Schumer to Clinton: "Don’t Blame Russia, Blame Yourself”
Democratic Senators Al Franken, Nancy Pelosi, and Charles Schumer look on as the
Senate Judiciary Committee issues new subpoenas in the Russian election meddling investigation.
Chuck Schumer had a public eleventh-hour epiphany:
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer sent a thinly veiled message to Hillary Clinton, saying that “you blame yourself” if you “lose to somebody who has 40 percent popularity.” Schumer never explicitly mentioned Clinton but there was little doubt who he was talking about while discussing the broad effort by the Democratic Party to come up with a new messaging strategy ahead of next year’s midterm elections.
“When you lose to somebody who has 40 percent popularity, you don’t blame other things — Comey, Russia — you blame yourself,” Schumer said in an interview with the Washington Post.
That means that when Americans finally realize that the "Russian-interference-in-the-Election" story is politically concocted bullshit — they won't be able to point a finger at Chuck Schumer. He got himself rehabilitated just in time. Schumer will point to the Deep State Neocons who signed off on the logically insupportable propaganda. Even the internet security industry is pushing back on the "evidence" and getting some professional distance on the geopolitical mess that has resulted.
Meanwhile, Schumer was plying the news circuit on the weekend touting the Democratic Party's new "messaging strategy," which sounds nothing like the austerity policies and the "no can do" attitudes that it has pushed upon the American People in recent decades. Monday's grand unveiling of the Party's new and improved economic platform is eagerly anticipated by pundits, in part for its hyperbolic slogan bubble that promises to launch a thousand parodies:
And, the debut gets even Better:
Did you know that single payer health care was always on the table? It turns out single payer was never really impossible, after all. According to Schumer, when it came to proposing positive policies for a stable health care system, the Democratic Party was just “too cautious.” And, there was all that donor money from Big Pharma and the health insurers thatl was still in play. But it's a new day:
Appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” Schumer offered a preview of the economic agenda his party plans to roll out this week. He acknowledged that the prime reason that Democrats failed to win over voters in the 2016 election was their unfocused economic message. The coalition plans to change that he said.
ABC’s George Stephanopoulos pressed Schumer on whether that would include support for a single-payer health care system, in which the government would pay for care, rather than private insurance companies.
“We’re going to look at broader things [for health care],” he said. “Single-payer is one of them.. Many things are on the table. Medicare for people above 55 is on the table. A buy-in to Medicare is on the table. Buy-in to Medicaid is on the table. On the broader issues, we will start examining them once we stabilize the [health care] system.”
Until now, Schumer has mostly declined to weigh in on whether he thinks a universal program is the right approach.
Does this mean the Democratic Party now repudiates its failed neoliberal policies? For decades they collaborated to deregulate, privatize, monetize, and globalize public utilities and Federal programs that were originally designed to protect society and enhance the economic security of the American people. Does this mean the New Deal is back? Not yet. It's been stripped apart over the years and Americans are now caught in in a long cycle of intensifying austerity; the threat of brutal cuts to the nation's social safety net always hangs over them. The Millennials are facing a bitter, dystopean future where they will be dogged to the end of their days by crippling student debt. Does the Democratic Party have a plan to end this middle class nightmare that their policies engendered? By what mechanism?
Democrats are keeping their cards close to their chest for now but Schumer said on ABC’s This Week that the goal is to appeal to both the Obama coalition and the voters that abandoned the party in favor of Trump. “Week after week, month after month, we're going to roll out specific pieces here, that are quite different than the Democratic Party you heard in the past,” Schumer said. “We were too cautious. We were too namby-pamby.”
So, who exactly are the Dems Schumer is talking about? Does the "Obama coalition" refer to people who voted for Hillary, while the latter group is the disenfranchised blue collar workers who saw their unions crushed? Finding a "messaging strategy" that would work for both is very tricky business — these groups have widely divergent interests. One is Neoliberal progressive and the other is union-oriented working class. One leans socially liberal and the other leans socially conservative. That's gotta be some strategic messaging — because the working class will not be easily tricked, again.
And the American Left? They form the authentic umbrella of humanity that spans the Democratic Party. They carry the promise that all will survive and none will be permitted to asset strip the people or the state. Yet the Left is pointedly blocked from the discussions because they are also the real globalists; they are the one's who are inspired to travel the world for the sake of humanity in need. They are the independent witnesses to the horrific carnage that the US inflicts upon the world, images and ideas that are filtered out by the US media monopolies. They bear witness to the US war crimes and keep a moral tally on corporate war profiteering. Therefore, the Left is shut out culturally, despite their election-blocking numbers.
Not once on the weekend was the Left mentioned by this Lord of the Democratic establishment, or by his corporate media cohorts. There was not one word about the bloody US wars that are displacing millions worldwide and sucking the US treasuries dry. The topic is taboo. The Democratic Party's twisted and immoral alliance with the Deep State Neocons grows more depraved with each passing day. They actually think that we are not aware that the real cost of their mad quest for global Empire. The money lavished on the war industry profiteers is the very thing that annihilates all possibility of social and economic progress for the 99 percent. Social mobility continues on its steady dive.
