The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

The Greatest Danger to Bernie’s Revolution

Bernie Sanders

Will Sanders be the Democratic nominee for President?


Barring something very unexpected, he’ll have the most delegates. His polling in the big super Tuesday states is ahead of all the other candidates. Right now, all Bloomberg is doing is harming the other “centrist” candidates; he’s actually helping Sanders.

The risk is that Sanders doesn’t have enough delegates to win the first ballot, and that delegates from other candidates would then combine with super-delegates (put in place precisely to make sure a Bernie doesn’t happen) and give the nomination to someone else. Warren, Buttigieg, or Bloomberg. (Biden is too clearly senile, and I think insiders get that.)

If this happens, Trump will then win re-election, which is a win to Bloomberg, who got into the contest to defeat Sanders, not Trump.

But be clear that it might also be a win for Democratic insiders. If Sanders wins the nomination and the election, insiders will be replaced over time; they will lose their power over the party.

For Democratic party insiders, then, a Bernie win in the election may be worse for them, personally, than a Trump win. As long as they control the party, they will eventually get back into power, and will be fine financially.

If the current Democratic establishment loses power to progressives, well, their lives aren’t so good, are they?

And for many Democratic insiders, their own comfort and power will trump beating Trump. Oh, they’ll say, and many will believe, that they are acting from principle, but the base motivation will be fear of loss of power, money, and livelihood.

From now until the election, the greatest danger will not be Trump, or Republicans, it will be Democratic insiders who stand to lose much more under Sanders than under Trump.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.


Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – February 23, 2020


Preparing for the Coronavirus


  1. Quite right Ian. Just as it was the GOPe which posed the greatest threat to Trump’s campaign and have continued to threaten his Presidency.

    I don’t agree with a single thing Sanders stands for but I love the idea that the Democratic Establishment – who stand for nothing – is getting its ass handed to it.

  2. NR

    The idea that the Republican establishment is in any way against Trump is absolutely laughable. Trump is 100% an establishment Republican in how he has governed; he does their bidding on economic issues (passing a big tax cut to make rich people richer), and that’s all they care about.

    The establishment and the billionaire donors love Trump because he’s been very good to them (and of course, not so good for everyone else).

  3. Tom

    Sanders needs to appoint a Running Mate ASAP. I say Rashida Tlaib, I would rather Ilhan Omar, but she is not a Natural Born US Citizen, and AOC is a moron and best left on the sidelines.

    Next Sanders must monitor his health and take the fight via social media. Large Rallies with Coronavirus on the loose is a good way for him to contract it and die. He also needs to take this and whack Trump over the head as Trump cut CDC funding. But more importantly, its going to wreck this nation, no stopping it, we’re past that point. I go back on the rig tomorrow and my family is locking down. We aren’t waiting anymore as we got several deaths across the state now from flu like symptoms but tested negative for flu. None are confirmed as CDC won’t allow tests.

    This election’s Sword of Damocles is Coronavirus. Sanders and Trump are both highly vulnerable due to their ages and if enough of the candidates contract it, it will be utter chaos.

  4. Hugh

    I subscribe to the maxim: when you have your opponents on the run, keep them on the run. And I think Bernie can best do this by taking care of business, staying focused on his campaign, outreach, and movement building.

  5. Willy

    Bernie’s so badass that his running mate could be a vial of coronavirus. He’d bring it to the debate against Trump and watch him try to health care that. One weakness Trumps kind has is a fear of dirt and disease. Personally, I’d chase him around the stage with my vial of VP pick so everybody could watch Mr. Alpha Winner cower like an infant.

    It’s interesting that the old establishment tricks aren’t working so well anymore. I’m curious about what the reactions to any potential super-delegate-mandering could be. If there wasn’t outright revolution, it would only add fuel to a future revolutions fire, since oligarchic enablers are aging and dying off, while the youth are more afraid of unrestricted capitalism than they restricted socialism.

  6. AOC is a moron … You would know.


    Sanders needs to appoint a Running Mate ASAP. I say Rashida Tlaib, I would rather Ilhan Omar, but she is not a Natural Born US Citizen, and AOC is a moron and best left on the sidelines.

    These are Putin’s picks too. Imagine that.


    I don’t agree with a single thing Sanders stands for but I love the idea that the Democratic Establishment – who stand for nothing – is getting its ass handed to it.

    Bernie doesn’t need the likes of this anywhere near his camp.


    The establishment and the billionaire donors love Trump because he’s been very good to them (and of course, not so good for everyone else).

    Exactly. Trump would have been Six Feet Under a long time ago if it was otherwise. They’ve tolerated his odious, obnoxious, crude & crass behavior because he’s increased their net worth tremendously thus far.


    In the debates with Trump, Bernie, should he win the Dem nomination, should deploy the use of props. For example, when Trump responds with some absurdity, Bernie should pull out a Big Mac and a large order of fries and award it to Trump for such an intelligent & worthy response. Another prop should be one of these iconic hats. No one is more worthy of it than Trump.

  11. someofparts

    Hard to tell if this is a darkness before the dawn or before the end of all light.

    Decades ago I watched with horror as the paradigm for governing shifted from New Deal to neoliberal with the election of Reagan.

    Now I’ve lived long enough to see it swing back. The particulars of how it plays out can be hard to predict, but the governing paradigm is shifting back to New Deal thinking and away from neoliberal nonsense.

    Right now it sounds like the movement is incubating and building support, winning state or local races and starting changes where they already can. New voices keep showing up. Thinking and practice are getting refined.

    The kids are smarter than we are and we won’t be able to stop them. They are going to bring some kind of New Deal 2.0 eventually, and Trump’s second term will be when they build it.
    I hope I live long enough to see it happen.


    Kudos to Bernie and Ro Khanna for setting the record straight on Putin’s meddling. Ro Khanna should be Bernie’s VP as far as I’m concerned. He’s the perfect pick. Way to tell Putin, Bernie. I’m behind you 100%. When Bernie’s elected, if he can get past Putin’s/Trump’s cheating, he will shut down Putin’s meddling for good. Paper ballots, baby!!

  13. Ché Pasa

    Please. There will be no “debates” with Trump. There is no debating with that thing. The best you can do is overwhelm and overcome him. Neither our institutions nor any of the Dems on stage are capable of doing that.

    The Dems in disarray narrative is a standard trope that’s been around as long as the internet. It’s being recycled in the current Dem Big Wig “panic” over Bernie narrative. Is the Dem Party apparatus really in panic over the Bernie Sanders semi-juggernaut? Some of the television personalities are running around screaming, Tweety being the prime ridiculous example. And we hear the donor class is rather cross that the Party has allowed things to get to this point.

