the fraudulence of the claim for himself.

He didn't even have the decency/ honesty/ smarts to admit that AmeriKKKa has aggressively interfered in, and undermined the results of, more foreign elections than any other entity in the History of the World.

He's too ignorant/ incurious/ dishonest to be trusted with any responsibility.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Feb 22 2020 14:15 utc | 182

@ ben | Feb 22 2020 2:59 utc | 179

”With all the BS flying about this election season, I'm waiting for some morons on Facebook to insinuate the Sanders camp is responsible for the Corona virus, to boost support for his national healthcare proposal...”

As it happens, I have a video of Putin and Sanders plotting this very thing, with two-way translators and sub-titles.

As one would expect, because of national security considerations no one will be allowed to view or to listen to the video, but the fact that I have it is all the evidence that you need, to understand that it is true.

Posted by: AntiSpin | Feb 22 2020 23:11 utc | 183

Man... it’s both funny and sad watching American politics.

Circe is as bad if not worse as the most die hard of the trumpflakes. Making a few of these threads unbearable.

Always triggered when any criticism of their “candidate” they are fans of.
Yes fans cheering and jeering with some stupid us vs them mentality.

They fine tuned and flipped the script with Obama to trump, just reversing the identity politics.

Now we have another “outsider”, Hated by the establishment and media alike. Has a history of gutting bills auditing the fed, voting for war unlike the last two puppets in chief.

Not sure how people that invested in American politics can be taken seriously at all. They are being marketed to on a very basic level and the only excuse for the hook, line and sinker swallowing and supporting of the government media complex”s narrative, pro or con, is basically the dunning-Kruger effect.

This place is starting to look like the zero hedge comments section but for Bernie instead of trump, and it’s one person who is the majority of this push.

Reality is the only thing Bernie can change is the Overton window. Which may be a good thing, but he is a politician. Thus a paid liar, a professional one at that. I’ll take him over trump in heart beat as we won’t be half as annoying with trump needing to be in the news 24/7.

Maybe b can change his format and be the left wing version of “Q”. With all these “leaks”, “intel”, and pending indictments of the “deep state”. He would probably do it a lot more elegant that the writers for q are doing a make a quick buck off so called “adults”.

> Back to lurking

Posted by: NDA | Feb 23 2020 14:44 utc | 184

Let's face it, Bernie is merely the best (although by far the best) of a bad lot. He might do good things on the domestic scene, but he's deeply flawed—and seemingly ignorant, surprisingly so—when it comes to foreign policy. His SUPPORTERS at the Black Agenda Report label him an "imperialist pig", which I am afraid is deserved. His thinking and attitudes are mired in the Cold War, and he's utterly in thrall to the Security State, which means that, like most of the people whose hearts once seemed to be in the right place, he has learned nothing from experience or is too blind to understand what experience ought to show to any sane person. He is not anti-war, not committed to winding down the forever-wars policy of the United States. He says, sternly, that war should be only a "last resort"; sounds good, but they all say that. His statements on Palestine are weasel-worded. Read carefully, he keeps in all of the excuses that everyone else has used as a license for supporting (or at lerast failing to oppose) Zionist mayhem. He's too much of a coward to bring about real change, even if he were committed to it. He calls Putin a "thug" and doesn't seem to think that trying to end the Korean war or normalising relations with Russia and, for that matter, China, is a good idea. He thus shares in the insanity of all the others. The only one on the scene who combines sanity, intelligence, and a healthy attitude, with real courage is Tulsi Gabbard. She also has her flaws—but who doesn't? If Bernie took on Tulsi as his running mate, and vowed that she would be an "activist" VP in a Sanders administration, that could be an administration worth voting for. Tulsi is also, besides Bernie, the only candidate with integrity. The rest of them are all fake. No, Bernie's flawed understanding of sane global relations is not just campaign rhetoric; he really is a delusive belligerent. My only faith in Bernie in this department is that it might be possible to educate him, and Tulsi could probably do that if he allowed it. Tulsi has been smeared and marginalised by the Democratic party establishment and their pet media, because they rightly understand that she is more dangerous to their chief racket—the war racket—than anyone else. But I think that if she were to appear before the people as the Democratic nominee for VP, she would have enormous public appeal. Just imagine her in a debate with someone like Mike Pence (or whichever good Trump picks for his second term). I never thought that Tulsi was ready for the presidency just yet, but she would be after a term as VP, if Bernie paid attention to her and gave her her head. If elected, he would likely be a one-term president because of his age (in 2024 he'll be 82), and, whether or not he were to make it through term one or to run for term two, it would be great to have Tulsi Gabbard there to step into the presidency if Bernie were to retire or become incapacitated. Unfortunately, the Democratic establishment would rather lose to Trump than to win with Sanders and Gabbard, and for good reason. Sanders and Gabbard would be the end of them. So a Sanders-Gabbard ticket will almost certainly remain a distant dream.