These Party usurpers really believe they are going to get away with this, monopolizing a system that requires the thinking of a younger generation. From the outside looking in, they appear anachronistic and slow. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi puts her own clueless point on it:
The new plan is not a course correction…. it’s a presentation correction.
Unbelievable.
Comments
I remember back in the olden days
…a different narrative:
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
Actually, weathervaning was another skill the DLC taught
Democrats. One of the pervasive criticism of Clinton was governing by polls, not principles. The seems to backfire. Clinton was the only President in US history elected by a plurality twice. And a nickname for Hillary's 2016 primary campaign was Camp Weathervane. Seems as though it's a very neoliberal thing. So, I'd say Schumer is a reformed liberal who is now a very typical neoliberal, even when criticizing the Clintons and their neoliberal policies.
Chuckie wall street
is not trustworthy. Sounds like spin to me. Did you see Jimmy Dore's routine comparing Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown and the democraps approach to single payer?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDtILBtzpME (6 min)
That's the approach I expect from Chuckie and the dems.
Interesting conversation with Matt Taibbi about Russiagate (vid and transcript)
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&...
My thought on Russia is they will bait and switch to corrupt oligarchs (who they will call Mafia) laundering dirty money through T-rump towers and other T-rump businesses. That's why he is worried about Mueller and his team of Clinton Foundation lawyers.
Will he pardon himself and his family? A case of "Pardon me".
Thanks for the essay PR
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Thanks for reading and thanks for the Dore link.
I haven't seen it yet.
I slipped a link in on "geopolitical mess" above that does a comprehensive well-sourced expose on the preposterous nonsense about Russian interference in the election.
https://medium.com/@OurVoiceUSA/did-russia-interfere-in-the-u-s-election...
I've been doing my own research on this, and there is absolutely nothing there but a tight-knit cabal out of the Atlantic Council, who put together the entire thing. Including the Trump opposition research. The cross-linking is jaw-dropping. It's over.
That is not to say that Trump has no suspicious dealings with Russia. He may. But Russia was not involved in any election hacking that we know about. They have no unusual political connection to Trump. There's no point. Russia deals exclusively with the Deep State Neocons, regardless of who is elected President.
By the same token, I seriously doubt that Trump is compromised in any way in Russia. The NSA listens in on all dealings between the US and Russia for the past 20 years. All parties know these are closely monitored. It's an open book. That being said, I'd be greatly surprised if Trump finishes his first term.
I'll check out Matt Taibbi. The last time I read him, he was lost in the Russia derangement bubble. It will be fun to see if he's made any progress. We've lost so many journalists to this mind virus. Sadly, they can never be trusted again.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
Taibbi's improved a bit. But I think he still has a hate on for
Putin for shutting down The eXile in Russia. His buddy from those times, Mark Ames, is more pragmatic. Ames now publishes the paper online in the US. It's called The ExileD.
BTW, The eXile did publish a lot of questionable articles in Russia. One was Mark Ames doing an experiment with Viagra. He took some pills and then went out and recorded how many Moscow hookers he could sleep with before the effects wore off. He then published the results.
Some of the shiite they did would have got them thrown out of New York at that time.
If you are interested in their antics in Moscow:
Thx for the link
The eXile was a favorite site for me. Disappointed in Taibbi's descent down the Russia rabbit hole. Hope he gets into rehab.
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
Taibbi does not buy
any of the Russia-Clinton nonsense.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
I agree. But his comments on Putin are fairly harsh
You should read...
What Caitlen Johnstone wrote about "Amy Schumer’s creepy uncle,”.
Hilarity ensues...
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/dem-leaders-reiterate-that-theyll-be-...
I don't think I could say it much better.
I want a Pony!
The gifts keep pouring in.
Thank you, .
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
@Arrow Most people can't say it
Most people can't say it any better than Caitlin!
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
Interesting. Color Me Surprised -- Kind Of...
I had been thinking that the Republicans might just go for Medicare for All. I could see it being a big bipartisan move, actually, and it would be a tremendous bone thrown to the masses to keep our eyes off of our war and the rape of the planet.
Seems like it's a possibility now.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Well, national health care is inevitable, after all.
There's no path into the future without it. The PPACA sealed that deal. But now that you mention it, the timing might be perfect for the NeoDems to capture that treasure and take credit for it. I truly believe that the Republican well is so profoundly poisoned, that beneficial legislation will be impossible for the GOP for decades to come.
I sensed during the repeal attempt that a small handful of Republicans really cared about their constituents ability to afford health care. I think the votes will be there.
It's funny how prescient you were about the messaging thing struggling to take form.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
Medicare (Part C) For All
That's their fallback. You still have the Inscos in on the gravy.
Republicans and Centrists would buy in (rather "sell in" or pimp themselves out).
You will never see the government pick up 100% of cost except for the poor.
Freedumb Caucus, of course, will not consider any government role. But business Republicans will.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
@k9disc I could set the
I could set the Republicans up so that they would win for the next fifty years--assuming we're all still here then. But that would require them to break with the plutocrat owners on maybe three things, and stop saying racist shit in public.
I dunno. They might be able to make do with breaking with them on two things. Our expectations, politically, have been lowered into the sewers.
