Soon-to-be Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn

Submitted by gjohnsit on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 12:26pm

My, oh my, how things have changed.
Just to give you an idea, here's an example of some headlines from earlier this year.

April 19: Jeremy Corbyn 'likely to stay on' even if Labour suffers crushing election defeat
April 24: Is it too late to replace Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader before the general election?
May 7: Stephen Hawking says Jeremy Corbyn ‘a disaster for Labour’ and should step down

Now consider yesterday's NY Times headline: Get Ready for Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn

If you wanted to write a spoof of Britain’s Conservatives, you’d struggle to do a better job than the real version at the party’s half-empty annual conference this week in Manchester.
Things hit such train-wreck levels that even the stage fell apart — during a speech by Prime Minister Theresa May, the Conservatives’ leader, letters fell off the party’s latest lackluster slogan behind her. That was just the final slapstick touch to a disastrous address, during which Mrs. May struggled with a fading voice and a spluttering cough, and was pranked by a comedian who handed her a fake P45 — a termination of employment notice.
It was a fitting close to a conference that highlighted the extent to which the Conservatives are in free-fall, and the degree to which Mrs. May’s days as party leader are numbered.

theresa may protestor.jpg
It's one thing to be dismissed and mocked, but it's something else to be pitied.

By the end, you half expected someone to rush on and wrap her in a silver foil blanket, like a marathon runner half-dead with exhaustion. But at least May made the finish line, when at times during this extraordinary performance one wondered if she even could.
... The audience attempted to support her – bursting into unconvincing applause whenever they sensed she needed a moment to clear her throat – but no party wants to be pitied. When even your political opponents are rooting for you to pull yourself together, because it’s just too agonising to watch, it’s game over.

As if things weren't bad enough for Theresa May, the sign behind her started falling down https://t.co/wLnZPrd2wp pic.twitter.com/nbaJPrDBcF

— Bloomberg Politics (@bpolitics) October 4, 2017

Wow. If this was a boxing match someone would be throwing a towel by now.
Tories were already in trouble in the polls, but the real clincher is how the rest of the world is already preparing for Corbyn's ascendency.

The EU is holding private talks with Jeremy Corbyn amid fears Theresa May's government could crumble at any minute, according to The Daily Telegraph.
Sources told the newspaper that there has been a "significant change in tone" in Europe's dealings with Labour amid fears that a collapse of the British government could take Brexit talks back to square one.
The Telegraph said Labour leader Corbyn and shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer have held more than one meeting with Michel Barnier, the EU's chief Brexit negotiator, and Frans Timmermans, the first vice president of the European Commission.

Obviously this cannot continue. May cannot appear to be a leader if the rest of the world is negotiating with Corbyn instead.
Meanwhile, Tories are in open rebellion.

Which brings up the question of how Corbyn has managed this stunning turn-around.
The answer can be summed up in one word: socialism.

The Legatum Institute, a thinktank, and Populus have found levels of support for nationalising large parts of the economy that would have been hard to believe a few years ago.
The big four industries in the sights of Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell should all return to public ownership, according to a strong majority of respondents. Water topped the poll (83%), followed by electricity (77%), gas (77%) and the railways (76%).
Nationalisation fever also appears to be infectious. Royal Bank of Scotland, you might assume, is not a powerful advert for the delights of state ownership but the country is apparently evenly split on whether all banks should be nationalised.

Labour only has a small lead on the Tories in the polls, but that's all they need. Labour has natural coalition allies, such as SNP and Green.

Tags:

Jeremy Cobryn

Vote

Comments

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 8:28pm

Yep. This is why they didn't rig the election

@Craig234

to make sure that Hillary would be the nominee, not Bernie. Oh wait. The DNC has even admitted that they did that.
Sigh.

—

Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.

Submitted by Ellen North on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 9:10pm

@snoopydawg

@snoopydawg

And in court the DNC claimed a perfect right to electorally cheat their membership and American voters in general, as one of two privately owned parties selecting the 'choices' for which Americans are generously permitted to vote to fill public office in their 'democracy'.

I do not think that that last word means what they seem to think it means...

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Craig234 on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 9:46pm

@Ellen North To be fair,

@Ellen North To be fair, legally it seems they have a point - and also to be fair, it's worth nothing how much worse it used to be, before JFK made the primaries the norm for choosing the nominee.

But it does leave the noxious remains of the party leadership getting to put their thumb on the scale during the primary - in addition to the massive thumb of the money that's gone up so much.

Submitted by Ellen North on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 9:54pm

@Craig234

@Craig234

Personally, I'd say not subverting democracy and meddling with the American people's elections would be fair, especially since both parties do it.

How is it that privately owned parties are permitted to control who the American public 'votes for' in a 'democratic election' while still claiming to respect democracy? And why should the American people stand for any more of this unconstitutional nonsense?

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Craig234 on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 10:12pm

@Ellen North The answer,

@Ellen North The answer, Ellen, is that it's because our system allows groups to organize.

The party doesn't 'determine' how the people vote, but they have some influence.

You didn't respond to a point I made, that at least it's improved from the days the party bosses simply chose the nominee for the people, until JFK did an end run using the primaries.

No one makes any voter support any party - you can start your own party if you want.

But there are simply benefits to organizing, and the two main parties reap those benefits.

And there aren't really great alternatives, though there are some improvements.

For example, California had an exception process where we had an 'open election' for governor after a corrupt recall - and over 100 candidates ran and split the vote every which way and the winner was the terrible but famous Arnold Schwarzeneggar. And before you take too much comfort from it being a one-off, this leading progressive state re-elected him to our shame.

These are problems in our system - trump obviously wouldn't have had a chance without his tv show and decades of media attention.

Those are things that are broken far more than and beyond any party leadership influence on things like debate scheduling.

Submitted by Raggedy Ann on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 6:41am

Which is exactly why,

@Craig234
Craig, the system cannot be fixed. It can only be replaced. That will only come about with upheaval. There is no chance of working within the system as much as you'd like to try and convince us. You efforts only show me how broken the system really is and how much it really needs to be replaced. You are here with the same lame arguments made at sites like TOP, of which we are refugees. We're beyond those arguments and you validate our position quite well.

—

"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11

Submitted by Craig234 on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 11:37am

@Raggedy Ann I don't

@Raggedy Ann @Raggedy Ann I don't know what TOP is, but ok, we each think the other's plan won't work. Hopefully that split won't prevent something from working.

You get a progressive doing well enough third party to not just split the vote and I expect I'll support them. And if we get a progressive running as a Democrat hopefully you support them.

If we get an election like Hillary-trump again, it sounds like you prefer voting for neither to try to break things as much as possible to bring change - we probably won't agree on that scenario.

Submitted by Raggedy Ann on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 11:50am

Exactly.

@Craig234
Now you are understanding.

—

"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11

Submitted by irishking on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 7:42pm

Daily Kos is "The Other Place".

@Craig234

on the other hand, this is heaven.

c99
at the blue water pool
where truth is the rule
fools come to be schooled
all is kept cool
and everyone plays in the water.

Submitted by Ellen North on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 8:55pm

@irishking

@irishking

Nice!

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Craig234 on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 11:16pm

@irishking

@irishking Thanks for the smile and the definition of top.

Submitted by SnappleBC on Mon, 10/09/2017 - 10:50am

I do try to support progressive Democrats

@Craig234

But you should know that it's HARD. Because they run as a Democrat I have to assume that they are either now corrupt or will be corrupted shortly upon winning. So therefor I have to look at their back-story and character in GREAT detail and that takes a lot of time. Certainly the seal of approval from some group like JusticeDemocrats is not nearly enough. So yes, I would in theory support a progressive Democrat but in fact, I haven't done so since the 2016 elections when I supported Sanders and a few Berniecrats.

If you think you've got a winner, I can only suggest you remember that the people you need to sell are going to be very skeptical -- particularly after Obama. Harris is going to damage your cause quite a bit. So you need to prepare you're sales pitch thoroughly and it needs to be thoroughly documented with independently verifiable evidence. Things like, "Endorsed by " won't help. Facts, voting patterns, actual life deeds -- that's all I care about.

—

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

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 1:23pm

Trump wouldn't have had a chance WITHOUT Hillary.

@Craig234

His television show and decades of media attention meant nothing compared to the gift the Democrats gave him: an opponent with massive negatives, even in her own party. The Democratic Party handed the Presidency to Donald Trump.