    But remember neo-lib adage: every crisis is an opportunity.

    Sometimes crises have to be manufactured. And they are.

    I seriously doubt Bernie will be the nominee, though anything is possible. I think I explained my reservations about him, but there are lots of other reasons why he’s unlikely to be chosen as the nominee, movement or no. Someone else, a ‘unity candidate’ who can/will defeat Trump will emerge and Bernie will endorse. So will all the others. And grumbling, the movement will largely go along. Bloomberg is not that candidate.

    This doesn’t happen in an atmosphere of panic, but “crisis” — manufactured or not — helps. So I expect the ‘crisis’ over Bernie’s rise to last through the primaries.

    And then? We’ll see.

  14. Last through a brokered convention to a Uncle Joe / Mayo Pete “Unity” ticket.

  15. anon

    A lot of people still want Warren as VP. I think she is best left in the Senate or in a cabinet position. Gabbard or Yang would be interesting, but I think most of their supporters have gone to Bernie anyway. I don’t think AOC, Tlaib, or Omar would help Sanders bring in the voters he needs to ensure he beats Trump. They would all work well in his administration, but not as VP. It’s a tough choice, but I’m sure Bernie already has an idea who he wants, and I trust his judgment. I am excited to see who he will choose.

  16. Stirling S Newberry

    2592 Deaths
    77159 Infected

    China is trying to end lockdown. Good luck with that.


    Ro Khanna, per that link above to the CNN interview with Wolfie the Wolfman Blitzkrieg. expressed Bernie’s stance and policy as it relates to Putin’s Russia. Ro Khanna is Bernie’s national co-chair so he speaks for Bernie in this interview. He and Bernie are one. This is not Ro Khanna and Bernie playing the political game. This is what they know. This is what they think. This is not playing games. If you don’t agree with it, you’re not a REAL Bernie supporter but instead a pretend supporter.

    Putin wants to create the maximum level of confusion and division. Look, Russia is a has-been power. Their economy is in the dumps. They see the rise of China and they are basically realizing that their only method of competing in the world is sowing discord in other democracies. That’s not going to work and we need to stand up to Putin and say this is unacceptable and you;re not going to endear yourself either to the United States or Europe if you continue down this path. ~ Ro Khanna — Nation Co-Chair of Bernie’s 2020 Campaign

  18. Z

    The best VP choice would be Tulsi IMO. She has the best combination of gravitas and maturity. I don’t care about her age. We just had a reality TV star do less damage to the country and working class than the last three scumbag presidents did. I don’t want to hear about qualifications, when the criteria for qualifications seem to center on how best to serve the interests of the one percent and smooth it over with the working class.

    CNN is starting to lighten up on the anti-Bernie coverage and Van Jones is chiming in in Bernie’s favor and they have had pro-Bernie people on, some very smart and well-spoken women like Krystal Ball and Alexandra Rojas. This more balanced media coverage will bring in the next wave of voters to Bernie’s side, the ones who watch TV more than the internet. The TV media needs to try to maintain their credibility, that is their currency. MSDNC has entirely lost theirs.

    The Bernie “ceiling”, the limit on how much support he’d ultimately get which the media placed at 30% tops was always bs. When you have no other candidates in the race that have anything near the size and fervency of Bernie’s base, Bernie is the most popular democrat, the demozombies have been whipped into a anti-Trump hysteria, and he speaks directly and forcefully to the needs and concerns of over 90% of the country, which the other candidates don’t, the potential for larger support was always percolating.


  19. Z


    Thanks once again for sharing your faith in cynicism.



    Tulsi is not the best VP pick. Not even close. There are many reasons she’s not a good VP pick. Her fealty to Putin is one but also her fealty to AIPAC. Bernie doesn’t bow to AIPAC and AIPAC is as bad as Putin’s Russia when it comes to interference & meddling in America’s electoral process.

    The Russians would love Bernie to select Tulsi as his VP. It’s not going to happen. Bernie can see right through that ploy.

  21. Z

    If the field breaks down and candidates start dropping out, all but Warren’s following will lean towards Bernie. He’s the most likable candidate and the leader in the race.

    Even Young Republican Pete, if he drops out, though he’s a conservative, he’s also gay and probably has a lot of gay support who is behind him for identity reasons more so than political ones. Besides gay professionals and the “I’m not prejudiced against gay people” mind-f*cked voter, who is his base? If he drops out, Bernie should get a fair amount of that gay Pete vote and his liberated “I’m not prejudiced against gay people, I was going to vote for one” following. Bernie is the candidate most supportive of gay rights, much more so than YR Pete, by the way. YR Pete’s gayness is mostly valued by him for its brand recognition to him.

    How about Biden’s following? African-Americans, older people, and the folks who foolishly believed that he was the most electable candidate. Bernie will pull heavily from Biden’s voters.

    Amy K from Minnesota. Minnesota Scandinavian heritage. They’re not going to be scared away by a socialist. Wisconsin the same way. Amy K does not draw much from the professionally successful women voter. Warren holds that.

    Bloomberg is just an electability play in the democratic primary. If he was in the republican primary it would be different. There are no die-hard democratic party Bloomberg voters out there. You won’t drive down any lonely state highways in Kansas next February and see a fading Bloomberg 2020 sign in some farmer’s field rattling defiantly in the face of northern winter winds.

    Warren is probably the candidate whose backers won’t go over to Bernie much because she has been so aggressive towards him, so if you stick with her to this point you almost have to hate Bernie or you would have gone over to him after all the shit Warren has pulled. YR Pete and Bloomberg are also trying to scorch earth Bernie – get their voters not to turn to Bernie. But Mikey $B has a base of zero and so has no sway over anyone, no one is emotionally invested in Mikey $B’s candidacy, he only appeals to the bribed voter and mercenary political operatives who go to the highest bidder, no questions asked. The “money talks, campaign promises are cheap” contingent. YR Pete has a base of probably about 10% tops. His results in Iowa and NH were higher than he’ll get in any of the remaining states, I’d bet, probably even his own. He is good for the short run, but he wears on you the more you see of him. YR Pete’s always presenting, never representing. He has no fervent base and he has as much emotional investment into his support as Mikey $B’s support has in Mikey $B.