Become pro-Social Security (for real) and Medicare for All, which might not be so bad for anyone outside of the insurance industry and big pharma--I haven't seen the numbers, but surely the tax raise on the rich/corporations to pay for it would be at least partially offset by the amount the business world currently spends on its employees' health benefits. Why not let the government run that instead, the same way the government runs paving the roads, maintaining the bridges and rails--private industry doesn't want to do all that, do they? Let the government run healthcare too, and kick the radical Friedmanites and libertarians in the ass. Tell them their religion isn't the boss of you. There's got to be some industrialists out there who aren't True Believers.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Well, They Did Run Populist, and Drumpf Is Still Talking
populist.
And Health Insurance is only $2-3T in national slush fund yearly, has to be a way to socialize risk and privatize profits still.
I could see them completely dumping the Insurance peeps and putting the money directly from state to private coffers. That would keep the banksters happy. The Banksters just want the $2-3T profit stream, and we all know that the Banksters are the only ones who matter.
And then there is the potential kabuki -- Republicans put it forth and corporate centrists fight it. It could be a real win-win.
Kind of far-fetched and perhaps nonsensical, but what isn't these days?
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
@k9disc They ran populist,
They ran populist, but did you see how enraged the heads of the party were about it? I realize it might all be kabuki, but there were long, published lists of prominent Republicans who supported Hillary Clinton--a real effort to get right-wing voters to vote for Hillary. That sounds like more than kabuki.
I don't think anybody up there really wanted Trump. I could be wrong, of course, and this could go much deeper than I think, but from the reactions from various quarters since the election, I think it didn't go the way any of them wanted/expected.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
The Goal of the Establishment Is to Emasculate Government and
give self governance a black eye.
Nobody of consequence wanted Drumpf, but can anyone deny that Drumpf would give government a black eye?
He's certainly more bombastic and unpredictable than Hillary, but his endgame is privatization, civil rights crackdown, and belligerent foreign policy; what's not to like?
And there's been a push to realign the "serious" players in both parties to the corporate center. I've been watching it go down for about 10 years now.
I think the big peeps thought that Drumpf is really only dangerous to the little people. I still think they think that. Otherwise he's a politically useful tool to promote the new realignment and tyranny of the corporate center.
TINA, and there must not be an alternative, to corporate sponsored public policy. Drumpf does a good job of making the Left and the Right "unserious" in the eyes of the public.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
@k9disc They no longer
They no longer tolerate dissent. On anything.
You're right that Trump gives them everything they want but one thing (maybe two, if he's being honest about globalization, but I don't really believe he is). He gives them everything they want but one thing. That's not good enough for them.
They really are the Princess and the Pea. Which is why Hillary represents them so well.
To be fair, World War III (preferably focusing on Russia rather than China), which is where Trump disagrees with them, is a pretty big pea.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
A Mighty Big Pea, Indeed.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
I guess you haven't heard about Trump's infrastructure plan
This is where the government gets out of the business of building our roads and the many other things that the government has been doing since, well, forever.
Just like Chicago sold off its toll roads to the Saudis and their parking meters to Chase, Trump's plan for the $1 trillion infrastructure plan is a massive give away to privatizing our infrastructure
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
@snoopydawg I wasn't really
I wasn't really talking about Trump, but your point stands.
All I'm saying--if the Republicans were willing to stop being publicly racist and were willing to stop being a demolition squad on things like infrastructure and the post office and were willing to support Social Security and Medicare for All, they would own this country's politics for basically forever.
And they could still be Republicans while doing it. Not nice Republicans like Mark Hatfield either. They'd still get the endless wars, the corruption, the destruction of civil liberties, the austerity politics on everything except Social Security and Medicare for All, the destruction of the environment, the control of the press...what am I leaving out? They could be horrific union-busting pro-war water-polluting election-stealing sociopaths for all they're worth. Just leave infrastructure and health insurance in the hands of the government, and get behind our existing old-age pension program.
They don't have to be uncontrolled psychopathic hogs, neither the employees, I mean politicians, nor the employers, I mean donors.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Oh, I've Read It. It's a Key Point to the Value of a Drumpf
administration, and I could see it being wildly successful in the short term, .
Musk's hyperloop verbal agreement kind of stuff, the massive funding of real estate and infrastructure combined with shareholder ownership, and private leadership of "public" infrastructure development; these things are HUGE to the investment class and neoliberals.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
I think what people are missing is that neither party is going
to do anything for people in this country who aren't rich. There really is a deep state that consists of very few members. The republicans and the democrats are just their vassals to get their agendas implemented.
This is part of the plan for global hegemony that has been planned for over two centuries.
The families who have been pushing this agenda are the Rothschilds, Rockefellers and others who have untold trillions at their disposal.
I will try to find the article that I read that stated this.
Our parent's generation was needed to build up the corporations who once became successful, offshored their plants to countries that had people willing to work for a fraction of what American workers were paid.
The wars for resources have two goals, IMO.
One is to take control of the earth's resources. Afghanistan has trillions in rare earth metals that are needed to make our toys such as computers and cellphones and many other items.
Two is to have less people who will use up the resources that TPTB will live on after climate change does to the world like what Katrina did to the 9th ward in New Orleans.