I do agree with your other points, though. The Primary is a straw poll. The outcome is not binding on who the Party selects as a candidate. It has always been this way and I don't believe there is a charter that says otherwise. Legally, the Party is not connected to the government, although the government picks up some of their membership polling costs. The Primary race is described as a "poll to ascertain voter preferences" before the Party officials make their selection. This reality is not popular, however, here or anywhere else.

...at least it's improved from the days the party bosses simply chose the nominee for the people...

Not terribly improved. Now, the Party simply assembles loyalists, in the form of Super Delegates, to execute the will of the Party officials at the finish line. I prefer it when the Bosses act without their proxies and henchmen. The Super Delegate kabuki is something of an intellectual insult.

Some of your arguments seem to assume that c99 was deeply committed to Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign, but that is just not the case. Such sites exist, but this is not one of them. This site's founders and moderators say that this is a non-partisan community. There is no top-down political philosophy or shared ideology here and there were no endorsements or voting guidelines leading up to the 2016 election. People here voted for a wide range of candidates. I'm sure quite a few voted for Hillary, for the reasons you suggest. And some didn't vote at all.

I see a couple basic questions:

1. As bad as the dominant centrist faction of the Democratic Party is, is is still clearly better
than the Republican factions?

I don't get into that right now - I suspect feathers would fly.

I don't think feathers would fly. The Right Wing Democrats (aka: Centrists) have decimated the Democratic presence at both state and federal levels. In that regard, they were indeed "clearly better than Republicans" at wiping FDR off the map and unleashing predatory capitalism across the land. They were a hell of a lot better at pulling the nation into ever expanding wars and getting the Democrats to shut up about it.

That being said, maybe a few feathers might fly

Submitted by Craig234 on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 11:43pm

@Pluto's Republic Hi Pluto,

@Pluto's Republic @Pluto's Republic Hi Pluto, a lot of points to respond to. (It'd be easier if I could still see your post while I reply instead of having to find it again and scroll back and forth).

I agree with you that Hillary was an especially disliked candidate with the general electorate - the second most disliked apparently in modern history after trump.

It was a case of popular within the party (first woman president, experienced, etc.), and not without - sort of like Goldwater in 1964 or McGovern in 1972.

Now, the Party simply assembles loyalists, in the form of Super Delegates, to execute the will of the Party officials at the finish line.

This needs some clarification. As was noted last election, the Superdelegates have never overridden the voters. This doesn't make them a non-issue, but it is important to include in the topic.

You mentioned this to support a point that things aren't that improved from when the party bosses picked nominees, and I don't think that's the case.

There's still plenty to object to about Super-delegates, but it'd be wrong to imply they regularly ride roughshod over the voters when it hasn't happened.

I don't know the legal details of what all the party has the legal right to do on this, but as I understand things did take a big change toward the democratic when John Kennedy wanted to run and didn't want the bosses picking, and he and Ted Sorensen flew to all 50 states on his airplane building support with local party officials and then he used the primaries to secure delegates which has been the norm ever since.

I did not mean to imply c99 was 'deeply committed to' or endorsed Bernie's candidacy. I suspect many people supported him, not all. I'd guess more than most sites. I wasn't reading the site then.

The Right Wing Democrats (aka: Centrists) have decimated the Democratic presence at both state and federal levels. In that regard, they were indeed "clearly better than Republicans" at wiping FDR off the map and unleashing predatory capitalism across the land. They were a hell of a lot better at pulling the nation into ever expanding wars and getting the Democrats to shut up about it.

I consider myself an opponent of those 'centrists' within the party, but it didn't help the clarity of our discussion for you to twist my word 'better' around to 'better at bad things'.

They weren't 'better' - or more accurately worse - at the things you listed than Republicans would have been.

There's plenty to criticize, but Republican are worse. For example, it wasn't Democrats who did or would have started the war in Iraq.

While Hillary voted for the authorization - a long topic - a majority of Democrats voted against it, despite strong political pressure to vote for it, two weeks before mid-terms.

While Democrats were too pro-wealthy, it wasn't their massive tax cuts for the rich the Republicans passed. Republicans wouldn't have let those cuts expire for the top 2% as Obama did.

Republicans just voted on a horrible budget - and didn't get a single Democratic vote.

Just as the ACA didn't get a single Republican vote.

#1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 His television show and decades of media attention meant nothing compared to the gift the Democrats gave him: an opponent with massive negatives, even in her own party. The Democratic Party handed the Presidency to Donald Trump. I do agree with your other points, though. The Primary is a straw poll. The outcome is not binding on who the Party selects as a candidate. It has always been this way and I don't believe there is a charter that says otherwise. Legally, the Party is not connected to the government, although the government picks up some of their membership polling costs. The Primary race is described as a "poll to ascertain voter preferences" before the Party officials make their selection. This reality is not popular, however, here or anywhere else. ...at least it's improved from the days the party bosses simply chose the nominee for the people... Not terribly improved. Now, the Party simply assembles loyalists, in the form of Super Delegates, to execute the will of the Party officials at the finish line. I prefer it when the Bosses act without their proxies and henchmen. The Super Delegate kabuki is something of an intellectual insult. Some of your arguments seem to assume that c99 was deeply committed to Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign, but that is just not the case. Such sites exist, but this is not one of them. This site's founders and moderators say that this is a non-partisan community. There is no top-down political philosophy or shared ideology here and there were no endorsements or voting guidelines leading up to the 2016 election. People here voted for a wide range of candidates. I'm sure quite a few voted for Hillary, for the reasons you suggest. And some didn't vote at all. I see a couple basic questions: 1. As bad as the dominant centrist faction of the Democratic Party is, is is still clearly better than the Republican factions? I don't get into that right now - I suspect feathers would fly. I don't think feathers would fly. The Right Wing Democrats (aka: Centrists) have decimated the Democratic presence at both state and federal levels. In that regard, they were indeed "clearly better than Republicans" at wiping FDR off the map and unleashing predatory capitalism across the land. They were a hell of a lot better at pulling the nation into ever expanding wars and getting the Democrats to shut up about it. That being said, maybe a few feathers might fly

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Mon, 10/09/2017 - 2:58am

Hey Craig.

@Craig234

I notice that we speak in measurements of emphasis rather than disagreement; there's a focus on granularity and tiny details and subtle spin. All to gain very little for ourselves or the issues. It's sort of a time eater, don't you think? These pointless little exercises come about because we have not declared our current goals. In doing so, we might discover that we are not really getting anywhere.

I assume your goal is to get as many people-who-say-they-are-Democrats elected to office as possible so that Democrats control what is legislated in DC. That's a goal with a long and noble history.

My goal is to see the Democratic Party burned to the ground, never to exist again. It is a goal I holdc in the interests of peaceful and humane Americans. I believe it will give them a voice and bring them a just society, perhaps during their lifetimes.

Both are process-oriented goals. We are moving in different directions.

#1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2 #1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2 Hi Pluto, a lot of points to respond to. (It'd be easier if I could still see your post while I reply instead of having to find it again and scroll back and forth). I agree with you that Hillary was an especially disliked candidate with the general electorate - the second most disliked apparently in modern history after trump. It was a case of popular within the party (first woman president, experienced, etc.), and not without - sort of like Goldwater in 1964 or McGovern in 1972. Now, the Party simply assembles loyalists, in the form of Super Delegates, to execute the will of the Party officials at the finish line. This needs some clarification. As was noted last election, the Superdelegates have never overridden the voters. This doesn't make them a non-issue, but it is important to include in the topic. You mentioned this to support a point that things aren't that improved from when the party bosses picked nominees, and I don't think that's the case. There's still plenty to object to about Super-delegates, but it'd be wrong to imply they regularly ride roughshod over the voters when it hasn't happened. I don't know the legal details of what all the party has the legal right to do on this, but as I understand things did take a big change toward the democratic when John Kennedy wanted to run and didn't want the bosses picking, and he and Ted Sorensen flew to all 50 states on his airplane building support with local party officials and then he used the primaries to secure delegates which has been the norm ever since. I did not mean to imply c99 was 'deeply committed to' or endorsed Bernie's candidacy. I suspect many people supported him, not all. I'd guess more than most sites. I wasn't reading the site then. The Right Wing Democrats (aka: Centrists) have decimated the Democratic presence at both state and federal levels. In that regard, they were indeed "clearly better than Republicans" at wiping FDR off the map and unleashing predatory capitalism across the land. They were a hell of a lot better at pulling the nation into ever expanding wars and getting the Democrats to shut up about it. I consider myself an opponent of those 'centrists' within the party, but it didn't help the clarity of our discussion for you to twist my word 'better' around to 'better at bad things'. They weren't 'better' - or more accurately worse - at the things you listed than Republicans would have been. There's plenty to criticize, but Republican are worse. For example, it wasn't Democrats who did or would have started the war in Iraq. While Hillary voted for the authorization - a long topic - a majority of Democrats voted against it, despite strong political pressure to vote for it, two weeks before mid-terms. While Democrats were too pro-wealthy, it wasn't their massive tax cuts for the rich the Republicans passed. Republicans wouldn't have let those cuts expire for the top 2% as Obama did. Republicans just voted on a horrible budget - and didn't get a single Democratic vote. Just as the ACA didn't get a single Republican vote.