    Some candidates are going to get exhausted and just say to hell with it. Biden soon for sure. He’s running out of gas. Warren will probably stay around to the end carving herself out as a victim of misogyny, hero to successful professional women, a priestess to practicality, an academic-minded theorist of principles when her true aim has been solely focused on attacking Bernie’s campaign for the past two months by constantly shooting veiled arrows at him and readying the misogynist accusations the moment he says a word back. She’ll probably stick around for the vanity of it, to show how tough she is. The Hillary type of feminist, victim-hero for the upper class professional women who have the luxury of indulging in identity politics.


  22. StewartM

    Ian, I think you’d be interested in this article as it echoes what you just said:

    “Now, Bernie Sanders is threatening to make the class war reality by winning the Democratic presidential nomination. His biggest obstacle is not the Republican candidate – a rich, evil cartoon man who is a perfect foil for Bernie’s analysis of what plagues us – but the Democratic establishment. In their eyes, he is an existential threat to their traditional approach of determining their stance on moral issues by finding a point halfway between “What’s right” and “What the Koch brothers are advocating via attack ads.”

    You can sense their panic, rising like tree sap. As time grows shorter and the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire trend in Bernie’s favor, the Third Way-style Democrats voice increasingly desperate warnings that a party that lost to Trump may be about to make a mistake. The Wall Street set throws more money at Joe Biden; the famous columnists who backed the Iraq war sound the alarm about unelectability; the candidate who lost to a reality television clown joins in the doomsaying. A Hollywood casting agency specializing in budget comedies could not assemble a less credible group of opponents. One of Sanders’ greatest advantages in the race is that many of the most unlikable hypocrites in America despise him

    It is amusing to recall that one of the go-to criticisms of Bernie, by the Clinton wing of the Democratic party, is that he is not even a Democrat. Indeed, he spent decades in Congress as an independent. The fact that he obtained power outside of the confines of the party machine enrages those who sacrificed their own idealism to play the game – his rise to the presidency would imply that they all sold out for nothing.

    But what has the Democratic party ever offered him and his vision? It is a party that did its very best to institutionally elbow him out of the 2016 race; when he returned in 2020, an entire basketball team’s worth of Democrats arose to run on platforms that were explicit rejections of his wild socialist beliefs like “humans should have healthcare and education”. The vast majority of the Democratic power structure has focused far more political capital on deriding, dismissing and smearing Medicare for All than it ever did on trying to ensure that poor people do not die because they are poor. Solving the profound American crisis of inequality that has been building for 40 years – a crisis allowed to grow uninterrupted thanks to the strategy of triangulation and appeasement that marked the Clinton and Obama administrations – is, for them, barely an afterthought.

    Fortunately, the Democratic party is no longer going to be defined by its establishment powers. It is going to be defined by the people who are inspired to come out to vote. For the past four years, it has been clear that Sanders and Trump each represent a direct response to the severe (and warranted) disillusionment of average Americans, who have seen the American dream of economic mobility die during their lifetimes.

    Trump represents the dark path of racism, nationalism and division; Bernie represents the other path, of socialism, multiculturalism and solidarity. The Democratic establishment, left over from a political era they don’t know has already disappeared, imagines that a Biden or a Bloomberg or a Buttigieg might be able to keep the whole structure from falling apart. But they’re wrong. America has already started down a path away from what got us here. The only question is which path that will be.

    Any sane and moral political party should want to do everything possible to make Sanders’ vision become a reality. The alternative is not a fresh flowering of centrism. It is something much, much worse.”


    Ché, of course there are no “debates” with Trump. That’s my point. Bernie needs to beat Trump at his own game in the “debates” without permanently staining himself in the process. I believe some cutting satire with props would be the perfect strategy for Bernie. I further suggest Bernie bring a couple of peaches to the debate so he can throw them at Trump at some point. Impeach him, in otherwords. Again. Bernie should drive home the impeachment angle ad nauseum and the Putin is a KGB commie who owns Trump angle ad nauseum. The goal is to so unnerve Trump so he either explodes in a nervous breakdown or he walks off stage. Decorum is long gone and shouldn’t even be a consideration when forced to play on Trump’s turf.

  24. anon

    Buffett will vote for Bloomberg. The billionaires really do not want a more equal society in which they are taxed a bit more to fund education and health care for all. To be honest, I’m concerned for Bernie’s safety. If they could get rid of MLK and RFK, two young men in their prime, it is conceivable that they will try to get rid of Bernie if he comes after their money. I am crossing my fingers that all goes well this year and that he can safely assume the presidency without a nut job going after him.

  25. Z


    I’ve had those same fears, I imagine many of us do.

    I believe at this point though that it is too late to simply thwart the movement by removing him and if something does happen to him, Bernie will be seen as a hero, a martyr, and a rallying point and there will be a hell of a lot of anger against our ruling class, our enemies, because most of the public, particularly the youth, will think the one percent was behind it and that will light a fire under Bernie’s base and that will spread and they’ll just jump right behind another candidate who will fight for the same causes and that candidate will become president in 2020.

    Our rulers have lost control of the narrative, their media has lost credibility with the public, and enough of the public realizes it now. The proof that they have lost control of the narrative is the success of Bernie’s campaign despite all they’ve done to harm it.



    The most important issue by far in this election and every election going forward is climate change. Bernie crushes the field when it comes to climate change. He’s one of only several of the candidates who is for a full ban of fracking. Bernie, you need to reconsider your opinion on nuclear. Nuclear doesn’t have to be dangerous. There are safe and innocuous ways to do it. America needs to embrace innovative, cutting-edge nuclear in order to achieve that last carbon-free mile without breaking everyone’s bank.

    Measuring the impact of methane emissions from oil and gas production has been difficult historically because Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) numbers have been based on industry self-reporting, which a 2018 study found were underestimating emissions by 60 percent. Additionally, last year the Trump adminstration proposed a rule that would repeal regulations designed to reduce methane emissions in the oil and gas industry.

    A recent analysis by energy consultants at Rystad Energy found that when natural gas processing plants, overwhelmed by huge volumes of gas, are taken into consideration in Texas’s prolific Permian Basin, the levels of flaring and venting were actually 30 percent higher than previously estimated.


    Here’s how the candidates stand on a fracking ban. Bernie, Warren, Tulsi and Steyer are for an outright ban of fracking whereas Bloomberg, Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar are for increased regulation but not a ban. As we know, regulation doesn’t work with the fossil fuel industry. Considering that, banning fracking is the only resolute proposal. Regulating it is feckless lip service and it will be business as usual when no one’s looking or paying attention.

  28. Willy

    Z, that’s the point. Most people wont martyr themselves or risk their families. They’d rather live humbly, play well with others, and sleep well at night. Uncertainty and adapting to rapid change is stressful. Others can be lied to, told that everything is as good as it gets and to just stay humble and play well so you can sleep at night lest there be really stressful trouble.