There were reports that the levies didn't collapse because of the storm surge, they were taken down with explosives. What is one more conspiracy theory in a world full of them? Just remember Operation Northwoods, the plan to do a false flag event by flying planes into buildings, shooting down airliners and then blame Cuba for the attacks. Seems a bit like what happened on 9/11.
Anyway, this is the way I'm leaning. The police have been loaded up with military equipment, have been being trained by Israeli soldiers and have been practicing on civilians who were using their constitutional rights to peacefully gather to protest their government during OWS.
The BLM and DAPL protests were more training to see how Americans would react when they turn against the people that they were supposed to protect.
The DAPL protests went even further. Just like after Katrina, private mercenaries were allowed to patrol the streets and shoot Black "looters" who were taking supplies to live on when their government refused to supply them with. But not the White people who were only "taking" essential supplies.
The second time this happened, TigerSwan, a mercenary contractor was allowed to oversee the police and other agencies that were abusing the DAPL protesters and were able to unconstitutionally spy on the leaders of the protests.
Just my $.02.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
@snoopydawg I agree with most of
I agree with most of what you've said here.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I doubt Republicans will go Medicare For All.
The Koch brothers and their Libertarian-leaning colleagues don't want ANY national health plan. Heck, they don't even want Medicare for the disabled, or anyone, or Social Security for anyone. The House Freedom Caucus, which follows their mandates, stopped the first House pass at repeal and replace, which they dubbed "Obamacare Lite," in its tracks for that reason.
We keep thinking Republicans and Democrats seek to please voters, not lobbyists. I don't think that is any longer the case. That need has been considerably obviated by rigged elections and firms and institutionsthat will pay former Senators and members of the House big bucks after they lose elections or decide not to run.
I Actually Do Too, But I Could Totally See It.nt
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Evidence Clinton Campaign Invented Trump/Russia Story
Thanks for this essay. Just when I think California is the worst here comes New York, going lower. Here is another Dore video link: Evidence Clinton Campaign Invented Trump/Russia Story To Cover Their Failures
Jimmy talks about "the origins" of the Russia b.s. propaganda starting around 3:18 or so. The source is a document from the Hillary Clinton campaign on an internal poll at the end of 2015:
Jimmy does go on to say "we'll never have the effing evidence because FBI and DHS were not allowed to look at the DNC or Podesta servers", but the segment was funny that's all. Hope others enjoy it too. Thanks goodness for wikileaks.
peace
That evidence might be at hand
if this story is true IMHO then where this goes and
how high up they go with it is the biggest tell as to who
controls the government. i.e. if it stops with the Awan
brothers tptb still remain safe, if they go after DWS and
other D's on up to here heinous, then shit starts flying.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-24/fbi-seized-crushed-hard-drives-...
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
Another article that goes into deeper depth of the
Russian uranium deal and the money that the Clinton foundation made from it.
Cash flowed to the Clinton foundation after the uranium deal
The Clinton foundation is a money laundering scheme and everyone in our government knows it. They also know that she used her position as Secretary of State to further enrich her foundation, even though both congress and Obama told her not to.
The number of times she intervened for anyone or companies that had business before her state department is hard to find, but after each time she did, her foundation received millions in donations.
Do a search for "Clinton foundation scandal in Haiti and see how many links there are.
And speaking of interfering with the election, she had Haiti redo theirs to get the results she wanted.
They both should be in prison, but no one will touch them because too many people are just as tied up in it.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
They used to brag about how many miles she'd flown
as Secretary of State. What they didn't mention was that wherever she went, Bill would show up a day or two later to pick up donations to the foundation or give a speech.
We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.
Ronald Reagan has some pithy words on this.
Trust but verify. After what establishment democrats did in CA and all the machinations and lies by corporate democrats in town hall meetings, best to take a very cautious approach. I would modify Reagan's idea as:
"Ok, now prove it."
While Bernie's policy agenda may have an ideological ascendancy in the party, the party organization from DNC to DCCC is still controlled by corporate democrats. While the DNC is bleeding from lack of contributions, looks like individual corporate PACs look to be doing well. Corporate democrats still get the vast majority of minutes within the mass media.
What may be different this time is that if and when the democrats stab the base in the back like they did in CA, they may suffer politically at some level.
@MrWebster I don't believe Bernie's
I don't believe Bernie's view--or at least the view he advocated during the campaign--is ideologically ascendant anywhere in DC--I think Schumer is fumbling for something else to do because the "eat shit because you don't want to eat poison and there's nothing else to eat" strategy is failing and he and his might become irrelevant to the powers that be.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
The democrats stabbed us in the back in 2006
and nothing happened to them. People were still voting for the lesser evil.
Then Barry Obama came along and even though he failed to give us a decent health care bill, put the same people in his cabinet that crashed the global economy and not only continued the Iraq war, he joked about how good he was at killing civilians with his drones, he was re-elected.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Democrats were stabbing us in the back well before 2006.
The strong majorities they had in Congress 2007 through 2011 took away their cover, especially once Obama got the Presidency. However, look at Clinton's record.
Yep. What really proved this was when they used
reconciliation to pass the ACA. They only needed 50 votes to pass it this way and at one time they did have that many votes.
