Jane Sanders will advise Bernie Sanders when he runs in 2020
Submitted by GreyWolf on Thu, 12/14/2017 - 10:36pm
Short video of Richard D. Wolff beginning a talk called "Global Capitalism What The Tax Reform Means To Us All [December 2017]" (from https://youtu.be/vE_qeBwvHwc), but first he announces that Jane Sanders will be a speaker at the Left Forum, June 1 - 3, and will be advising Bernie Sanders in his next presidential campaign.
Comments
I wonder why this statement hasn't received more play? s/
The public won't hear about Bernie's next presidential campaign, if the MSM is still around, until 2021.
folks elsewhere wonder if Wolff was supposed to say that ...
I suspect that Jane being the keynote speaker, she was going to be the one to "announce"
I think his run has been known for a while
Here's an article from last May:
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/16/bernie-sanders-democrats-2020-...
So I don't think Prof. Wolff said anything folks don't know. I just wish Bernie would run 3rd party. He can't seem to learn that the democraps are not his friends and don't buy into his brand of socialism light.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
"appears to be running"
Everybody suspected, and now I've heard others are commenting, "I'll wait till I hear something official," and that's why I was thinking Jane as keynote speaker at the Left Forum would be where she says the "official" "announcement"
EDIT: "Signs Revolution Happening Inside Democratic Party w/Nomiki Konst"
[video:https://youtu.be/mnocpFWMvdM]
it certainly provides more conformation
May be we should write Jane and encourage a 3rd party run? She seems to have no love loss for the democraps.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
He should take his cue from Carina
Who just officially launched her campaign for mayor of Burlington, who is running as an independent, and who earned the Burlington Progressive Party's endorsement.
While I'm officially boycotting national elections beginning in 2018, I do still intend to vote locally. I'll be watching Carina closely; haven't decided yet if I'll vote for her. Another independent candidate, Infinite Culcleasure, is also intriguing.
Happy to have alternatives to Weinberger. So done with him.
Strategically ...
I don't care for the D's & R's either, but the way the chessboard is set up, if Bernie ran as an independent that would guarantee
-- two competitors, rather than one, and
-- twice as much work just to get on the ballots in half the states
So I can see why trying to fix-up the old D clunker, rather than buying a new car, would be more efficient (concerning time & money).
We have already run out of time
#ClimateChange, as Bill McKibben wrote in the Rolling Stone recently
Sanders is the only national leader still working on this.
Heh. Jane Sanders went on honeymoon to Russia! That honeymoon is mentioned by this strange robot video propaganda trying to slam Sanders over recent criticism DOD under Trump in late November for backing away from the science and failing to plan for climate change security threats. Listen if you dare ! Strange...
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
that's hilarious!
It should just add "I am not a bot" to push it over-the-top
It really is. Hope JtC sees this for a laugh!!!!!
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
Whoa!!
W.T. holy F. was that? Pidgin bot that only another bot would understand?
.THE.TouchedTube.moron.programmer
Shit, man, dat paralyzed mah brain.
Don’t want you to get too jaded now, do we? :)
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
Mine as well.
I gave up after 45 seconds.
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.
Don’t blame you. But you missed the strangest bits toward the
end where the bot begins to read the periods etc.
Noticed on Twitter that wingnuts are using this position of Sanders to attack him by saying he is touting Climate Change over military readiness and the trooopz, which is of course a lie.
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
That would be true
in 2016. Less true today. Not that it Still isn't easier to fix the old clunker than buy a new car. But that "we" have Way more numbers, and more support, today than we had two years ago. Can it be two years already?! So, I don't think it would be all that difficult to gather signatures in however many states are needed. People are tired of losing, will work to win.
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.
Jeebus, is she married?
Thank the election gods that two or 3 delegates from the Bernie wing of the party attended this committee and gave them hell, not the least among them Nomiki!
Just goes to show that if progressives stand up like they actually have a backbone, and bark at these bastids like they need to be barked at, the Bernie wing CAN move this party to the Left. "We have the numbers," she said, "and they're listening."
Who knows, maybe they're as tired of losing as we are.
But, like Jimmy, I wish Bernie would run as an Independent, 'cuz I think it's the Only way he wins. He's dreaming if he thinks he can win the Dem primary. The party ain't moving THAT far to the Left. Still, I get a warm fuzzy knowing there ARE Berniecrats taking it to the DNC. This beatdown NEVER would have happened had Hillary won - and we all knew that. Nomiki & Co. may have not only saved the party, but quite possibly the planet. God bless 'em! This is a Joe Biden BFD.
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.
The system isn't set up for 3rd parties
it hasn't been since the League of Women Voters stopped running the debates. This was a huge turning point for which candidates could be admitted to the debates and more importantly, how the debate formats would be structured. In the past the debates would allow candidates to have the time to fully describe what their platforms were and when asked a question they would have time to answer in in detail, not the 1 minute time frame and the 30 second followup. IMO, this is a feature, not a bug. Which candidate wants their opponent to get the time to debunk the mealy mouthed response the other one gave?