    But even the meek have their limits.

    Right here RC used to chide commenters over their unwillingness to start some kind of revolution and we’d chide him right back because of ‘human realities’. Historically, revolutions needed enough of a critical mass focus lest they fizzled out, were intimidated, or were taken over by well-cloaked cunning nefariousness.

    The better longer lasting populist revolutions need a large and continuous supply of stalwart followers willing to step up to be stalwart leaders and followers even after other stalwart leaders and followers have been eliminated in any battles.

    Think ruining the sociopathic schoolyard bully gang and all of their power structures (or maybe in our modern age the schoolyard mass shooter). What would nice normal weaker kids need to overcome such powerful evil? I’d think that on a national level many of the dynamics would be the same.

    As for fracking, that’d be like if the schoolyard bully gang sold drugs which some of the meeker kids found tolerable, even necessary for their daily lives. Bernie might need to offset that ‘loss’ with something better.

  29. bruce wilder

    There is a great cleavage between the American 80% and the 9.9% that is revealed when the 0.1% start showing up as Trump and now Bloomberg have.

    Trump’s emergence was a much bigger threat to Democratic Party elites and their game of selling the Democratic electorate out to donors than to Republican elites. And, the Dem elite reacted with a desperation and indirection that is underestimated and misconstrued on the left.

    I think Bernie’s campaign will struggle with the legacy of the three years of polarizing indirection and may well never overcome it. The intelligence agencies warning of Russian election interference is just a beginning. They will try to make Bernie appear hostile to the white, male working class by insisting on the tropes of demographic triumph the Party has trotted out and the identitarian rhetoric of class scorn.

    It is worrying to me that no one on the left ever thought to question the whole Trump impeachment either as strategy or on the merits. This speaks to a certain blindness to how others see them that I think may extend from Clintonite liberals to Bernie leftists. The triumphalism and scorn for the possibility Bernie has a low ceiling on his support from the electoral mainstream worries me.

  30. Z


    I look at it this way: what has Trump really accomplished for the working class other than symbolic victories? Has the working class felt any substantial benefits from the Trump triumphalism? I’d say no.

    Bernie is promising to have Wall Street pay off all student debt, fight to reorient our economy to address climate change, to fight for better SS benefits, and push for medicare-for-all.

    I have a tough time believing that Trump has built upon his base from 2016. Why would it? What has he done to improve the lives of the working class?

    Bernie will take some of his working class support and will be bringing in a new voting block that is willing to work to get him elected. I don’t see that in Trump’s support. Not many are going to knock on doors for Trump.


  31. Z

    Biden’s support in NV is mostly due to Harry Reid’s political machine and NV’s large cast of older voters.


  32. Z

    I think the accelerant of urgency and frustration from younger people has not been fully appreciated by most. That’s the fuel behind Bernie’s campaign. Look at what many of them are looking at: a life of debt peonage on a planet whose ecosystems are breaking down. And the people who rule them have no ethical framework to justify this trajectory except to promote the fantastical notion of the morality of “free” markets, which everyone knows is a bunch of bs after the 2008 financial crisis and watching the Wall Street crooks who were the biggest cause of it come out of it as the biggest winners.


  33. bruce wilder

    It has been a long time since either Party has done anything for the working class, so people often look for other indications, and social-cultural polarization is used by elite propagandists to exploit this searching for alternatives. If Bernie can get in and actually deliver concrete, material benefits, the politics of effective political appeals will change. But, in the meantime, people will look at markers of cultural (dis)respect and forms of lunatic delusion in people on the “other” side. That is the problem a polarizing politics has left us with.

    On Trump’s side, he has real problems with evangelicals as well as suburban Republican women of a certain age. Real union workers will desert Trump given half a reason, but I think the discontented evangelicals and conservative suburbanites will be harder.

    I think Bernie’s policies on student debt and M4all are great, but in their 30-second sound-bite form they can sound like impractical giveaways to many people who are engaging just now.

    There is a big job of political education to do, with late engagers as well as people who like Trump because the right sort on the “other” side hate him so much.

    Establishment Democrats (elites especially) do not hate Trump for the same reasons as normal people. The former may not want to admit even to themselves their true motivations.

  34. Stirling S Newberry

    VP: Marianne Williamson

  35. Sanders captured 54% of Nevada’s Latino vote.

    Try again zippy …

  36. Stormcrow

    you wrote …

    This election’s Sword of Damocles is Coronavirus.
    Sanders and Trump are
    both highly vulnerable due to their ages and if enough of the
    candidates contract it, it will be utter chaos.

    This makes the implicit assumption that Sanders and Trump are both
    noticeably more liable to contract COVID-19 than they are, say, to
    contract a life-threatening case of flu.

    I think you’re making a very common mistake: overestimating a threat on
    the basis of its novelty.

    Have you been tracking the growth in case numbers either from the WHO
    Situation Reports
    or the Johns
    Hopkins COVID-19 Dashboard

    If you have, you’ll have noticed that case growth has been decelerating
    for more than three weeks now. The last 5 days, it’s been less than 2%
    per day, down from 50% per day a month ago.

    This is NOT the sort of behavior you can expect from an actual

  37. Benjamin

    One of the common things I hear from liberals these days is the lament that the Republicans are ‘no longer a normal political party’. Putting aside the fact that I struggle to identify when, by their reasoning, the GOP was ever a normal party (this is just more West Wing nonsense about the mythical noble and reasonable Republican who can be negotiated with), they have things exactly backwards.

    The Republicans are a normal political party. Their primary goal is to achieve and then exercise power. They have a vision. It’s an ugly, almost entirely horrific vision, but it is a vision.

    The Democrats meanwhile believe in nothing. Because they aren’t a functioning political party. They don’t seriously try to achieve power, and basically do nothing with it when they do manage to achieve it. The purpose of the Democratic Party is provide employment for idiot consultants, and the children of those consultants. It’s one big grift, forever ‘fighting for (but never winning)’ progressive values. #resistance is just the latest form of this. It’s been this way since the Clintons ‘New Democrats’ smothered what was left of the party of FDR, almost a generation ago.

    Sanders scares them so much because he’s threatening to make a whole lot of parasites unemployed. And since most of these people are genuinely idiots, with useless skillsets for things that they mostly aren’t actually good at anyway, the future looks mighty grim for them if he wins.