Posted by: mikjall | Feb 29 2020 17:00 utc | 185

Let's face it, Bernie is merely the best (and by far the best) of a bad lot. He might do good things on the domestic scene, but he's deeply flawed—and seemingly ignorant, surprisingly so—when it comes to foreign policy. His SUPPORTERS at the Black Agenda Report label him an "imperialist pig", which I am afraid is deserved. His thinking and attitudes are mired in the Cold War, and he's utterly in thrall to the Security State. which means that, like most of the people whose hearts once seemed to be in the right place, he has learned nothing from experience or is too blind to understand what experience would show to any sane person. He is not anti-war, not committed to winding down the forever-wars policy of the United States. He says that war should be only a "last resort"; sounds good, but they all say that. His statements on Palestine are weasel-worded. Read carefully, he keeps in all of the excuses that everyone else has taken as a license for Zionist mayhem. He's too much of a coward to stand for real change, even if he were committed to it. He calls Putin a "thug" and doesn't seem to think that trying to end the Korean war or normalizing relations with Russia and, for that matter, China, is a good idea. He thus shares in the insanity of all the others. The only one on the scene who combines sanity, intelligence, and a healthy attitude, with courage is Tulsi Gabbard. She also has her flaws—but who doesn't? If Bernie took on Tulsi as his running mate, and vowed that she would be an "activist" VP in a Sanders administration, that could be an administration worth voting for. Tulsi is also, besides Bernie, the only candidate with integrity. The rest of them are all fake. No, Bernie's weak understanding of sane global relations is not just campaign rhetoric; he really is a delusive belligerent. My only faith in Bernie in this department is that it might be possible to educate him, and Tulsi could probably do that. Tulsi has been smeared and marginalised by the Democratic party establishment and their pet media, because they rightly understand that she is more dangerous to their chief racket—the war racket—than anyone else. But I think that if she were to appear as the Democratic nominee for VP, she would have enormous public appeal. Just imagine her in a debate with someone like Mike Pence (or whichever good Trump picks for his second term). I never thought that Tulsi was ready for the presidency just yet, but she would be after a term as VP if Bernie paid attention to her and gave her her head. If elected, he would likely be a one-term president because of his age (in 2024 he'll be 82), and, whether or not he makes it through term one or runs for term two, it would be great to have Tulsi Gabbard there to step into the presidency if Sanders retires or becomes disabled. However, since the Democratic establishment would rather lose to Trump than to win with Sanders-Gabbrd ticket, the prospect of a Sanders-Gabbard administration will likely remain but a distant dream.

Posted by: mikjall | Feb 29 2020 17:42 utc | 186

Forgot to add about poor, old Bernie that he suffered (and suffers) from Trump Derangement Syndrome, bought into (and even promoted) "Russiagate" (a complete, and egregious, sham), and said not one critical word about the idiotic impeachment debacle, including the absolutely insane speech that Adam Schiff gave in his closing speech at the Senate trial. You can hate Trump and want to get rid of him without losing control of yourself, behaving stupidly, and colluding with the worst forces in the US establishment. Bernie didn't manage it. Bernie will also support Bloomberg, should the latter be nominated; or so he has said, and he's pretty much a man of his word.

Posted by: mikjall | Feb 29 2020 17:49 utc | 187

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.