I posted a member from DK comment and he wrote that if the democrats used reconciliation, but didn't include the public option or other things that people wanted, that showed what they actually wanted to include in the bill.
Remember what Pelosi told us after she became speaker of the house? "Impeachment was off the table and they were keeping their powder dry" whatever that meant.
They never used that powder. I think that they gave it to the republicans to use when they were able to keep the democrats from passing their legislation. For some reason, only the republicans had the power to stop the democrats from doing anything when they were the minority party, but when the democrats were in the minority, they did jack shit to stop the republicans.
In fact, after the republicans "blocked" Obama from doing anything, the democrats (Schumer) said that he was willing to work with Trump. This is a dead giveaway that it's the Harlem Globetrotters against the Washington Generals. Kabuki theater and playing deadly games with our lives.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
For me that's exactly what happened
The global financial crisis made them expose themselves and the seats they held denied them cover. It was only later that I began to ask a bajillion other questions starting with, "Why would Democrats...?"
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
Possible reason that the FBI wasn't allowed to examine
the "hacked" DNC computers. It appears that the data transfer was much too fast to be an internet hack. It had to be a direct transfer of data to an external drive. Another problem discovered was that their were two different accesses to the computers. Apparently the second was to leave incriminating evidence. The metadata must have still been attached to the files given to Wiki Leaks.
I'm wondering if the second "hack" was an inside job to cover up the original leak by blaming Russia. As all the IT professionals have stated, over and over and over, if it looks like it came from Russia then it didn't come from the Kremlin. The Kremlin could have made it look like it came from Ukraine, Poland or the Baltic States and got two bangs for the buck.
Are the dates correct?
I didn't think any of this transpired 2017.
Looks like a typo. Logically, it will be 2016.
Have you heard about this?
Former FBI Director James Comey had Hillary Clinton’s definitive backup email device during the entire charade of an investigation into the former Secretary of State
I checked to see if more than one website covered this and there are others that did.
H.A Goodman talks about both the FBI investigation into Hillary's emails and the Clinton's foundation which received $156 million during her time as Secretary of State which is far worse than anything Trump has been accused of doing.
This includes the Russian deal where both she and Bill worked to let Russia get control of 20% of our uranium. These things happened while congress and Obama watched. Congress had to sign off on many of the deals she made with foreign governments, corporations, banks, people and domestic corporations even though they told her to keep her foundation separate from her duties as SOS.
I'm sure that after these deals were made, congress members got campaign contributions. Obama was to be rewarded after he left office.
Who paid for his first speech after he became a private citizen? The bribery that goes on in plain sight is staggering. And legal. Because congress made it so.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
The new d's
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjmjqlOPd6A]
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
Hillary *was* the one with 40% popularity!
Or at least, she was the one with 60% of the population disliking and distrusting her on Election Day.
Trump came in a close second at 58%, but she beat him by a nose. Go Hills!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
That stupid "Russian interference"
thing will lead nowhere, and Special Council Mueller will nonetheless keep it alive via mission creep. I predict that on the eve of the 2018 midterm election he will desperately be seeking a search warrant against Jared Kushner and the Trump kids for evidence that they illegally removed their mattress tags.
"Please clap." -- Jeb Bush
Thats not my car!
or if it is, i want royalties. Got a "Who's your Farmer" bumper sticker on the back?
This statement won't save Chuck.
First, most Americans have stopped listening to all these assholes. Second, among those who are still listening, a percentage of them now simply hate both political parties and all politicians. Third, among those who don't hate all politicians, some of them hate Democrats for being Democrats. Fourth, a percentage of those who are left know the quotation about gaining two rich suburbanites for every one working stiff.
I wonder, though, if Chuck is really trying to distance himself from Hillary because she wasted so much of the rich's money and they're getting sick of it. He might be talking to them.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
My impression too.
Especially considering Pelosi followed him saying again "we're not changing a damn thing, we're just rebranding." Given who these people are, I think it's definitely a tell but yeah, I don't think the message was for us.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
He's just trying to
save his ass for reelection. "See, I tried to get Single Payer done, but we just didn't have the votes. Now, vote me in for another six years, and with your support together we can get it done!"
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
Or perhaps Uncle S is setting himself up
for a better under-the-table-paying leadership post?
I don't see anything new in his words about single payer
I've read the schumer quote twice now, and can't find the part where he finally weighs in saying that single payer is the right approach. It sounds like more mealy-mouth bullshit to me. He dodges single payer by immediately throwing in a bunch of other ideas, and then punting on it all until "after we stabilize the system." Um, what? Sorry Chuck and Dems, but I am not buying this at all.
Their new slogan is right up there with "change we can believe in." Sounds good but means nothing. No sale, democrats. This won't cut it.
@CS in AZ When you have destroyed
When you have destroyed trust, it doesn't matter what you say.
Maybe I should make that the title of my last-ever essay on the Democrats.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Yup. And just how does someone
buy into Medicaid? I mean, I do get their lies about that, but the logic defeats me - if you are already poor enough that you need to use Medicaid just how are you supposed to come up with the funds to "buy in."