Submitted by Craig234 on Mon, 10/09/2017 - 11:36am

@Cassiodorus @

@Cassiodorus @Pluto's Republic Well, I accept your statement about your plans, even if I think you will not get the result you want by destroying the Democratic Party.

You will find yourself simply having to do a lot more trying to get any power than you would if you had tried to take over the Democratic Party instead.

As for my position, it's incomplete to say I just want to elect Democrats. I want to elect more Democrats as part of also taking over the Democratic Party by progressives.

But until that happens - unlike some others, I do support the 'lesser evil' approach for the most part and voting for candidates I really dislike over those who will be much more harmful than them.

#1.1.1.1.1.2.2.1.2.2.1.1 There are a lot of reasons why the Republicans are winning so much that are not that the Democrats are ok with it. No, actually the Democrats liked things just fine as long as the "omigod first Black President" offered them the sort of symbolic fig leaf that adequately worked to cover their actual right-wing politics. I've looked through the other comments here, and it looks like people here are willing to challenge the actual right-wing politics of Democratic Party advocates, not just me. And you may have noticed that this comment of mine has gotten more than thirty "likes." Nice Democrats like to say "omigod the Koch brothers!" when I mention their record-setting "losses" under Obama ("losses" is in scare quotes because the Democrats don't really care; who needs lower-class America when you have Silicon Valley, Beverly Hills, and the Hamptons?) But such arguments don't have very sturdy fig leaves. The Democrats in fact have more money than the Republicans; Clinton outraised and outspent Trump by a 2-to-1 margin. Rich people's money, moreover, doesn't buy elections -- it took election fraud to buy the primaries for Clinton as against a few $27 donations to Sanders, whereas the Koch millions didn't buy anything for Jeb Bush as against Donald Trump. Media isn't an excuse -- the Dems have MSNBC as against the Republican Fox. Gerrymandering wouldn't have been a problem if the Democrats had bothered to stand for something in 2010, and wasn't a Republican advantage in 2008 when the Democrats took advantage of Republican weakness, nor in 2010, when the Reps won about 700 legislative seats. This is like the big game here at c99%. Democrats put up tidy-looking fig leaves which are supposed to substitute for argument, and the rest of us spend our time tearing them down. Such a phenomenon points to another real reason for record-setting Democrat losses: the Democrats are not "for real." The idea of sincere dialogue (at least along the lines laid out theoretically at the beginning of Jurgen Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action) is as foreign to them as that war in Afghanistan they continue to cheerlead. Instead, arguments serve them as fig leaves so that Democrats can continue to "look progressive" while in deed they support what are essentially Republican political aims.

Submitted by SnappleBC on Mon, 10/09/2017 - 10:53am

Huh what?

@Craig234 j

There's plenty to criticize, but Republican are worse. For example, it wasn't Democrats who did or would have started the war in Iraq.

Did you miss both Libya and Syria? Yes, Democrats in general and Hillary Clinton in particular have lied us into wars resulting in mass death and suffering for political and economic gain. Yes, they are just as bad as Bush on that count. Of course, that makes them not much different than any American politician, neh?

#1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2 #1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2 Hi Pluto, a lot of points to respond to. (It'd be easier if I could still see your post while I reply instead of having to find it again and scroll back and forth). I agree with you that Hillary was an especially disliked candidate with the general electorate - the second most disliked apparently in modern history after trump. It was a case of popular within the party (first woman president, experienced, etc.), and not without - sort of like Goldwater in 1964 or McGovern in 1972. Now, the Party simply assembles loyalists, in the form of Super Delegates, to execute the will of the Party officials at the finish line. This needs some clarification. As was noted last election, the Superdelegates have never overridden the voters. This doesn't make them a non-issue, but it is important to include in the topic. You mentioned this to support a point that things aren't that improved from when the party bosses picked nominees, and I don't think that's the case. There's still plenty to object to about Super-delegates, but it'd be wrong to imply they regularly ride roughshod over the voters when it hasn't happened. I don't know the legal details of what all the party has the legal right to do on this, but as I understand things did take a big change toward the democratic when John Kennedy wanted to run and didn't want the bosses picking, and he and Ted Sorensen flew to all 50 states on his airplane building support with local party officials and then he used the primaries to secure delegates which has been the norm ever since. I did not mean to imply c99 was 'deeply committed to' or endorsed Bernie's candidacy. I suspect many people supported him, not all. I'd guess more than most sites. I wasn't reading the site then. The Right Wing Democrats (aka: Centrists) have decimated the Democratic presence at both state and federal levels. In that regard, they were indeed "clearly better than Republicans" at wiping FDR off the map and unleashing predatory capitalism across the land. They were a hell of a lot better at pulling the nation into ever expanding wars and getting the Democrats to shut up about it. I consider myself an opponent of those 'centrists' within the party, but it didn't help the clarity of our discussion for you to twist my word 'better' around to 'better at bad things'. They weren't 'better' - or more accurately worse - at the things you listed than Republicans would have been. There's plenty to criticize, but Republican are worse. For example, it wasn't Democrats who did or would have started the war in Iraq. While Hillary voted for the authorization - a long topic - a majority of Democrats voted against it, despite strong political pressure to vote for it, two weeks before mid-terms. While Democrats were too pro-wealthy, it wasn't their massive tax cuts for the rich the Republicans passed. Republicans wouldn't have let those cuts expire for the top 2% as Obama did. Republicans just voted on a horrible budget - and didn't get a single Democratic vote. Just as the ACA didn't get a single Republican vote.

—

Submitted by Craig234 on Mon, 10/09/2017 - 11:39am

@SnappleBC How

@SnappleBC @SnappleBC How many Americans, and how many others killed by Americans, were there in Syria and Libya compared to Iraq?

Democrats deserve that criticism - but they also deserve to have it recognized that the war Republicans started and they opposed DWARFED the others.

TO say otherwise is to dismiss the importance of the Iraq war and call it a 'rounding error' in a claim of false equivalency.

Submitted by SnappleBC on Mon, 10/09/2017 - 12:07pm

I'd have to look it up

@Craig234 @Craig234

But I'm not sure that I care about your relative degrees of evil. The issue, in my mind, is that they are all marching to the same drum. It occurs to me that you may not have done the research to understand WHY Bush lied and WHY Clinton and Obama lied. Why did they want those particular wars? I put together this story as a rebuttal to my brother but it lays out the historical context. There you find the actual motives and you also see that it is, in fact, all a part of the same plan... as is our incredible aggression towards Russia. The real motive here is global hegemony and the petrodollar. Both sides DO do it because they both share those goals. It's the combination of neoliberalism and neoconservatism commonly called "The DC concensus".

That all being said, now I do want to look up the relative death tolls. What I remember is an article from gjohnsit here not that long ago showing human slavery in Libya. We did that.

—

Submitted by Ellen North on Mon, 10/09/2017 - 7:10pm

@Craig234

@Craig234

Ummmmm, do you really feel it's OK to attack and invade other people's countries in order to steal and profit from their resources - even aside from the issues of loss of life in murderous attacks, if anyone does it?

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 10:11pm

No they don't have the right to select the candidate they want

@Craig234

their charter says that they will be fair in their election process and they will be neutral and not push for one candidate over another one.

During the lawsuit against the DNC for rigging the election, even the judge told them that they were wrong for rigging it. One of the reasons he dismissed it was because he said that no one that were suing them had standing to do so.

Facts are facts and cannot be altered.

—

Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.