Remember the good old days when we saw the 3rd party candidate on stage with the Democrat and Republican ones? Now if we want to hear from the the 3rd party candidates we can watch the on the internets. This was why Bernie ran and needs to run as a democrat. But neeever forget that Bernie isn't a democrat ad nauseum....
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Maybe. Heh. The good old days, ha, like when Ross Perot ran?
I have a relative with a degree and a managerial tech job who leans left but voted for Perot for his populist talk during the debates.
Watching his ‘that sucking sound jobs going to Mexico’ he was absolutely correct. Clinton fcked us royally.
https://youtu.be/Rkgx1C_S6ls
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
and then some.
I'm not sure Perot would have been any better than Rmoney or tRump but, as a one-termer, almost had to be better than Bubba.
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.
Sd, have you seen this?
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-ross-perot-myth/amp/?__twitter_...
“OCT. 6, 2016 AT 11:06 AM
The Ross Perot Myth
Deep voodoo, chicken feathers and the 1992 election.
By FiveThirtyEight
Filed under 2016 Election
George H.W. Bush only lost his re-election bid in 1992 because a peculiar independent candidate from Texas, Ross Perot, drew more voters away from Bush than from Democratic candidate Bill Clinton. It’s one of the most enduring myths in U.S. presidential election history. Perot ran a quirky “outsider” campaign that in many ways presaged the Donald Trump phenomenon of 2016. It all amounted to one of the most successful third-party bids in U.S. history; Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote. But, no, Perot did not cost Bush the election, as “The Perot Myth” — a film from FiveThirtyEight and ESPN Films, directed by John Watkin and Eamon Harrington — makes clear.”
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
The fundamental epistemological weakness of statisticians
is that they are oblivious to the mathematics of dynamical systems, and Nate Silver has always been a freaking poster child for this broken way of understanding the world.
No coherent and defensible analysis can ever conclude that Perot did or did not cost either Bush the election, anymore than any such analysis can conclude that Nader did or did not cost Gore the election, because the analyses all rely on statistical snapshots taken of an electorate after a campaign in which Perot/Nader had participated. There are not data available for the counterfactual.
Nate Silver's worldview is, whether he would ever admit it or not, that the politics is not dynamic, in the sense that human action cannot change what is going to be. It's kind of important for Nate Silver that politics function that way, because Nate Silver's statistical approaches do not accommodate dynamics. Such approaches do exist -- Hidden Markov Models, for example -- and they probably underpin some of Robert Mercer's wealth, but Silver doesn't use them in any context that matters.
Thus, Silver comically believes that he can ask somebody walking out of the polls on in November 1992, "If Perot had not been in the race, who would you have voted for," and get an accurate response. This is worse than stupid, this is obtuse. Perot's presence in the campaign changed the nature of the debate, changed the level of interest, changed the media coverage of the other 2 candidates, changed the way the other 2 candidates responded to each other and to the media, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Anybody who stands atop a pile of statistical analyses and pronounces a conclusion about what would or would not have been the result of the 1992 election had Perot not run is a charlatan and a fraud. Period.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Sd, have you seen this?
“OCT. 6, 2016 AT 11:06 AM
The Ross Perot Myth
Deep voodoo, chicken feathers and the 1992 election.
By FiveThirtyEight
Filed under 2016 Election
George H.W. Bush only lost his re-election bid in 1992 because a peculiar independent candidate from Texas, Ross Perot, drew more voters away from Bush than from Democratic candidate Bill Clinton. It’s one of the most enduring myths in U.S. presidential election history. Perot ran a quirky “outsider” campaign that in many ways presaged the Donald Trump phenomenon of 2016. It all amounted to one of the most successful third-party bids in U.S. history; Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote. But, no, Perot did not cost Bush the election, as “The Perot Myth” — a film from FiveThirtyEight and ESPN Films, directed by John Watkin and Eamon Harrington — makes clear.”
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
Nor I.
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
Ah, but the Founders
didn't set it up for two parties. Only the Oligarchs wanted two parties. Or one.
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.
Whatever. The RepigDemocrats will cheat him again.
And we'll either have a Corporate Centrist Cocksucker Democrat or Trump. What's the difference?
It's too bad we don't have someone with the balls that FDR had.
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.
@The Aspie Corner
Didn't FDR have PTB to deal with who were sufficiently responsive to reality to listen to basic survival sense and decide to keep the bulk of what amassed wealth and power they already had by keeping the American population and economy alive - and in a non-surveillance society where the US Constitution wasn't publicly regarded as being merely 'a piece of paper' having no relevance to those declaring themselves 'above the law' by those infiltrating an entirely corrupted government which had long and obviously been acting against the public interest?
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.