    There’s a strong case to be made that a Cuban assassination squad murdered JFK that fateful November day in Dealey Plaza. They are some bad hombres. The thieves fled Cuba when Castro came to power and he let them, or I should say he let most of them. The worst of the worst were executed and others were jailed. He could have mowed them all down, but instead let the majority of them leave for America where they continued their thieving. I deplore the Batista regime expats who, like a mafia, took over Miami and turned it into a mini version of Batista’s notoriously corrupt Havana. They are arrogant, entitled, criminal murderers.

    Sanders on Sunday did nothing to allay those concerns in a 60 Minutes interview where he was asked about his 1985 comments stating that the Cuban people didn’t “rise up in rebellion against Fidel Castro” because “he educated their kids, gave their kids health care, totally transformed society.”

    There was no mention of the firing squads, political purges and mass arrests that accompanied the 1959 revolution.

    “We’re very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba but you know, it’s unfair to simply say everything is bad. You know?” Sanders said Sunday when asked about the remarks. “When Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing? Even though Fidel Castro did it?”

    Sanders’ campaign dismisses concerns about socialism as modern-day “red-baiting” and points to polling, however, that shows he’s essentially tied with Donald Trump in Florida, just like other Democrats like Biden.

  39. Ché Pasa

    The purpose of the Democratic Party has long been to clean up the titanic messes left after periods of Republican rule. The pattern was set by FDR. We go through the same thing over and over and over. Republicans run the country badly for their own benefit alone, Dems are assigned the job of fixing it. They are the much maligned professional managerial class who have morphed over the decades into somewhat kinder-gentler Rs — because in effect the two major parties are a partnership, the Rs being the dominant and radical partner, the Dems being the practical, subservient and moderate-conservative partner.

    Bernie’s no fool. He knows this intimately. He’s part of it. (This is part of why I’m leery of sending another senator to the White House.)

    But let’s say Bernie wins in November and there’s a Dem majority in the House and Senate. Would we be looking at 2009 all over again? Would suddenly enough of the Dems act to thwart Bernie’s populist progressive policies? Of course they would. Why? Because enough of them were Republicans not that long ago, and the money to fund campaigns would still be dependent on the good will of the ruling class, whose motto is “this much and no more.”

    Some things might happen. Minimum wage increase for example. Compromise at $12. Some student loan forgiveness, possibly, but only with strings. A modest infrastructure program. Some tweakage to ACA which could lead to M4A in another decade if we keep pushing. Less war but not an end to it. A restoration of Obama era tax rates on the rich. Minor reductions in military spending. Minor increases in social spending.

    All these things and more are already in the legislative pipeline, thwarted by Mitch and his minions in the Senate.

    And this is about as much as the ruling class will allow in any given period of “leftist” rule.

    Green New Deal? No. The idea is terrifying. M4A at once? No. Too complicated. Greater levels of democracy for the people, accountability for the oligarchy? Difficult under our system. Maybe impossible without a major, indeed catastrophic, shock. Unfortunately — or maybe not — the climate emergency is slow enough to adapt to. There’s much gleeful anticipation of the next economic-financial free-fall, but there’s also a lot of preparation for it. What about the Outbreak? Could that do it?

    What it can do is enable much greater levels of authoritarianism. That seems to be a widely shared governmental goal these days, isn’t it? So I’d keep my eye on that.

  40. Buzzard

    I’ve been lurking here for years but have only posted once or twice.

    I am a minor “insider” in the Democratic Party. I’ve served for over a dozen years on the local county Central Committee in a mid-Atlantic state. I am a middle-aged white male and a strong Bernie supporter — I think he’s the only path to a return to relevance for the Dems at a national level. And given his early successes to date, any perceived or real attempt to sabotage him by the party power structure will hand Trump the election in November — probably in a landslide if the stock-market bubble doesn’t pop before that.

    There are twelve people in my committee. The younger ones like Bernie or Warren (one inexplicably supports Biden); the older ones are firmly in the Biden camp. No one I know is a first-choice Bloomberg supporter, though the older members are transfixed by his (ostensible) determination to beat Trump. We have one who’s a teacher and thinks positively of Bloomberg! (Yes, there are plenty of low-information voters on Dem central committees.) No amount of evidence offered on my part that Bloomberg is a Bad Idea sways him; I’m the crazy liberal guy nobody listens to.

    They talk about Bernie’s supposed unelectability, while supporting the candidates who make gun control a centerpiece of their campaigns (which immediately writes off the Midwest).

    If we wind up with two Trumps to choose from this fall, I’m stepping down from the committee. I held my nose for Hillary four years ago, but Bloomberg is a bridge– a causeway — too far.

    Just thought I would pass this along as a snapshot, for what it’s worth.

  41. different clue

    @ bruce wilder,

    I don’t know if Tulsi Gabbard is considered to be on ” the left” or not. But she did question the impeachment ploy at the time and has since written an article about why.

    If Sanders wins nomination on the first ballot, he will offer the VP place to whomever he offers it to. The DemParty will try extorting him into picking one of its own mainstream figures , a Tom Eagleton type designed to sabotage the Sanders campaign. One hopes Sanders will reject such DemParty extortion efforts.

    I would most of all prefer a VP running mate Gabbard. Picking Gabbard signals a willingness and intention to declintaminate and disobamafy the DemParty. Gabbard would carry the battle to the heart of the Clinton. Every gladio clintonite left-behinder would be purged and burned from out of the party, and those pink pussy hat Clinton nostalgiasts who choose to reveal themselves as irreconcilable cancer-loving Bernie-haters can just go vote for Trump.

  42. Z


    Are you under the impression that Obama was thwarted in in his efforts for progressive policies in 2009 by Congress? I certainly don’t, Obama was “thwarted” by Obama never wanting to or making any effort in getting many progressive policies implemented. Obama was a charlatan not a thwarted progressive.

    We haven’t had a president dedicated to fighting for progressive policies for a long time so we don’t know how successful Sanders would be … what he can put into effect by executive order and/or how Congress will act if a president puts them on the spot to vote against or for these policies that the public is heavily behind.

    Your cynical assumption is that the political dynamics can never change, that they are set in stone, and that the electorate has no effect on them.


  43. Zachary Smith

    I found this essay to have some contradictions. Sanders will win the nomination because “he’ll have the most delegates” works only if Bloomberg plans to write off his ¼ billion dollar Primary investment. I seriously doubt if he is that kind of person.

    If Sanders is three or thirty delegates short of 50% plus 1, it’s my prediction he loses. That Sander’s supporters will mostly go berserk won’t bother any of the Big Brass Dems. Still an opinion, but all the small fry are continuing in the race on the chance they’ll pick up a few delegates. Anything to keep Sanders from that magical 50% +1 mark. The DNC would probably loudly claim it wan’t THEIR doing, but rather the work of the evil super-rich Bloomberg.