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Maybe
He was thinking that people who didn't qualify would be allowed to buy in. That would allow Medicare to remain a separate program (and btw, Medicaid doesn't have a 20% co-pay)
Of course, he was probably just throwing a bunch of balls in the air and hoping someone would pick one up and run with it (then he'll trip him and hope no one's looking)
On to Biden since 1973
The rules say that speaking of a possible action or change
is just like doing something. Hypothesize and presto you've already done it.
The Two Party Cult
Great take on the loyalty oath requirement of our Uniparty Duopoly:
Some of the analysis is a little strained, but the main thrust is on target:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/parties-message-youre-either-100-percent-on...
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
@Meteor Man He's right about that
He's right about that one thing, but it's nested in a bunch of seriously wrong assumptions. Still worth a read, though.
If he thinks "the rigid left" has any influence over Democratic party leadership, or any power in the Democratic party at all, really, he's out of touch with what political reality has been since roughly 1988.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Front page defection at TOP?
Loyalty oaths reminds me of a link I saw earlier today, described as such:
https://egbertowillies.com/2017/07/22/democratic-party-leadership-change/
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
Abandoned the party in favor
Abandoned the party in favor of Trump?
Is that what he thinks.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
For me most of this
looking backwards is worthless. The wicked witch is dead and the ogre in the White House is making feeble bread out of the bones of government. Where is Dorothy and Jack in the bean stock when you need them. Deep down in the dark and the muck of the America psyche submerged for a long time something is stirring. It's not a left/right thing and when it surfaces it will be one hell of a breach. Right now we are drawing a razor across our forearms looking for a reason, looking to the past for explanations, looking to keep it real, looking at the messy bones of the present moment like some ayahuasca addled shaman. But it's the dangerous future, we need to look to. We need to fade the past, embrace our lives in the present and armor up for the future. It's not going to be easy or pretty and right now is as good as it is ever going to be.
These words of yours resonate with me.
There is the opportunity for a convergence of vision to bring into existence a future that has only a sketchy connection with the past. But it's a deliberate thing. One can know that it exists but have no idea how to organize it. I believe only the young have the key.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
I love the writing in that comment
and that's a really odd thing for me to say since I'm a concept guy. Generally I don't care about presentation so me going back to reread a comment a few times just because it was well crafted is pretty rare.
Oh yeah... and when I eventually got around to the meaning behind those words I found myself agreeing. It's going to be a long, ugly mess before anything gets better.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
And this:
And the Left? They form the authentic umbrella of humanity that spans the Democratic Party. They carry the promise that all will survive and none will be permitted to asset strip the people or the state. The Left is pointedly ignored because they are also the real globalists; they are the one's who are inspired to travel for the sake of humanity in need. They are the independent witnesses to the horrific carnage that the US inflicts upon the world, images and ideas that are filtered out by the US media monopolies. They bear witness to the US war crimes and keep a moral tally on corporate war profiteering. Therefore, the Left is shut out culturally, despite their election-blocking numbers.
is why he said "people who abandoned the party in favor of Trump."
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
The Left, the keepers of the flame
…did not abandon the Party for Trump. They stood outside the tent. If they voted, they voted their hearts. The Left includes the vast army of voters who were activated from hibernation by Bernie. They melted back into the shadows after the primaries. The numbers of the real Left are great enough to take any election should an authentic candidate committed to the People ever come along..
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
@Pluto's Republic Just so. Although
Just so. Although there's more than one war going on here. One of them is Left vs, well, everybody else (although the Left is fractured by both actual racism and some stupid shit games the establishment is playing with anti-racist discourse). Another is the war between rational discourse and, basically, McCarthyism.
Oh. And the third, the one that's likeliest to destroy us all: the war between the power of wealth and the power of law. That's the one that leads to uncontrolled global warming, endless war, and systemic election fraud.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I bet they didn't mention civil liberties or the police state
or the complete corruption of our so-called "legal system" either.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Nope.
It was strictly economic messaging. No social; no foreign policy. That was stated.
But only the politically-active Left was cut from the intended flock, because their issues are inconvenient or forbidden topics. Other missing groups were not necessarily political and include the Independents and the Millennials, whom they believe they will eventually capture by attrition and propaganda.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
@Pluto's Republic I would not bet on
I would not bet on that.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I see Chuckles has no qualms about
kicking the Clinton Creature in the teeth now that she lost. In other words, he did to Her Heinous the same as he's done to anyone with a 'left' leaning liberal/progressive bone in their bodies. Chuckle needs to make himself look good and to try to endear himself to the proles now that he's found out that the Dims aren't really going to be snapping up all those moderate Republican votes.
This is just typical Schumer tactics. Now he's trying to save his own job. His and Nancy's. The Russia crap isn't working. Disenfranchised Sanders supporters who were told to go away actually did go away and aren't coming back (so support and donations are DOWN). And people are calling for new leadership to replace the long-time current 'leaders' who have collected their perks and pay checks while presiding over the demise of Bill Clinton/Al From's Turd Way Neo-liberal, Center Right 'New' Democratic Party.
Ironically these shits took over on the political influence and the right leaning conservative beliefs of one Clinton and their movement died an ugly and dishonourable death on the back of the other 'two-for-the-price-of-one' Clinton. I think that's the icing on the 'cake'.