Submitted by Cassiodorus on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 4:07am

Yes, legally they have a point.

@Craig234 The Democratic Party is not obliged to provide the electorate with fair primaries. So what do you think this says about promoting yourself here as a member of the "progressive wing" of the Democratic Party? Aren't you really saying, then, that "we're the people outside with the pompoms while the folks inside the smoke-filled room make the real decisions"? Intra-party democracy is dead, so join the Democrats? How does that count as an appeal?

—

The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.

Submitted by Craig234 on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 4:59am

@Cassiodorus No, I'm

@Cassiodorus No, I'm saying, vote for progressives, and that I think the way for progressives to win is to run as Democrats - and to vote against what the non-progressive leaders want.

Submitted by Cassiodorus on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 5:18am

Many of us here read something different.

@Craig234 What we read is: "vote for Democrat progressives and then when the elections are rigged against them vote for the Blue Dogs that did the rigging in the first place."

Your party gave away more than 1,000 legislative seats to the Republicans under Obama. Care to confront that hard fact?

—

The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.

Submitted by irishking on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 6:29am

"vote for the Blue Dogs that did the rigging"

@Cassiodorus

just won't do that anymore.

they are the people who brought us here.

no mas.

Submitted by Craig234 on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 11:40am

@Cassiodorus I think

@Cassiodorus I think election rigging is hugely overrated as an issue. The problems are voters being wrong, the media, money in politics far more than any 'rigging' by the party.

Yes, I do think that electing centrist Democrats is better than electing Republicans, while trying to defeat them with progressives.

I think that advances the progressive cause more both in terms of policy - let's NOT repeal healthcare from 25 million and cut taxes on the rich by trillions more - and progressives' chances.

Submitted by Cassiodorus on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 12:34pm

There was certainly enough of an issue

@Craig234 to warrant an investigation, and all we got was some party lawyer's assertion that the Democratic Party is under no obligation to provide the voters with fair primaries.

People who think this is a non-issue are themselves part of the problem.

—

The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.

Submitted by Craig234 on Mon, 10/09/2017 - 11:41am

@Cassiodorus I'd

@Cassiodorus I'd say people who take a well-under 1% part of the problem and inflate it to the only/biggest problem are part of the problem.

Submitted by Ellen North on Mon, 10/09/2017 - 7:14pm

@Craig234

@Craig234

Doesn't electoral cheating kinda defeat the whole point of voting and the notion of having a democracy at all?

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by nosleep4u on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 1:02pm

@Craig234 That is contrary to

@Craig234 That is contrary to their demonstrated behavior.

Camp Clinton - DWS in particular - has a history of supporting Repubs over progressives Dems.

They have a history of abandoning progressives who win primaries. They did that numerous times in this off-season election: Thompson, Quinn, etc.

Submitted by Craig234 on Mon, 10/09/2017 - 11:48am

@nosleep4u I am with you on

@nosleep4u I am with you on that problem. It's why I say progressives should be trying to take over the party, that there is a war within the party that needs to happen.

Some think the way to fight that war is as a third party. I'd say that's about as effective as the South trying to win the civil war by moving all their troops out of North America.

I'm all for trying to do it third party, in the primary phase. If you can get a candidate who can defeat both parties, great. But if you can't: support the 'lesser evil' rather than vote-split.

In the meantime fight for changes to make third parties more viable - things like ranked voting. That's a fight against the party leaders and that's fine.

Submitted by Ellen North on Mon, 10/09/2017 - 3:48pm

@Craig234

@Craig234

(Emphasis mine)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-long-march-to-the-democrati...

CBS News July 26, 2016, 6:55 PM
Hillary Clinton's long march to the Democratic nomination

...When she clinched the nomination back in June, she called it a milestone, and posted to Instagram, "To every little girl who dreams big: Yes, you can be anything you want--even president. Tonight is for you. -H."

The truth is, the former secretary of state was always the favorite to become the Democratic Party's eventual choice for president, but it didn't come easy. She was, however, ready for the task after her 2008 loss to then-Senator Barack Obama in another race where she was the early favorite. ...

...The contest with Obama was ugly at times, but he would become one of her greatest allies, making her his secretary of state in 2009. After she left office in 2013, Clinton instantly became the early front-runner for the nomination, and her standing was such that only a handful of relatively obscure Democrats were willing to oppose her. ...

The following is an excellent and informative recap which is best read in full at source, especially for those who may have missed any/much/most of this as it occurred. (Emphasis mine)
http://observer.com/2016/03/the-countless-failings-of-the-dnc/

The Countless Failings of the DNC
The Democratic Establishment is shamelessly breaking their own rules and regulations to get Clinton into office
By Michael Sainato • 03/27/16

The Democratic National Committee rigged the Democratic primaries to ensure Hillary Clinton would win the presidential nomination. Evidence suggesting this claim is overwhelming, and as the primaries progress, the DNC’s collusion with the Clinton campaign has become more apparent.

Hillary Clinton has known for years she would be running for president in 2016. Fundraisers were held on her behalf as early as 2014, before she announced her campaign, as it was well known throughout the Democratic establishment that she would run for president. Unlike Jeb Bush, also an establishment-backed Republican candidate with wealthy donors, no Democrats in office dared to run against Ms. Clinton. The DNC did not suspect an Independent and three virtually unknown former politicians would contend for the nomination. Aside from clearing out her competition in the primaries, the co-chair to Ms. Clinton’s failed 2008 campaign—Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who is currently the DNC Chair—scheduled only six debates compared to the eight scheduled for Republican candidates and enacted a new rule effectively banning Democratic presidential candidates from participating in any unsanctioned debates.

In addition to a limited debate schedule strategically presented at times when viewership would be low, super delegates overwhelmingly came out to support Ms. Clinton—many before the primary elections even began. The DNC helped the Clinton campaign lure super delegate support through the Hillary Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee that received thousands of dollars in donations from wealthy and corporate interests. With the maximum allowable donation of $2,700 going to the Clinton campaign, after the DNC took their cut the Clinton campaign could choose which state Democratic Parties received which funding. In New Hampshire, for example, Senator Bernie Sanders won over 60 percent of the popular vote in the primary—yet Ms. Clinton received the support of all six of the state’s super delegates after the New Hampshire Democratic Party accepted over $100,000 in donations from the Hillary Victory Fund. The fund has allowed Ms. Clinton to significantly outraise Mr. Sanders, despite Mr. Sanders having nearly double the amount of campaign donors. ...

...The efforts of the DNC to suppress the vote in order to ensure Ms. Clinton wins more delegates may help her win the Democratic nomination, but it will backfire in the general election in November.

The DNC has bent their own rules and regulations to assist Ms. Clinton. In December 2015, Vice News broke a story that the DNC was allowing Ms. Clinton’s campaign to share offices with the Carson City Democratic Party in Nevada—a key early primary state. In the summer of 2015, a top DNC official, Henry R. Munoz III broke DNC rules by organizing a fundraiser for Ms. Clinton in Texas. When news broke of the infraction, Ms. Wasserman Schultz ignored it. ...

(Emphasis mine)
http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help...

WikiLeaks Reveals DNC Elevated Trump to Help Clinton
Democrats expected the FBI investigation into Clinton's email server to be a major problem—which Donald Trump solved
By Michael Sainato • 10/10/16

...Clinton was widely presumed to be the Democratic presidential nominee long before the primaries began. This assumption was held by the mainstream media and the Democratic Party leadership. Expecting Clinton to be the nominee, the DNC and Clinton campaign developed strategies for the general election. ...

...Jeb Bush, the initial Republican frontrunner, assumed what should have been Trump’s role as the Republican Primary novelty sideshow. Sen. Bernie Sanders was blacked out of media coverage, and during the rare instances when he was discussed in mainstream media reporting, it was always under the pretenses that his candidacy was a pipe dream. The media gave Clinton what she wanted; impunity for the corruption, lies, and deceitfulness rampant in her political record, and an opponent who divided his own political party while driving fear and anxiety into her own to the point where enough Democrats and voters would gladly vote for her just to avoid Trump becoming president.

Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, the publisher of Observer Media.

However, such information comes from the DNC's own words and actions, (and has been backed by those of others, such as Washington insiders and corporate media's,) not from Breitbart.
(Emphasis mine)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wikileaks-emails-show-dnc-favored-hi...