    Bloomberg will go for the brass ring if he has any chance at the nomination. The man played the role of dart board in his first debate, so any practice and coaching he receives will make him look very good starting with that as a baseline. If he can’t snag the nomination, he’ll hand-pick the final candidates. What about a Klobuchar/Warren combo? Even some of Sander’s people might hold their noses and vote for this ticket. And if Trump wins anyhow, who among the top 1% will really care?

  44. Z

    OT: If COVID-19 hits the U.S. hard we’re going to heavily pay and collectively pay for our social problems, in particular our lack of an universal healthcare system and our inhumane housing policies.

    COVID-19 will hit the homeless the hardest, they have worse nutrition so they’ll have less resistance to it, and they often live close with one another and share meals, cigarettes, and drinks so it will spread quicker through them. They also use our public transportation systems heavily in the cities to get around and get some temporary shelter so they’ll be COVID-19 disease vectors.


  45. KT Chong

    The Russiagate racket is going to accuse Bernie of being a Russian plant, without giving any proof, and then the DNC will use it as an excuse to disqualify Bernie from the primary:

  46. highrpm

    We haven’t had a president dedicated to fighting for progressive policies for a long time so we don’t know how successful Sanders would be

    bern is not a fighter. he’s a pontificator. how much fighting can his followers do to effect change? (otoh, hillary is a fighter. #GetThings Done Vote Hillary 2020.)

  47. Mark Pontin

    Zachary Smith wrote: “…all the small fry are continuing in the race on the chance they’ll pick up a few delegates. Anything to keep Sanders from that magical 50% +1 mark.”

    In this regard, it’s worth noting that in the states with caucus-style primaries Sanders seems to have done significantly better than Biden and Buttegieg in terms of gaining vote share in the 2nd alignment. Thus, it may be that the plethora of Dem primary candidates still running (besides the already-mentioned, Warren, Klubuchar, Steyer, Bloomberg, and whomever I’m forgetting who’s still theoretically in the klown kar) does _not_ represent a failure of the “moderates” to pick one of themselves to consolidate the “not-Sanders” lane of the Dem primary, but remains the _optimal_ actually-existing strategy for the Dem establishment.

    As candidates drop out, it turns out that a disproportionate share of those who would have voted for them are migrating to voting for Sanders. So the indications are that Bernie may do better in a less crowded field, in terms of percentage of votes cast.

    Thus, the Democratic establishment confront a “pick your poison” scenario. On the one hand, if they do manage to consolidate their primary field, they risk enlarging Sander’s share of votes cast. On the other hand, if they do not consolidate it, they may guarantee Sander a disproportionate share of pledged delegates.

    Zachary S. wrote: “If Sanders is three or thirty delegates short of 50% plus 1, it’s my prediction he loses. That Sander’s supporters will mostly go berserk won’t bother any of the Big Brass Dems.’

    Sure. I don’t disagree. They’re fully stupid enough to do that. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, however, for more than a decade following the assassinations of the Kennedys and MLK, the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, and then the election of Nixon, terrorist bombings became daily occurrences in the U.S., with in one eighteen month period in 1971-72, for instance, 2,500-odd different bombings happening.

    This was a time, too, when the U.S. was at its economic zenith and could competently carry out projects like Apollo and go to the Moon, and the economy — unless you were African-American — enabled an ordinary person to support a family and buy a house by working as a cashier or in a factory. In 2020, conversely, in a U.S. where something like 900, 000 are homeless and the bottom half of the population are so strapped that they couldn’t put together $400 for an emergency, the explosive potential among the population at large is far higher than elites have any clue about.

    So, yeah, the Dem establishment are stupid enough to stiff Sanders. But then they’re probably already screwed whatever they do, though most of them aren’t smart or honest enough to realize it yet.

    Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of people.

  48. Willy

    This may be Bernie’s Revolution for now, but too few neolibs/conservatives are being produced these days for this revolution to not be continuing for a long time to come.

    Old folkore was that progressive/liberal kids turned into conservative adults because with age comes wisdom.

    But actually, reality was that progressive/liberal kids turned into conservative adults because they worked hard to acquire stuff which they wanted to preserve. And an avalanche of corporate brainwashing helped them rationalize their selfish status consumerism.

    New reality is that progressive/liberal kids are heading towards an adulthood where they work hard to own very little which they could want to preserve. No house, no pension, no savings. Not to mention other problems like climate catastrophe, continuous re-education and health care costs they’ll have to deal with. Being better educated than in generations past, yet poorer, they’ll be more resistant to corporate consumer brainwashing.

    Most kids today feel the failures of capitalism more than they do anything from socialism. With fewer economic ladders to climb, fewer conservatives are being produced.

  49. Ché Pasa

    It seems that the much maligned DNC and its media handmaidens are getting the message that their fierce nonstop anti-Bernie shit is backfiring. That doesn’t mean they aren’t still anti-Bernie — of course they are — just that for the time being they’ll mitigate their opposition with a bit of “fairness.” Just watch.

    Now the opposition focus is on Bernie’s genuine leftist past, praising Castro’s Cuba and such like, in the hopes that the Red baiting hoo-hah will knock him down a peg or two. This is one of the problems with his rather advanced age. He’s old enough to have seen and experienced and commented upon actual Communist states and governments whereas most of his critics are not, or if they are, they are steeped in ignorance and propaganda. Most people alive today have no idea what this Cold War re-fight is all about anyway.

  50. wendy davis

    @ Tom

    i dunno that aoc’s a moron, but this is indeed the most hilarious twitter thread i’ve ever read. she has a degree in economics, yanno.

    (click the pale blue hyperlink to andurudottext/ above for the awesome responses)

  51. different clue


    Are there enough dissatisfied people in the mid and lower ranks of the active-personnel Democratic Party structures that if they all feel the Sanders group was cheated ( as against honestly defeated) . . . that they would leave the Democratic Party in their thousands or millions? Would they try forming a different party to be called something like the Real Democrat Party or some such? Would they try to exclude anyone with any discoverable past, link or tie to Clinton, Obama, the DLC, the Third Way, the Hamilton Project, etc. from infiltrating and penetrating the Real Democrat Party in order to destroy it from within?


    For your edification. I’d be interested to know your opinions on this article.