I think 2018 is going to be one of the more 'interesting' mid-term elections. Where will the candidate's loyalties lie? With the 'party' or the 'people'?
Since the Dims are already extolling the many virtues of Kamala Harris and Clinton is forming PACs and committees, I am going to 'guess' the choice will be 'party' and screw the 'people' (again). But how will Chuckles snuggle back up to the Clinton Creature if he starts claiming that the loss was HER fault??
Yep. This could get interesting.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
@Amanda Matthews Important point: it was
Important point: it was published in WaPo. Therefore, the CIA is OK with this.
Is the Deep State finally throwing Hillary away as a bad investment?
Are the wealthy, generally, doing the same?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
They're tossing Hillary because they now have the Trumpster
firmly by the cojones. We can see them giving a squeeze every time he moves in a wrong direction. Obama was a quick learner. Maybe he got a heads up beforehand.
@CB There is one danger
There is one danger in this. The one value Hillary has is that she reminds the American people constantly of how much they hate their political and economic systems. Nobody galvanizes opposition to the PTB like her, unless perhaps it's the Bushes.
On the other hand, having them abandon the endless whinging self-justification (like nails down a blackboard, it is) would be wonderful.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
The real questions:
1 Will the Rs screw up so bad that people will vote D again? (if so the earth and everything on it is doomed) or will the people drive a stake into the demopire's heart?
2 If the Ds are killed, will the Rs go to Constitutional Convention and establish the 4th Reich?
or…
3 Will the voters fail just enough to make it look like the Ds have staged a comeback - just enough to allow the corporate Corruptocrats to continue to sabotage every attempt to return to a functional humanity?
Not much wiggle room there.
On to Biden since 1973
A Constitutional Convention
Goes on for several years while the current government remains in force. Skipping over the myriad details of process, I personally believe it would mark the beginning of the break up of the states into autonomous regions. People really don't really want a big nation. They don't want to pay for it and the central government is very weak. Plus, Americans have a powerful hillbilly streak.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
They could do worse than look at how the SCA
has divvied up North America. http://www.blastedoak.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/FinalColorKWMa...
The interesting thing about this is that nobody formally decreed it - it just evolved over fifty-plus years, as the groups got inconveniently big and made like amoebas.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
OmiCat! I'm Outlandish!
OmiCat! I'm Outlandish!
When I last played, southeastern Colorado was part of Atenveldt! Now we're Outlands!
Things have obviously changed!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
So then, everything is going to be better
if people would just support the same politicians who have been making everything worse. Because now the Party has a spanking new message to deliver, agreeable to all. It's a marvelously simple one-word message, guaranteed to inspire renewed hope and undying fealty to the Democratic brand... and that word is: "BETTER".
Better what? Why, better everything! Who could possibly object to the betterment of everything? Even bankers and defense contractors want to make everything better, to help us overcome everything that's Russian. This single word has a near-universal appeal... it's a sure winner for 2018 and beyond, as Schumer and Pelosi continue to implement their brilliant strategies.
native
@native Once you have destroyed
Once you have destroyed trust, it doesn't matter what you say.
They don't seem to get that. Oh well.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
It's like, everything got so much better
with Obama's administration? I mean, after the utter disaster of Junior Bush's regime? So Obama immediately puts Rubin and Summers and Geitner in charge of regulating & rebuilding Wall Street, after all the carnage their theories & practices have already caused, and that is supposed to have vindicated these serial financial criminals because a cool-sounding black guy appoints them to high office? And grants them back the same powers they had so recently and irresponsibly squandered?
Ayn Randian or Greenspan accolytes all (I would call them ideologues-of-a-feather) none of Obama's financial advisors would even hear of basic structural reform. Because they were all being honored and very well-paid not to consider such reform. Greenspan was still God according to the Priests of the Fed, and Obama himself was just another bought-and-paid-for politician, who posed briefly as a liberal reformer, in order to get himself elected, twice. For want of a better alternative, it must be said.
Neither McCain nor Romney ever offered American liberals any reasonable alternative to Obama's cowardly, hypocritical, and self-serving style of leadership. Only his considerable rhetorical skill, coupled with his magnificent ego, graceful style, and the utterly unrealistic hopes of his constituency, kept him in power for eight years.
All of Obama's image was built on sand. The Obama phenomenon has been revealed as a fraud, a media-constructed image of a man that bears little resemblance to his actual role in the maintenance and expansion of the American Empire.
Now the Dems hope to resurrect this sand-creature that was Obama. Foolishly, vainly, they hope to refurbish his image. They desire as he did, a more humane way of imposing the Empire's will upon the world at large. They insist upon rescuing the nations of Russia, Iran, and North Korea, Venezuela and the like, from themselves.
It has now become painfully clear exactly who and what controls today's D Party: A combination of Wall Street bankers, neocon militarists, trans-national corporatists, and deluded R2Pers who still believe in the essentially altruistic nature of the America's empire. Obama helped immeasurably to build this coalition.
native
@native Right on every score
Right on every score. Unfortunately.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Confirmed by a mayoral candidate's flyer
in thie town that arrived in a glossy color brochure with a photo of the candidate standing alongside Obama.
How interesting is this?