H. A. Goodman, Contributor

WikiLeaks Emails Show DNC Favored Hillary Clinton Over Bernie Sanders During The Democratic Primary
07/23/2016 02:39 am ET Updated Jul 23, 2016

... Like The Washington Post and ABC News, an Observer piece by Michael Sainato highlights potential election fraud on a massive scale:

Wikileaks Proves Primary Was Rigged: DNC Undermined Democracy

20,000 freshly leaked emails reveal resentful disdain toward Sanders, as party favored Clinton long before any votes were cast ...

...One email from DNC Deputy Communications Director Eric Walker to several DNC staffers cites two news articles showing Sanders leading in Rhode Island and the limited number of polling locations in the state: “If she outperforms this polling, the Bernie camp will go nuts and allege misconduct. They’ll probably complain regardless, actually.” ...

...“Wondering if there’s a good Bernie narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess,” wrote DNC Deputy Communications Director Mark Paustenbach to DNC Communications Director Luis Miranda, in response to backlash over DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz shutting off the Sanders campaign’s access to voter database files.

Another chain reveals MSNBC’s Chuck Todd and DNC staff members discussing how to discredit MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski’s call for Wasserman Schultz to resign.

Most of the emails released come from seven prominent DNC staff members: senior adviser Andrew Wright, national finance director Jordon Kaplan, finance chief of staff Scott Comer, Northern California finance director Robert Stowe, finance director of data and strategic initiatives Daniel Parrish, finance director Allen Zachary and Miranda.

The release provides further evidence the DNC broke its own charter violations by favoring Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee, long before any votes were cast. ...

Faked elections/electoral cheating can no more produce valid results in democratic elections than in any other contest.

In any sport - from horse-races to Olympic competitions - any indication of cheating is investigated and the cheaters are disqualified to suffer consequences, rather than the cheaters being rewarded by keeping their win, with perpetual official mutterings every time about 'fixing it next time, because it's a done deal now'.

Only in politics, it seems, are those affected stuck with the results at whatever cost to themselves, in this case, with cheaters then taking power over those they've cheated in a perpetual cycle of ever-thickening and more blatant corruption.

The above article provides a link (given below) to a great resource for those unaware of the facts of this issue, including two indicative links on the first page to evidence of DNC spies planted in Bernie's campaign to help nobble the election to ensure a long-planned selection instead.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/wikileaks-emails-clinton-bernie-list-direc...

WikiLeaks List: Most Damaging Emails About DNC, Clinton, & Bernie

By Stephanie Dube Dwilson
Updated Jul 24, 2016 at 2:10am

Published Jul 22, 2016 at 7:22pm

...DNC Had Friends Inside Bernie's Campaign Providing Information

Another DNC Friend Inside Sanders' Campaign

Hillary ran on 'It's Her Turn' because those the Clintons served (and from whom I suspect much of their power was borrowed and through whom much of their vast wealth at least indirectly obtained) had promised that '8 years of Bill, 8 years of Hill' by arranging that the public options permitted would, like the Clintons, leave Americans thinking 'Who else are they going to vote for? Republicans?' in the incremental shift toward fascism desired by The (typically now-aging and tactically rut-embedded) Psychopaths That Be.

The Clintons had long been part of the plan - but Trump is still capable of 'holding a pen and signing' if properly handled - with the Dick Cheney acolyte, Vice President Pence, in reserve, with (I believe it was?) Dead-Eyed Granny-Starver Ryan next in line for the Porcelain Throne in the Fright House?

Voting for either wing of the Two-Faced Corporate Party is voting for worse of the same.

And until free and fair elections are held, with independent/citizen oversight and adequate polling facilities made easy of access for all, what makes anyone think that that their vote - or even their voter registration - is correctly counted/registered or will remain so without being mysteriously altered for demographics unlikely to vote for/ballots not made out naming The Right Corporate Candidates?

The entire governmental structure has been corrupted - having been made to be easily corruptible - and a pacific method of rectifying this must be found. Something that is a main purpose of this site: to brainstorm ideas which have the potential to improve life for all.

This necessarily involves government actually supporting democracy, so that Americans and America can truly have that freedom and those rights (of which the propaganda brags of bringing to once-independent and sovereign countries belonging to other people, in the form of the overthrow of even democratically elected governments, to be replaced by puppet-governments and corporate polluting parasitic overlords and abusers and/or via destructive military invasion complete with such as [Hillary-State-Dept-supplied] cluster bombs and even the unimaginable cruelty of also banned-by-international-law White Phosphorus, dropping such as these like candy-bars and nylon stockings on the civilian public generally claimed in the corporate media to welcome this 'rescue', if such for-profit military/corporate attacks are mentioned at all in these corporate publications), in a decent life with living wages, universal health care, publicly supplied education at all levels - and no psychopathic polluting military/corporate financial vampires sucking the life-blood out of their society, country or the rest of the world.

Voting within the pool of 'electoral choices' supplied/permitted by The Psychopaths/Parasites That Be can never achieve this goal, although supporting actual Progressives trying to crowd out the corporate Dems might be helpful in this desperate situation, assuming that any are allowed to win, even as token Progs, as some have.

I do believe that any chance of improvement must be taken, but not at the cost of supporting evil ever again.

Any chance for good over evil must be taken, as the pooling of minimal resources has already shown that the little power still remaining to the people, when exerted by sufficient numbers, can at least help in the further awaking of the heavily propagandized public, who are not nearly as helpless as they may have been made to feel they are, by those who fear their realization of their own residual power, in unified action against The Psychopaths That Be and their political lackeys.

Elections are supposed to be about who will be best for the country, meaning whose policies will best benefit the public good - not about who can cheat most effectively to further drain the country and public for private gain. The latter is not only a contravention of the Oath of Office sworn by those entering the public service - as is required to qualify to hold the office at all - to uphold the rights of the people while using the powers delegated by the people for the public good, but outright traitorous in its betrayal of the country, consisting as it does of the people inhabiting it, and being the overall possession of the public in perpetuity, as a Commons.

The same public ownership as a Commons is true of the government itself, intended to be of, by and for the people, to serve the public interest and, importantly, owning nothing itself, merely administrating and caretaking public property - including public funding - for the public and in the public interest.

A democratic government cannot 'rule over the people'; it serves the public interest or makes itself illegitimate. It's long past time that 'false advertising' was dismissed and a legitimate democratic government serve the American public interest in a sane, sustainable and reasoning manner. What's needed are ideas toward this goal which do not involve the disastrous cycle of voting for alternating evils.

I personally lean toward the identification/creation of a party standing for such basics as this, and a country-wide organization of a strategic vote not only for this party, but against the Two-Faced Corporate Party.

The turn-out needs to be visible enough to make cheating obvious, with citizens exit-polling everywhere. If Americans cannot stand together against the government-purchasing/infiltrating Psychopaths/Parasites That Be for their right of democracy and for their very health, future and lives, they might do so at the prospect of yet another election like this one just past.

And this needs to have been started long since, and organized while the internet might possibly still remain useful, but better late than never. At current rates and inflicted/incited hazards, never might be happening pretty soon.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Creosote. on Tue, 10/10/2017 - 6:53am

Brilliant, articulate post, EN

@Ellen North

Especially amid accelerating climate breakdown, the time has expired for trust in outright corruption.

#1.1.1

(Emphasis mine)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-long-march-to-the-democrati...

CBS News July 26, 2016, 6:55 PM
Hillary Clinton's long march to the Democratic nomination

...When she clinched the nomination back in June, she called it a milestone, and posted to Instagram, "To every little girl who dreams big: Yes, you can be anything you want--even president. Tonight is for you. -H."

The truth is, the former secretary of state was always the favorite to become the Democratic Party's eventual choice for president, but it didn't come easy. She was, however, ready for the task after her 2008 loss to then-Senator Barack Obama in another race where she was the early favorite. ...

...The contest with Obama was ugly at times, but he would become one of her greatest allies, making her his secretary of state in 2009. After she left office in 2013, Clinton instantly became the early front-runner for the nomination, and her standing was such that only a handful of relatively obscure Democrats were willing to oppose her. ...

The following is an excellent and informative recap which is best read in full at source, especially for those who may have missed any/much/most of this as it occurred. (Emphasis mine)
http://observer.com/2016/03/the-countless-failings-of-the-dnc/

The Countless Failings of the DNC
The Democratic Establishment is shamelessly breaking their own rules and regulations to get Clinton into office
By Michael Sainato • 03/27/16

The Democratic National Committee rigged the Democratic primaries to ensure Hillary Clinton would win the presidential nomination. Evidence suggesting this claim is overwhelming, and as the primaries progress, the DNC’s collusion with the Clinton campaign has become more apparent.