    I went to school in Cuba under Castro. Here’s what it’s like, Bernie Sanders

  53. Buzzard

    Different Clue,

    I can speak for my local county. There’s a generational divide in that respect. The older ones are all about Team Blue and more interested in the (D) label than in policy, which helps explain their semi-interest in Bloomberg. (They’re also skeptical of Bernie in part because he’s really not a D, which tells you all you need to know about where they’re coming from.) The younger ones ran for the committee and came onboard to use the existing D infrastructure to push the party to the left, and support Bernie (or Warren). I don’t think they’ll LEAVE if Bernie gets screwed out of the nomination; we’re all just essentially waiting for the older generation to age off.

    We sometimes have vacancies in the Committee, due to people moving or quitting mid-term. When that happens, we advertise the vacancy and take applicants, and usually get a half-dozen or so. We then interview each of them. The first question they get is “Why are you a Democrat?” It’s a simple question, but extremely effective when it comes to screening out Third Way-types. Which we do (largely upon the insistence of me and a couple of others).

    In another county in my state, the Central Committee had pretty much degenerated into a front group for a local conservaDem (who, surprise, lost his race anyway). Local progressive activists, fed up, actually got organized, ran, and WON…. but within a couple of years the movement collapsed because (a) the holdovers did everything they could to freeze out the activists, and (b) the activists themselves started infighting. My county’s committee is more stable and productive than that, and we have some good progressive talent, but we don’t have the institutional power yet.

    It will take awhile for these younger, more progressive people to percolate into the power structures, unfortunately, and I’ve already seen the co-option process occur with one of our once-promising younger members. I remain in the party because there IS value in getting Dems elected to local offices, but I don’t have great hopes for the national party, at least in the short term. I just hope the Trump crowd doesn’t demolish our institutions beyond repair before we can recover.

  54. StewartM


    I went to school in Cuba under Castro. Here’s what it’s like, Bernie Sanders

    In a word? Historically myopic whining.

    In 1900 Cuba had a literacy rate of 36.1%[6][2] depending on the source, one of the highest among developing countries. By the early 1900s Cuba had a strong education system, but it was only attended by half of the country’s children. Schools were not accessible to the poorest Cubans and this resulted in a low literacy rate for rural areas compared to the cities. Before 1959, of the Cubans over the age of 15 years, 22% were found to be illiterate and 60% of the country was found to be semi-illiterate because many rural Cubans had a third-grade education or less.[7]

    Public Education in Cuba has always been free.[citation needed] After passing the required entrance examination to your particular course of study, even attendance at the University of Havana was tuition free, except for the cost of books.[citation needed] After the Cuban Revolution, the new government placed the reconstruction of the education system along Marxist ideological lines as a top priority. Five key objectives were devised and used to frame Cuba’s educational system. Many children who lived in distant rural areas were now able to acquire an education provided them by visiting teachers.

    Following the basic restructuring and reopening of Cuban schools, the new government focused on the huge literacy problem. By April 1959, 817 literacy centers were opened[8] and, to further reach out to all, teens and other volunteers were sent out to the countryside to teach their fellow Cubans how to read. The Literacy Campaign served two purposes:

    – to educate every Cuban and teach them to read,

    – to give those who live in the city a chance to experience rural living.

    In a short time Cuba’s new government made vast changes to the education system, and by 2000, 97%[9] of Cubans ages 15–24 were literate. Literacy provided poor uneducated Cubans a better standing in the country and the world. Education was vital to the new government. The leaders believed that for Cuba to be strong and for citizens to be active participants in society, they must be educated.

    Private universities were nationalised by force, along with private schools, in 1961.


    The Cuban Revolution in 1959 brought lots of changes to the country, especially for women. Before the Revolution many women lived as housewives and for those who needed to work there were very few choices.[10] Many women in rural areas worked in agriculture and for women in the city working as a maid or prostitute were the only choices. The Federation of Cuban Women (FMC) was founded in August 1960 with a clear goal to involve all women in Cuban affairs. After years of being excluded, the women of Cuba began to play an active role in the government. The FMC wanted to see women involved with the social, political, economical and cultural issues Cuba faced.[11] This required that schools and programs be built to provide multiple services to Cuban women.

    It’s one thing to condemn something in a developing country when comparing it to richer countries. But you also need to compare it where it came from. No one disputes that Stalin was a monster, but you also have to acknowledge that Russia won WWII because its military forces were literate while the Czar’s equally huge armies were not. Also, Russia in WWII produced a staggering amount of very high-quality military hardware, and the munitions to supply and maintain them, whereas soldiers in the Czar’s armies went into battle having to pick up the rifles of their fallen comrades because there wasn’t enough for everyone. This was made possible by the buildup of technology an industry which was also was an accomplishment of Soviet communism.

    Now, was the horrors of Stalinism necessary to achieve this? Historians and economists debate this; Robert Tucker answers “no, they were not”. But saying that Stalin was a monster does not mean that his government didn’t achieve some positive ends. Hell, Hitler’s government prosecuted the first-ever public anti-smoking campaign. Does that mean that public anti-smoking campaigns are bad because Hitler promoted them?

    And that’s Bernie’s point; and he’s perfectly correct to point that out.

    But really–compared to the plight of children in many poor countries (Central America, anyone?), which can often occur under capitalist regimes, the ‘terrible, horrible, oppression’ this article describes is rather weak tea. Compared to say, something like this:

    Oglesby spoke to me from Guatemala, which even today is still feeling the cumulative effects of US actions from over 50 years ago. In the 1950s, Guatemala attempted to end exploitative labor practices and give land to Mayan Indians in the highlands. The move, according to now-unclassified CIA documents, threatened US interests like the United Fruit Company, which controlled a good portion of land in Guatemala. But instead of citing economic factors, many in the US cried “communism,” saying the labor reforms were a threat to democracy. Wisconsin Senator Alexander Wiley, chair of the Foreign Relations Committee at the time, said he believed that a “Communist octopus” had used its tentacles to control events in Guatemala. In 1954, the CIA helped organize a military coup to overthrow Guatemala’s democratically elected government, and continued to train the Guatemalan military well into the 70s.

    “The war in Guatemala was really a genocide,” Oglesby said, adding that an estimated 200,000 were killed in the subsequent 36-year-long civil war, which stretched from 1960 to 1996. “The history is important because it went so far beyond anti-communism—the purpose was to destroy people’s vision of the future. It had a terrible impact on the country, hundreds of thousands of people were displaced.”

  55. different clue


    This sounds like a viable approach, worth taking to see if it can lead to victory in the long run.
    Exclusion of young corruptocrats from even getting in is a very worthwhile political infection-prevention innovation. One hopes that other local and hyper-local DemParty groups take the same approach.