I was checking my messages on ToP and saw a diary about how pathetic it is that the richest nation on earth needs to have people go to health care clinics at a rodeo place.
This reminded me of the diaries about this during the health care debates and the many articles that Wendell Potter wrote about this. And how he pulled the curtain back on how the health care industry makes their profits.
So I looked up the writer to see if he was around during that time and yes, this person joined the site in 2008 and might have seen those diaries. As I was looking at his profile I saw that his most recommended diary was titled This place has Lost Its Mind
Opening the diary I saw that it was about Obama cutting $25 billion from the budget in areas that would hurt the most vulnerable people who couldn't afford to lose just one more thin wafer when they had already lost so much during the 2008 economic crash.
Gee, what would be so wrong by getting upset that the best president since FDR was pushing for austerity after he doubled down on the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and started wasting thousands a day by dropping bombs on other vulnerable people?
Big pie fight with over a thousand comments that ended up being another pie fight with the people who saw who Obama really worked for and the Obamabots that would defend him even if he shot someone of 5th Avenue.
This person wrote about the health care debate raging in congress and had one of the best arguments on what the democrats stood for, which is what I have been saying this past month about the democrats using reconciliation to pass the health insurance bill after they let the republican attach 170 amendments in order to get them to vote for it, even though for two years they said that there is no way in hell they would because they were going to make Obama a one term president and that those amendments weakened the bill. (Which is what the democrats used to hide behind by not passing a real health CARE bill like what Obama ran on)
I copied his whole comment since I know that some here refuse to give DK a click and I think this whole comment deserves to be read. Feel free to skip over it if you want.
But imo, this shows how long people have been on opposite views when it comes to seeing Obama for who he is and who he represented. Hint: It wasn't us, but I'm sure I am preaching to the choir here.
Without further ado:
Recommended 6 times
psyched
blues lover
Reel Woman
condorcet
oxfdblue
FogCityJohn
Bolding is mine.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
I said it then and I'll say it now
It was "Hillarycare" that gave us the Gingrich congress, and it was Obamacare that gave us the Republican domination. And I was not the only one saying it.
On to Biden since 1973
Remember when people were saying that the republicans
are down for the count and won't get back in power for decades, if ever.
It only took one election cycle for them to win back the house and two to win back the senate.
And then one more to win the presidency.
Yep. The democrats have the republicans just where they want them. Or in other words, eleventh dimensional chess!
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
(No subject)
Stealing from FDR
I'm pretty sure the spirit behind "A Better Deal" is a lot more conniving and self-serving and hollow than was the spirit of the "New Deal". "A Better Deal" is probably a lot more to do with "worker's rights" to work for Uber than any rights to single payer health care, or transparent, paper ballot, publicly funded elections, or ending corruption by the MIC, the PIC, Wall Street, the Pharmaceutical industry, fossil fuels etc., or ending super-delegates and making the Democrats a Party of the People. They need to own up to their corruption and quit the assumption that Americans are stupid.
Beware the bullshit factories.
"A better deal"
It sounds to me like they took a poll and found a lot of people said they voted Trump because they believed the lies that he's good at "deal-making" (his supposed area of expertise) and he's always saying he will get/make "the best deals" for America and its workers.
So the Dims thought, "oh, so people like to hear they're getting a good deal! Of course! So let's say we'll give them a better deal!" Genius, i tells ya.
break the Clinton grip on the party
the Democratic party needs to break itself free of the Clinton grip on the party. it has been beholden to the Clinton's for 25 years just because of Bill's two term win.
it isn't 1992 or 1996. time to move on.
It isn't only the Clintons. Anyone who is in an important
public office of any kind toes the neoliberal party line. The actions of the primary and post-primary, including election of Perez, speak volumes. The Clinton may have been Patient #1--and I'm sure they were even that*-- but it's an epidemic now. It's going to take more than getting rid of the Clintons to have anything but two corporate parties taking turns.
*Word went out at least as early as 1980 that Democrats in Congress had to start getting some of those big fat corporate donations that the Republicans were getting. Everybody was so busy blaming the exponential increase in DC lobbyists on only Reagan that not many noticed. Some of the actions of the Democratic Congress under Carter even seem suspicious to me, like replacing the Bankrucptcy Act of 1934 with a Bankruptcy Code that did not require judicial appointment of an independent trustee to run the (publicly-traded) company while it was in reorganization proceedings and to investigate the directors and officers to see if they'd sacked it. Who did that benefit most, other than crooked corporate officers and directors?
I may be too cynical
but then again that might not be possible.
Yesterday we read that Democratic Party fundraising is down. Is there any breakdown available to see if health insurance and big pharma contributions are way down?
"Nice racket you've got going there, it would be a shame if anything happened to it. We can't return to power without either money or votes, and your contributions are a little on the lean side. Maybe we just get votes by telling the voters we're going to shut you down, and then we would have to dance with the ones that brung us, wouldn't we?"
Contributions down --> threaten their profits --> contributions back up again?
The party out of power can't make credible threats, except by threatening to appeal to voters.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett
"A species that is hurtling toward extinction has no business promoting slow incremental change." -- Caitlin Johnstone
He said WHAT??!
Pages