Hillary Clinton has known for years she would be running for president in 2016. Fundraisers were held on her behalf as early as 2014, before she announced her campaign, as it was well known throughout the Democratic establishment that she would run for president. Unlike Jeb Bush, also an establishment-backed Republican candidate with wealthy donors, no Democrats in office dared to run against Ms. Clinton. The DNC did not suspect an Independent and three virtually unknown former politicians would contend for the nomination. Aside from clearing out her competition in the primaries, the co-chair to Ms. Clinton’s failed 2008 campaign—Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who is currently the DNC Chair—scheduled only six debates compared to the eight scheduled for Republican candidates and enacted a new rule effectively banning Democratic presidential candidates from participating in any unsanctioned debates.

In addition to a limited debate schedule strategically presented at times when viewership would be low, super delegates overwhelmingly came out to support Ms. Clinton—many before the primary elections even began. The DNC helped the Clinton campaign lure super delegate support through the Hillary Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee that received thousands of dollars in donations from wealthy and corporate interests. With the maximum allowable donation of $2,700 going to the Clinton campaign, after the DNC took their cut the Clinton campaign could choose which state Democratic Parties received which funding. In New Hampshire, for example, Senator Bernie Sanders won over 60 percent of the popular vote in the primary—yet Ms. Clinton received the support of all six of the state’s super delegates after the New Hampshire Democratic Party accepted over $100,000 in donations from the Hillary Victory Fund. The fund has allowed Ms. Clinton to significantly outraise Mr. Sanders, despite Mr. Sanders having nearly double the amount of campaign donors. ...

...The efforts of the DNC to suppress the vote in order to ensure Ms. Clinton wins more delegates may help her win the Democratic nomination, but it will backfire in the general election in November.

The DNC has bent their own rules and regulations to assist Ms. Clinton. In December 2015, Vice News broke a story that the DNC was allowing Ms. Clinton’s campaign to share offices with the Carson City Democratic Party in Nevada—a key early primary state. In the summer of 2015, a top DNC official, Henry R. Munoz III broke DNC rules by organizing a fundraiser for Ms. Clinton in Texas. When news broke of the infraction, Ms. Wasserman Schultz ignored it. ...

(Emphasis mine)
http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help...

WikiLeaks Reveals DNC Elevated Trump to Help Clinton
Democrats expected the FBI investigation into Clinton's email server to be a major problem—which Donald Trump solved
By Michael Sainato • 10/10/16

...Clinton was widely presumed to be the Democratic presidential nominee long before the primaries began. This assumption was held by the mainstream media and the Democratic Party leadership. Expecting Clinton to be the nominee, the DNC and Clinton campaign developed strategies for the general election. ...

...Jeb Bush, the initial Republican frontrunner, assumed what should have been Trump’s role as the Republican Primary novelty sideshow. Sen. Bernie Sanders was blacked out of media coverage, and during the rare instances when he was discussed in mainstream media reporting, it was always under the pretenses that his candidacy was a pipe dream. The media gave Clinton what she wanted; impunity for the corruption, lies, and deceitfulness rampant in her political record, and an opponent who divided his own political party while driving fear and anxiety into her own to the point where enough Democrats and voters would gladly vote for her just to avoid Trump becoming president.

Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, the publisher of Observer Media.

However, such information comes from the DNC's own words and actions, (and has been backed by those of others, such as Washington insiders and corporate media's,) not from Breitbart.
(Emphasis mine)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wikileaks-emails-show-dnc-favored-hi...

H. A. Goodman, Contributor

WikiLeaks Emails Show DNC Favored Hillary Clinton Over Bernie Sanders During The Democratic Primary
07/23/2016 02:39 am ET Updated Jul 23, 2016

... Like The Washington Post and ABC News, an Observer piece by Michael Sainato highlights potential election fraud on a massive scale:

Wikileaks Proves Primary Was Rigged: DNC Undermined Democracy

20,000 freshly leaked emails reveal resentful disdain toward Sanders, as party favored Clinton long before any votes were cast ...

...One email from DNC Deputy Communications Director Eric Walker to several DNC staffers cites two news articles showing Sanders leading in Rhode Island and the limited number of polling locations in the state: “If she outperforms this polling, the Bernie camp will go nuts and allege misconduct. They’ll probably complain regardless, actually.” ...

...“Wondering if there’s a good Bernie narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess,” wrote DNC Deputy Communications Director Mark Paustenbach to DNC Communications Director Luis Miranda, in response to backlash over DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz shutting off the Sanders campaign’s access to voter database files.

Another chain reveals MSNBC’s Chuck Todd and DNC staff members discussing how to discredit MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski’s call for Wasserman Schultz to resign.

Most of the emails released come from seven prominent DNC staff members: senior adviser Andrew Wright, national finance director Jordon Kaplan, finance chief of staff Scott Comer, Northern California finance director Robert Stowe, finance director of data and strategic initiatives Daniel Parrish, finance director Allen Zachary and Miranda.

The release provides further evidence the DNC broke its own charter violations by favoring Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee, long before any votes were cast. ...

Faked elections/electoral cheating can no more produce valid results in democratic elections than in any other contest.

In any sport - from horse-races to Olympic competitions - any indication of cheating is investigated and the cheaters are disqualified to suffer consequences, rather than the cheaters being rewarded by keeping their win, with perpetual official mutterings every time about 'fixing it next time, because it's a done deal now'.

Only in politics, it seems, are those affected stuck with the results at whatever cost to themselves, in this case, with cheaters then taking power over those they've cheated in a perpetual cycle of ever-thickening and more blatant corruption.

The above article provides a link (given below) to a great resource for those unaware of the facts of this issue, including two indicative links on the first page to evidence of DNC spies planted in Bernie's campaign to help nobble the election to ensure a long-planned selection instead.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/wikileaks-emails-clinton-bernie-list-direc...

WikiLeaks List: Most Damaging Emails About DNC, Clinton, & Bernie

By Stephanie Dube Dwilson
Updated Jul 24, 2016 at 2:10am

Published Jul 22, 2016 at 7:22pm

...DNC Had Friends Inside Bernie's Campaign Providing Information

Another DNC Friend Inside Sanders' Campaign

Hillary ran on 'It's Her Turn' because those the Clintons served (and from whom I suspect much of their power was borrowed and through whom much of their vast wealth at least indirectly obtained) had promised that '8 years of Bill, 8 years of Hill' by arranging that the public options permitted would, like the Clintons, leave Americans thinking 'Who else are they going to vote for? Republicans?' in the incremental shift toward fascism desired by The (typically now-aging and tactically rut-embedded) Psychopaths That Be.

The Clintons had long been part of the plan - but Trump is still capable of 'holding a pen and signing' if properly handled - with the Dick Cheney acolyte, Vice President Pence, in reserve, with (I believe it was?) Dead-Eyed Granny-Starver Ryan next in line for the Porcelain Throne in the Fright House?

Voting for either wing of the Two-Faced Corporate Party is voting for worse of the same.

And until free and fair elections are held, with independent/citizen oversight and adequate polling facilities made easy of access for all, what makes anyone think that that their vote - or even their voter registration - is correctly counted/registered or will remain so without being mysteriously altered for demographics unlikely to vote for/ballots not made out naming The Right Corporate Candidates?

The entire governmental structure has been corrupted - having been made to be easily corruptible - and a pacific method of rectifying this must be found. Something that is a main purpose of this site: to brainstorm ideas which have the potential to improve life for all.

This necessarily involves government actually supporting democracy, so that Americans and America can truly have that freedom and those rights (of which the propaganda brags of bringing to once-independent and sovereign countries belonging to other people, in the form of the overthrow of even democratically elected governments, to be replaced by puppet-governments and corporate polluting parasitic overlords and abusers and/or via destructive military invasion complete with such as [Hillary-State-Dept-supplied] cluster bombs and even the unimaginable cruelty of also banned-by-international-law White Phosphorus, dropping such as these like candy-bars and nylon stockings on the civilian public generally claimed in the corporate media to welcome this 'rescue', if such for-profit military/corporate attacks are mentioned at all in these corporate publications), in a decent life with living wages, universal health care, publicly supplied education at all levels - and no psychopathic polluting military/corporate financial vampires sucking the life-blood out of their society, country or the rest of the world.

Voting within the pool of 'electoral choices' supplied/permitted by The Psychopaths/Parasites That Be can never achieve this goal, although supporting actual Progressives trying to crowd out the corporate Dems might be helpful in this desperate situation, assuming that any are allowed to win, even as token Progs, as some have.

I do believe that any chance of improvement must be taken, but not at the cost of supporting evil ever again.

Any chance for good over evil must be taken, as the pooling of minimal resources has already shown that the little power still remaining to the people, when exerted by sufficient numbers, can at least help in the further awaking of the heavily propagandized public, who are not nearly as helpless as they may have been made to feel they are, by those who fear their realization of their own residual power, in unified action against The Psychopaths That Be and their political lackeys.

Elections are supposed to be about who will be best for the country, meaning whose policies will best benefit the public good - not about who can cheat most effectively to further drain the country and public for private gain. The latter is not only a contravention of the Oath of Office sworn by those entering the public service - as is required to qualify to hold the office at all - to uphold the rights of the people while using the powers delegated by the people for the public good, but outright traitorous in its betrayal of the country, consisting as it does of the people inhabiting it, and being the overall possession of the public in perpetuity, as a Commons.

The same public ownership as a Commons is true of the government itself, intended to be of, by and for the people, to serve the public interest and, importantly, owning nothing itself, merely administrating and caretaking public property - including public funding - for the public and in the public interest.

A democratic government cannot 'rule over the people'; it serves the public interest or makes itself illegitimate. It's long past time that 'false advertising' was dismissed and a legitimate democratic government serve the American public interest in a sane, sustainable and reasoning manner. What's needed are ideas toward this goal which do not involve the disastrous cycle of voting for alternating evils.

I personally lean toward the identification/creation of a party standing for such basics as this, and a country-wide organization of a strategic vote not only for this party, but against the Two-Faced Corporate Party.

The turn-out needs to be visible enough to make cheating obvious, with citizens exit-polling everywhere. If Americans cannot stand together against the government-purchasing/infiltrating Psychopaths/Parasites That Be for their right of democracy and for their very health, future and lives, they might do so at the prospect of yet another election like this one just past.

And this needs to have been started long since, and organized while the internet might possibly still remain useful, but better late than never. At current rates and inflicted/incited hazards, never might be happening pretty soon.

Submitted by WoodsDweller on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 1:00pm

It's a simple test

Needs are met socially - food (distribution, not necessarily production), medical (insurance, not providers), water, sewer, education, electric, telephone, network, money supply and retail banking services, security. For some things like clothing and shelter it's mostly a matter of access (money) not availability. Set up guaranteed minimum income to handle it.
Wants are met privately - if it's something you can live without let the private sector take care of it. Taxes are paid by the private sector to fund the public sector.
Over time wants become needs. Who would have thought indoor plumbing and electricity were needs 150 years ago? Who would have thought the Net was a need 30 years ago? This is known as progress.
The UK is leading. The zeitgeist is shifting. The future belongs to the far right and near left. The far right has funding, organization, and a head start, but not the numbers.
We have nothing to lose except a system that doesn't work for us.

—

"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

Submitted by The Aspie Corner on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 1:19pm

The Far Right has had control all along. And what left?

@WoodsDweller

The UK is leading. The zeitgeist is shifting. The future belongs to the far right and near left. The far right has funding, organization, and a head start, but not the numbers.
We have nothing to lose except a system that doesn't work for us.

The closest we had to even a fuckin' near left was FDR and the New Deal. But even then he didn't take it as far as he should have. The Economic Bill of Rights, for instance, was largely ignored because of the massive Red Scares that were happening back then.

Now? In America? There is no god damned left. And even when any left movements gain steam they're punched down by virtually everyone under the orders of the corporate state.

—

Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.

Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.

Submitted by WoodsDweller on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 1:48pm

You're right

@The Aspie Corner
There are few or no near left organizations, and the whole system reacts to crush any that try to form.
And yet, Sanders managed to do amazingly well against the Clinton machine and it's corrupt Democratic Party. He managed to adequately fund a Presidential campaign, the most expensive kind, with primarily small donations. And perhaps most encouragingly, once he was no longer in the race the voters didn't throw up their hands and vote in the (perhaps) lesser evil.
The DINORINO candidates get all the media and all the corporate donations, but they just don't have the voters.
The near left voters exist, and their small dollar donations are adequate. They are showing encouraging signs of turning out to vote for the rare near left candidate, and to stay home and avoid voting for DINORINO candidates.
To the extent we have a future, that's it.

—

Submitted by Craig234 on Mon, 10/09/2017 - 11:51am

@WoodsDweller I'd make one

@WoodsDweller I'd make one correction as I understand it - that Bernie did it not with primarily small donations but 100% small donations.

Submitted by Craig234 on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 2:23pm

@The Aspie Corner It's not that FDR didn

@The Aspie Corner It's not that FDR didn't take it - he had no choice. He advocated for more than he could get.

The Democratic Party itself forced his VP Wallace off the ticket...

Submitted by Ellen North on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 3:48pm

@The Aspie Corner

@The Aspie Corner @The Aspie Corner

And the Red Scares have been re-activated by the nice warmongering sort of chappies who invented and are digging out the oh-so-lucrative-for-some 'Cold War' and are applying heat to it; their zombie moves among us via the complicit corporate media. Even though Russia isn't even 'Red' anymore, lol.

Edited for creative punctuation. I'm on a roll!

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 5:32pm

Punters laid 11-8...

right after the last UK election that there would be another before the end of the year.

Looking like a good bet.

—

The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?

Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 6:15pm

punters

@Not Henry Kissinger

Punters laid 11-8... right after the last UK election that there would be another before the end of the year. Looking like a good bet.

Now if Her Majesty's Electorate would simply punt the Tories and all their ilk (to use a metaphor from American gridiron football!)......

—

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Submitted by edg on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 5:45pm

The reason we can't have nice things

Russia, of course. Does anyone really believe that the deep state wouldn't have tarred Bernie Sanders with the same Russia brush they're using on Trump? They'd have had Sanders dancing to their tune in no time at all, with regime changes and terror wars sprouting all over the planet.

Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 6:25pm

tarred

@edg

Does anyone really believe that the deep state wouldn't have tarred Bernie Sanders with the same Russia brush they're using on Trump?

I, for one.

You seem to forget how willingly the Chump supplied our deep staters with that brush..... Bernie wouldn't have been such a fucking moron, to paraphrase Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.....

That's not to say the deep state wouldn't devise other kinds of skulduggery to try and neutralize Bernie. But the RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA stuff is tailor-made for Chump.

—

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Submitted by edg on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 6:53pm

Hmmm, I think I'll disagree with you on this one....

@thanatokephaloides

“The Guy Is Hiding Something”: Top Hillary Aide Suggests Bernie Sanders Also Colluded with Russia…

Bernie Sanders Is a Russian Agent, and Other Things I Learned This Week

Russian-funded Facebook ads backed Stein, Sanders and Trump

Not Just Trump: How Bernie Sanders' Campaign Also Had Deeply Embedded Russian Connections

Etc.

Submitted by Ellen North on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 9:44pm

@edg

@edg

Hey, according to the ongoing Dem propaganda line, we're all spouting 'Russian election interference', by not sticking to their Party line, so I suppose it's 99 to 1.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by lotlizard on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 2:10am

Yep. The Amazon, er, Washington Post and its “Prop Or Not”

@Ellen North
puppets-of-Russia smear list included our “sister” site JackPine Radicals.

JackPine Radicals is our “sister” site in the sense that they stand in the same relation to the site “Democratic Underground” as we stand in relation to Soylent Orange / The Other Place. We’re both “those who walked away from Omelas” (DemExit <=> OmExit).

As we use the euphemisms “TOP” and so on, denizens of JPR refer to their former home using the abbreviation “SV” (Site Voldemort).

Submitted by Craig234 on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 2:16am

@lotlizard I found

@lotlizard I found Democratic Underground and dkos both to have abusive moderation.

On DU, I was once involved in a 'did nothing wrong' interaction, and for some unknown reason, found I'd been put on 'investigation' while they checked on the issue - but they'd get back to me soon.

Figured there's nothing wrong here so it'll get straightened out. Wrote them a summary of the situation - no response.

Read the rules and they're very nice, promising to work on any issues and communicate - nothing.

Wrote them a number of e-mails, over weeks, over months - never a response.

So, wrote them off despite some otherwise nice posters and content.

Submitted by Timmethy2.0 on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 1:31am

I think the Russian interference is real

@edg

It's not the reason Hillary lost states like Wisconsin, caring more about fundraising than campaigning is part of the reason, but Russian interference is looking more and more real to me as is Trump working with Russian money launderers. I think there will be indictments and our insane President will try to use pardon powers to get out of it. The fascist danger is real and it's not coming from Hillary at the moment. The misinformation is real and sinister and we need to pay attention to the real fake news. Watch the latest episode of HBO's Vice if you can. It talks about how big data is being used by billionaires like Robert Mercer to keep us divided in information islands. We need to wake up now, it's going to be too late. Here's an older Guardian article talking about Mercer

—

Beware the bullshit factories.

Submitted by lotlizard on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 2:15am

What did you think about the WaPo’s “Prop Or Not” article & list

@Timmethy2.0
Do you believe they are correct in maintaining all those websites listed are tools of Russian propaganda? Including progressive sites Naked Capitalism, OpEd News, TruthDig, Truthout, and many others?

Who and what do you think was behind that article? What are their motives?

What do you think of Israel’s degree of influence over U.S. politics and elections?

Submitted by Timmethy2.0 on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 10:06am

I haven't read that article yet

@lotlizard @lotlizard

And the Washington Post was certainly complicit in pushing Hillary's agenda and smearing Bernie. But there are real reporters who work there, unlike say at Brietbart. I just think it's not an accident that everybody is so sure of their opinion here and everywhere else these days, when we could be just as manipulated as everybody else. Clearly the predominant opinion on Russia here, is of great help to Trump, who is the President. Hillary is not the President, a fact which is not fair compensation for the dangers Trump is putting us in. Also I think the influence that the right wing government of Israel and certain billionaires are having on our government is despicable. I think that's a big reason why Trump is planning to scuttle the Iran nuclear deal and why the oppression of Palestinians seems to be ramping up.

—

Beware the bullshit factories.

Submitted by lotlizard on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 2:02pm

Thanks for answering.

@Timmethy2.0
The Nation: Russiagate is more fiction than fact

Submitted by TheOtherMaven on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 8:40pm

Who owns the Washington Post? Jeff Bezos

@Timmethy2.0
Who took a lot of money from the CIA shortly before buying the Washington Post? Jeff Bezos.
Connect those dots.

—

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Submitted by Cassiodorus on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 4:10am

Omigod RUSHA!

@Timmethy2.0 In a billion-dollar Presidential campaign they spent a few bucks on Facebook! Panic now and avoid the rush!

—

The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.

Submitted by Craig234 on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 11:55am

@Cassiodorus Saying Russia trying

@Cassiodorus Saying Russia trying to get the candidate they want elected - and with the Podesta e-mails the hacked published a half hour after the 'Grab her by the P****' tape possibly having a pretty big effect on the election - is a mistake. There's plenty to criticize Hillary for, but it doesn't make Russia a non-issue and their efforts to get their claws into our president to change our policies in their favor. They're a corrupt and murderous regime we should not be accomplices with. We already have more than enough wrongdoing in the name of helping 'allies'.

Submitted by native on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 10:18pm

" A corrupt and murderous regime"...?

@Craig234
I remember similar calumnies being hurled at Saddam, at Gaddafi, at Assad, and at Iran generally... immediately prior to us attacking them. But as far as I can see, Russia poses no threat whatsoever to the USA. All the aggressive posturing is coming from America, not from Russia. And most of it is being media-driven.

—

native

Submitted by Ellen North on Mon, 10/09/2017 - 5:41pm

@Craig234

@Craig234 @Craig234

...but it doesn't make Russia a non-issue and their efforts to get their claws into our president to change our policies in their favor. ...

By which you mean the efforts of Putin toward diplomacy and normal relations with the USA, rather than the US PTB threatening to invade/attack/obliterate, and attempting to starve out, via 'sanctions', the citizens of yet another sovereign country for further enrichment and empowerment of The Right People And Corporations?

I'll admit that the bloodthirsty, fossil-fuel-income-dependent Putin devil did cut back on military spending in order to insure that his people got their pensions, this being guaranteed to enrage The fossil-fuel-controlling US PTB already intent on global domination...

The corruption, croneyism and authoritarianism claimed of Putin would be acceptable to the corrupt, croneyist and fascist US PTB, if it was all directed to benefit The Right US Business Interest People only, but improvements in living standards for the overall Russian people since he took over - horrendous!

Why can't there be international competitions around the globe to see which country can produce the happiest and least polluted public and environment, with the safest food and other product supply, and the most humane treatment of each other and animals generally, instead of this deadly farce of a race to the bottom?

Oh, right. Pathological .01% greed and control-freakery. Much better than Putin's treatment of his people, his actual foreign aid to the starved-by-US-PTB-decree citizens and his non-plan of global domination.

Edited due to my cleverly writing one word twice-running when I (duh) wanted another the 2nd time. Sigh...

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Craig234 on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 11:50am

@Timmethy2.0 Thanks Timmethy - the

@Timmethy2.0 Thanks Timmethy - the Mercers are an important and quite evil family the country should learn a lot more about and they need to be opposed.

Submitted by Timmethy2.0 on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 12:37pm

I know the power of databases and algorithms

@Craig234
I worked with big biology databases for a website. The bigger the database the more they can be used for manipulation and power. It's something that a lot of people, not including the Mercers, don't appreciate enough.

—

Beware the bullshit factories.

Submitted by edg on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 12:45pm

Of course it's real.

@Timmethy2.0

So is US interference in Russia's elections. Pretty much every country on Earth interferes with every other country's elections, politics and policy. It's doubtful that Russia against the US is any worse than the US against Russia. We run ads on social media sites in Russia. We penetrate their computers and networks. We eavesdrop on their electronic communications. It's Spy vs. Spy, just like in Mad Magazine.

But it's silly to think that someone or some group in Russia spending $100 thousand on Facebook ads threw the election. American politicians and their supporters spent $275 MILLION on social media ads during the 2016 election. Russia's Facebook spending was equivalent to spitting in the ocean, and about what the US spends on Voice of America every 4 hours.

Submitted by Timmethy2.0 on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 12:50pm

I agree

@edg

I don't think the indictments will be about Facebook posts.

—

Beware the bullshit factories.

Submitted by Ellen North on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 3:59pm

@Timmethy2.0

@Timmethy2.0

But if Russian criminal/corporate malfeasance automatically equates with Russian governmental malfeasance, doesn't that apply to US corporate malfeasance also equating to US governmental malfeasance?

And therefore mean that the Supreme Court will be forced to admit that Big Money and corporate interest interference in elections/politics and policy are indeed fostering corruption and that not only is such as Citizen's United a very bad idea that must be struck down, but that public financing and a Fair Vote system must be implemented in order to bring democracy, at long last, to America?

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by gulfgal98 on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 7:06pm

Oh Jeremy Corbyn!

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4_Yrwb4rh8]

His election may be exactly the linchpin for change in other countries. At least this naive and optimistic person can hope.

—

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Submitted by Creosote. on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 9:00am

Links -- to the Guardian from September

@gulfgal98

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/21/jeremy-corbyn-labour-is...
and
The NYT from last Thursday: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/theresa-may-jeremy-corbyn.html

I stand with freedom of honest caring speech and take a knee too.

Submitted by Raggedy Ann on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 8:02pm

Such good news!

Change will come - in spite of tptb. Maybe. Corbin will be a good test. Will his words turn into actions? We thought Obama's would. I'm in his corner unless he behaves in a way to make me reevaluate that position.

—

"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11

Submitted by karl pearson on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 8:17pm

@Raggedy Ann Corbyn & Bernie Sanders

@Raggedy Ann I think Corbyn is more like Bernie Sanders.

Submitted by Raggedy Ann on Sat, 10/07/2017 - 9:10pm

So do I.

@karl pearson

—

"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11

Submitted by Cassiodorus on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 5:12am

I sure hope not.

@karl pearson I would rather Bernie Sanders be more like Jeremy Corbyn.

—

The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.

Submitted by irishking on Sun, 10/08/2017 - 6:14am