    Are the older DemMembers in your county old enough to have come of age when the Dem Party still meant something in particular . . . if only legacy memory of the New Deal? If so, and accounting for decreasing cerebro-neuroplasticity with age, it is to be expected that they won’t easily update their perceptions to fit the current situation.

    I hope you-all can hang tough enough long enough to prevent a whole new generation of Junior Gladio-Clintonites from taking over when the older guard has died out and away.

  56. Willy

    “He wrote me beautiful letters, they’re great letters, and we fell in love.”
    –Donald Trump about Kim Jong Un

    Has Bernie ever come close to saying he was in ever love with Castro?

    What the fuck is wrong with people these days when they cut Trump a pass because he’s just being Donald Trump, but they’ll replay some out of context snippet from Bernie over and over again as if he’s saying it’s good to be a Commie gangster?

  57. Z

    If Sanders wins the presidency everything you cynics “know” about the political landscape doesn’t apply any more.

    The savvy cynics act like Sanders getting elected will be an isolated event that has no other repercussions. And assumes that all that young, enthused political support that got him elected, that’s feeling its power and has a sense of urgency will just dissipate. That nothing else will happen. Shoot, you could easily see almost a complete turnover in Congress within the next Congressional election cycle because Sanders is going to call them out, make them at least make a stand on things rather than deflecting through the collusion of political process. And Sanders is going to have an army of young, energetic volunteers who believe they are fighting for their lifespans who will be listening to him and at the ready.

    Things change. Times change. If Bernie Sanders becomes president I think things are going to change much quicker than the first-order thinking political cynics believe.


  58. Dan

    Who the hell cares if AOC doesn’t know Keynes’ first name. She was probably so bored by the “science” of economics that she fell asleep half the time. The only reason anyone should “study” economics is to learn the sheer pathology of it all.

    We ought to get rid of economists. The entire canon is a gigantic crime perpetrated on the masses. Any child can see the inhumanity of it. AOC speaks to this inhumanity. Good enough for me.


    Thanks, StewartM. I’ve always considered you someone who is ethical and moral and who’s heart and mind is in the right place unlike some around here who are wolves in sheep’s clothing. The Cuban revolution is a litmus test that politically separates the wheat from the chaff. Your response to me validates you are the wheat and not the chaff.

    The Cuban revolution was not Fidel Castro’s vanity project or a power grab by thugs as Donald Trump and his ilk would have us believe. It was in fact a turning of the tables. It was giving the violent thugs a taste of their own medicine. It was an incredible effort by the entire population of Cuba to make a more just and egalitarian society against all odds when you consider America and all its partners lined up against Cuba when Castro refused to let Western corporations dictate the policy of Cuba.

    What Fabiola fails to realize is, feckless muddling government leads to revolution. History has proven this. The Dem establishment is feckless muddling government and it led to the ascension of Trump. The ONLY way to remedy this is with STRONG PROGRESSIVE GOVERNANCE. Otherwise, it’s full-throated fascism and the likes of Fabiola will not protect us when that time comes. They’ll move back to Cuba.


    I’m interested in your opinions on this as well. It’s something else that isn’t being covered in the debates — AIPAC’s meddling and interfering in America’s electoral process. It’s not just Putin’s Russia — it’s Israel too and other foreign countries. America has been for sale to the highest bidders, be they oligarchs or foreign countries, for quite some time now and that will change when and if Bernie is elected POTUS.

    Sanders responded that he is “proud of being Jewish,” mentioning his time spent living in Israel. “But what I happen to believe is that right now – sadly, tragically in Israel, through [Prime Minister Benjamin] Bibi Netanyahu – you have a reactionary racist who is now running that country… And I happen to believe that what our foreign policy in the Mideast should be about is absolutely protecting the independence and security of Israel.

    “But you cannot ignore the suffering of the Palestinian people,” Sanders continued. “We have got to have a policy that reaches out to the Palestinians and the [Israelis].”

    Asked about a possible move of the United States embassy back to Tel Aviv from Jerusalem, where President Donald Trump moved it in 2018, he said, “It’s something that we would take into consideration.”

  61. Dan

    AIPAC’s meddling and interfering in America’s electoral process. It’s not just Putin’s Russia — it’s Israel too

    Israel goes beyond “meddling.” It’s a tail wagging the dog scenario. Read Grant Smith over at IRMEP. Read Alison Weir at If Americans Knew. Read The Israel Lobby by Walt and Mearsheimer, which started as a magazine article that couldn’t even find a publisher in the U.S. despite being a rather tame account of how Israel and its partisans dominate US Middle East policy. Check out The Council For the National Interest.

    To get a true understanding if what’s going on, the best book on the subject, a book every human being should read, is Israel Shahak’s “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years.”

    Why did Truman go against the wishes of his entire State Dept in recognizing Israel? A suitcase full of money? Might there be some truth to the old canards?

    I suggest finding out for yourself.


    This is yet another reason I can’t stand debates and consider them archaic. Candidates can buy audience support and Bloomberg obviously did. In the least, there should be no “live” audience. It’s Kabuki Theater. The audience isn’t representative and it isn’t genuine. Yet the mainstream media pretends it is. I don’t normally watch Morning Joe but I watched it for 5 minutes this morning and Joe was waxing on about the audience’s reaction to both Bernie and Warren as though it was legitimate. Joe & Mika and ALL the mainstream press are such bald-faced liars and fakes. To sit there and pretend that the audience is authentic and legitimate is propaganda pure & simple.

  63. nihil obstet

    On AIPAC — a documentary in four parts called “The Lobby” is up on YouTube. Here’s a link to the first part:

  64. Mojave Wolf

    @BruceWilder & DifferentClue:

    Plenty of people on the left called out and warned about the Russiagate nonsense being used against Bernie & likewise that the impeachment push against Trump (whether he did anything impeachment-worthy or not; I’d say no but ymmv) was an obvious political maneuver purely coz they didn’t like him and if validated would let them do this to AN YONE they didn’t like — Michael Tracy has been a constant, likewise Kim Iverson, Aaron Mate, Glenn Greenwald, Caitlin Johnstone, Jimmy Dore, and probably more.

    Personally, I generally assume anyone saying they believe it ( if they’re someone involved in politics or even a regular poster on a blogsite) is just paying lip service or indicating tribalism or pushing an agenda. I can’t credit that this isn’t obvious garbage to anyone who does more than barely keep up w/more than the headlines or who still thinks the MSM are actual news outlets.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén