The Fire Next Time
That's the title of a righteous rant by Gaius Publius posted over at Smirking Chimp. After detailing how the fascist FISA surveillance bill would not have passed without 65 Blue Dog votes Gaius Publius points this out:
If Democrats Want the Support of Millennials, They Should Cut Ties with the Fossil Fuel Industry
. . .
If Democratic candidates choose to let Big Oil ride the Blue Wave this year, the prospects for action at the scale we need are grim. partnering with these oil and gas executives would not only be disastrous for our society’s ability to stop climate change, it would also be deadly for millennial voter turnout.
Then he quotes a pledge from Caitlin Johnstone:
I Promise To Sabotage The 2020 Campaign Of Any Establishment Democrat
If the Democratic party tries to run a pro-establishment presidential candidate in 2020, I, Caitlin Johnstone, promise unequivocally and unconditionally that I will do every single thing in my power to sabotage their candidacy and make them lose the election. ... I don’t care if it’s a transgender Muslim eskimo with a Senate seat and their own talk show — I will do my very best to ruin them, and I will do my very best to recruit others like me to help....
[I]f the Democratic party doesn’t run a very solid anti-war, pro-environment, pro-economic justice candidate in the next presidential election, there is at least one very loud voice out here who will relentlessly dedicate all available resources to making sure that it hurts.
No need to add the details to this question. Everybody here already knows:
Is the Democratic Leaders' "Resistance" Entirely Cynical?
And now The Fire Next Time:
The Fire Next Time
We may be headed for a national crackup of epic proportions thanks to current Democratic leadership. The next electoral opportunity for the failed electoral revolt of 2016 to succeed is the congressional election of 2018, yet Democratic leaders seem determined to turn one more wave opportunity into another squeaker, just as they did in 2016.
One solution that The Duopoly has blocked:
In fact, many of these voters are solidly in the impossible-to-achieve we-want-a-third-party camp. Both mainstream parties, of course, have solidly closed that door.
The ultimatum America faces:
Unless current progressives in Congress stage an actual coup, replacing those leaders with their own, we're almost certain to see a series of 2016 reruns. Until enough of the nation loses patience, of course, and stages a real revolt — a situation no one will enjoy.
In 2016, Democratic leaders' hubris guaranteed a squeaker. So too it will in 2018, and barring the coup imagined above, in 2020 as well. For independent voters who are not tribally loyal to Team Blue, it's just that hard to like them.
Will I be proved wrong? Will the Democrats field so many unpalatable mainstreamers that no one will want them? We'll know in just a few months, and 2020 is just around the corner.
Check it out:
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/gaius-publius/77257/the-fire-next-time
Comments
Feel the Bern next time
Thanks for that link, long time no smirk. Brings back-burner issues up front:
Bernie Sanders seeks to derail growing working class opposition to capitalism
rotate
Excellent shake down of Sanders.
I am stunned he is concerned about border security, but I seem to take longer to give up on earnest-sounding politicians than I should.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Sanders in support of border hysteria
I don't believe he really is, if that's any comfort.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
How many folks on here actually worked on
Bernie's campaign? Some of the opinions are baloney. Bernie is pro-tRump, and anti-DACA, and anti-immigrant? Really? Bernie is a life-long American Socialist and a devoted grandfather. He is very afraid that this country is going to explode. It will be like 1789 France, only much, much worse! He has a lot of company like me. The young folks sure hear him. Rec'd!!
Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.
At this point, he's a puppet.
Bernie has been saying a lot of things since June 2016 that do not go along with things he's said for the rest of his career.
Simplest explanation is that he does what he has to to keep his Senate seat.
It was easier when the PTB thought that he was a marginalized crank who represented no threat. Then, they didn't care what he said.
Now, it's different. Now they need to use him to control the center-left side of the debate.
However, there is a person beneath the puppetry, and, for what it's worth, I don't think the person enjoys the role he's currently playing or the things he's currently saying.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Bernie Sanders Is A Global Centrist
By any rational global standard Bernie is smack dab in the middle of the political spectrum. There is nothing "radical left" about any of his positions. For the most part Bernie is a little bit left of Obama and what were called Rockefeller Republicans back in the day:
https://newsone.com/2078884/cornel-west-obama-blackface/
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
Left, Right, Center
There are simply the clothes Republicans and Democrats don while they are trying to attract votes. Once in office "comity" and the service of our capitalist economy is is revealed as their true work. Going along to get along. Even Bernie.
The US does not have a real Left. Our political spectrum is pretty fucking monochromatic when you get right down to it. Purple. Absent a popular uprising and/or a viable new party or two in the mix I see nothing but more of the same, right to the bitter end.
Caitlin Johnstone's idea of sabotaging establishment Dems sounds like a satisfying ploy to express my utter frustration with our current state of affairs, though I doubt much will come of it.
“The story around the world gives a silent testimony:
— The Beresovka mammoth, frozen in mud, with buttercups in his mouth…..”
The Adam and Eve Story, Chan Thomas 1963
The same voters that
didn't vote for
Hillary in '16 aren't voting
for the corporate whore in 2020 neither.
Add a bunch of Millenials to that and Johnstone has got something cooking.
A corporate DNC Dem will not win in 2020.
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.
Gotta agree but - Homeland Security electoral control...
Doesn't that depend more upon what TPTB decide and whether the voters get a vote?
What's needed, I suspect, is a nation-wide strategic vote against all corporatists and the opportunity for internet organizing for that sort of thing is likely to go down the 'toobz', so to speak, as landslide voting for Progs and only Progs might be too difficult to plausibly cheat The People out of...
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.
Centrist Bernie
Think LBJ. Or maybe even a skosh to the right of LBJ. Correct-to-conservative domestically, full-blown imperialist in foreign policy.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I often think
that it's simply that he can't take on the bankers, the oil barons, and the MIC all at once. That's the price of remaining part of the system--though, of course, if you remain part of the system, you will eventually find you can't oppose any of those groups.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
left of center
His support of the New Deal and the Great Society is what makes people think he is left. Of course, in this country, supporting those things is considered equivalent to being a Leninist.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
wah.
If not Bernie, who?
Exactly.
As Johnstone herself says, a corporate Dem can't win
any more than Hillary did.
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.
"If not Bernie, who?"
I can't believe you're asking me that, or maybe it was meant for someone else. Nobody would be my choice, I am ready to build the new politics, for the people, not one more stinking millionaire in that long line of D-Value for-profit career seekers. NOPE The DNC is was and always will be a private corporation that pays its employees large amounts of money to clamp down the working class. good luck
Nobody 2018
flush the vote
picket
theour revolutionI highly recommend sitting through the whole two hours of this vid:
"Does Media Lie?" Bernie Sanders Grills Journalists along with Jim Jeffords, Brian Burns (1985)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icHiBruPkBY
it was excruciating for me, sitting through the entire retelling of "The Emperor Has No Clothes", but I came away with a deeper understanding about Bernie and where he learned his manipulation skills. He does have the best words, the Ds have helped him stay in power in Vermont all these years. In return he is a millionaire book touring revolutionary, waiting for the millennial demographic to catch up and start eating a new shit sandwich. yuck
yin yang
You into pure anarchy? Won't work.
Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.
Granny in the ditch is not working right now
but no one stops giving that the old college try: Winter weather deaths climb to 15 as South cleans up snow
Argh! I'm sorry this is happening, incremental change via electoral politics is totally inadequate, as it was before Sanders ran in 2016 to "start a conversation". Blah blah blah keep going, don't mind me trying to stretch the discussion to include every single person, even the olds of which I am rapidly becoming one of. sh sh sh
IMAGINE an army of heaters and homes being delivered a la Occupy Sandy. US military has one of the most efficient equipment moving mobile feeding machines to every exist, too bad it's mostly outsourced to private contracts for killing, rather than good government jobs for peace. Et tu bernie? I'd support re-occupying infrastructure if there was a politician in support, but there isn't. "Get money out of politics, donate now." is not the way to go.
Sanders is stuck trying to provide stale solutions for modern problems. Instead of $27 for yet another election, why not distribute the money right now, before more people freeze to death. Wtf, a billion dollars every four years going toward wages or affordable housing, that is what's needed in most places. Not more and better politicians. NOPE That has been tried, the system is corrupt.
Social Anarchism, once I read the definition, doesn't sound so bad. It sounds like the company I'd like to keep back in the old days:
Even Lenin sounds better than what is now.
RT Alert!
Revolution: 100 years young. Lenin’s socialist vision in capitalist world
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4zWGCp01nk
enjoy
Social Anarchism mag/blog
It's too damn bad SA's essentially gone dark, with no new material or magazine issues since 2015.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
the trouble with this view
The trouble with this view, as you must surely know, is that when one doesn't vote, one is essentially voting anyway -- for whoever wins. This, by the way, is why third-party voting has an ethical foundation in this country. Better to cast any vote than to just vote for whoever wins.
Unless some method is found to make a voting boycott stick by leaving any sufficiently boycotted seat vacant, this problem will persist. As things are now, however, if a single vote is cast in any election and it is the only vote cast, that vote will determine who fills the office being elected. A boycott can only work if preserving the state of sede vacante (vacant seat) is an option of the voters, which it isn't.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
whoever wins what? Talking about diverting energy elsewhere
thanks, I used to think that way too, that not voting meant voting. I can't forget the broken California primary of '16, so now the election system will be run by DHS, and who is in charge of the DHS? I wish I had one magic answer to these problems, suggestions are all I can afford anymore.
Please say how you think a fair election can ever occur again, what are the steps people see to electoral "victory"? How long will it take,
how many deaths,how much money? Will it change the current system, or be consumed by it? I'd rather try some life saving maneuvers now after all the failures, maybe not. Tell me what you IMAGINE the future of voting looks like, what does winning look like?We vote on secret ballots, the counting is secret too, although sometimes partially observable by the citizenry. The voting and the counting software is a mess, I think. We don't own the machines, who knows how they operate? I know it will get worse, and so I think building decentralized alternative systems are the key to future happiness. This current one already seems dead to me, and I'm tired of it. I still love everybody, even Bernie, it's the rotten system that must collapse. It might if enough people and money start doing other productive things, for a change.
not voting = voting for the "winner"
The concept of not voting meaning voting for the winner is basic math -- and deliberately perpetuated by the dupoply as a major means of perpetuating its existence.
Our question is: how do we dismantle that, so our elections become the fair contests as advertised -- for the first time ever! Or, as you put it:
I alluded to it -- and it is in fundamental agreement with your basic concept, too.
Devise elections so that "We The People" can actually refuse to fill any office. A few election victories for "None Of The Above", and we'd start having more real candidates and fewer 1%er ass kissers running, n'est-ce pas?
Of course, allowing "None Of The Above", as it is clearly meant here, to be a real election choice, would screw up the dupoply's arrangements (and those of the duopoly's paymasters) something fierce, so we're going to have to fight like hell to make it so......
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
We have to make our so called democracy a
mockery in front of the entire planet. Use the illusions against the ruling class.
Nope.
That is NOT the case. I'm surprised you think it is.
Particularly in this world so rife with fraud.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
not the case
What is not the case? That not voting is, in effect, voting for whoever wins?
That is the case. It is a direct consequence of American-style "winner-take-all" elections. As I pointed out in the comment you replied to, under typical American election rules, even if only one vote is cast in the entire election, that vote would determine who would fill the office. Likewise, if many fraudulent votes are cast and not detected in a timely manner, they will affect who receives the office.
Because there is no option whereunder the electorate can refuse to fill the office at all, these situations all apply. And in most American elections, the electorate only gets one shot at filling the office, too. In some jurisdictions, exceptions exist; but under a typical American first-past-the-post winner-take-all election, that is how it works.
And the monopoly duopoly wants it just that way.
A bloodless popular rebellion would be easy to sustain if We The People could actually refuse to fill offices at all. Imagine our current Constitutional system of government when no President qualified for election! Our government would be bending over backwards to make The People happy. But since the filling of the Presidency is guaranteed no matter how few people vote, all the fraudsters have to do is figure out how to corrupt the one "elected".
And it's quite apparent that the fraudsters have that down pat.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
voting for whomever wins
No, it isn't the case. Saying "not voting is voting for whomever wins" takes the act of voting, or not voting, and turns it from an expression of individual will into some kind of obscene spoil for whoever the winner happens to be, simply because the non-voter hasn't been able to stop the winner. But neither have all those who voted for losers been able to stop the winner. Did they, too, vote for whomever wins?
This idea is a monopolistic one, designed to eliminate all possibilities from view except voting for one of the big two candidates left standing at the end, and making the vote pointless except in relation to an ultimate win. It's the same place that "I like Bernie, but he can't win (so there's no point in voting for him) came from, and the same place that "if you vote third-party, you're really voting for Trump" came from. Like most monopolistic ideas, it reinforces entrenched power, in that everything is judged in terms of how it accrues to a victory of the already-powerful, or fails to prevent them from accruing yet more power. It changes the very meaning of what a vote is: no longer a measure of individual will and sacred civic duty, an individual vote only has significance now in its ability to produce a win; if it can't produce a win, then it is a spoil of whoever was able to produce a win. This is a deformation of the original notion of the franchise, in which the citizen is supposed to consider seriously what he or she believes is right, inform himself or herself, listen to all debates, and then make the decision based on what he or she believes is right--not on who is powerful and likely to win.
Now the idea is that, if you choose not to vote, because there is nothing on offer worth voting for, OR if you vote for someone other than a major party candidate, you are not a citizen expressing your wishes--or your disgust--but instead are a spoil of those far more powerful than you.
I reject that notion. I'm surprised you support it.
It's a way of intellectually creating a world in which there are literally no options other than voting for one of those two, regardless of what you do. It's a way of making refusal impossible. The idea is worth rejecting on that ground alone. Monopolistic ideas should be, as the late, great Ursula Le Guin once said, stood in the corner and spanked. This one, in particular, needs to be sent to bed without its supper.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Wait. Wut?
There are "65 Blue Dog votes". I thought they were wiped out decades ago in the great Democratic party Moderate purges? Harken back to the days of yore when the South was lost...
From the Wiki
The Luminaries
Where be these other 47 Blue Dogs?
Prof: Nancy! I’m going to Greece!
Nancy: And swim the English Channel?
Prof: No. No. To ancient Greece where burning Sapho stood beside the wine dark sea. Wa de do da! Nancy, I’ve invented a time machine!
Firesign Theater
Stop the War!
Nit picker! Me too, so
I went back to the smirk for the math detail. But before that, eww! what you linked is gross. Thanks.
Add "new dems and their fellow travelers" too. GIGO, garbage in, garbage out. Can I say rotate again? lol
revolve
edited: can't even quote the quote right.
Technical Correction
From the linked story:
(emphasis added)
Make that 65 Blue Dogs, New Dems and fellow travelers or simply all of the garbage dems or the Republican Wing of the Democratic Party.
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
Down With Tyranny Link
This article at Gaius Publius' home page has a couple of detailed lists of treacherous Dems:
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2018/01/most-new-dems-voted-for-repu...
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
Regarding the 2020 pledge,
Haim Saban and the other oligarchs won't approve of this. They bought and paid for the Dem. party, so it belongs to them, and is theirs to do with as they see fit, no?
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
No. n/t
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.
So exactly who does Johnstone think the democratic party
could possibly run in the 2020 election that would meet her requirements? And in what world does she think the democratic party is going to become antiwar and anti-Wall Street? The inference to her pledge is that she would support the democratic party if "they", assuming it's the DNC, ran a candidate to her liking.
Considering her overall railing against the establishment, her continued caveats to the establishment democratic party are a little peculiar.
It is merely better than nothing. Big Al.
So, I despise the Democratic party, and the Republican party, and elections are some sort of pro forma and meaningless theater, and then comes Chelsea Manning, running as a Democrat.
When I watched Daniel Ellsberg's tribute to her, I just cried my heart out.
I may hate this whole election charade, but Manning is everything I think a good citizen and good human should be.
Big Al, I want her on the world's stage.
I intend to send her campaign whatever I can spare.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
The idea is if
Widespread rejection of the usual takes hold and is communicated, then other options might open up. Journey, 1000 miles, first step.
Orwell: Where's the omelette?
In theory,
however all it does is play into their hands keeping the focus on the duopoly as a means of change. Ain't gonna happen. Clinton, Obama, Sanders, the democratic party is not going to be the vessel for a savior president. And my position is the continued capitulation to the major political parties only prolongs the ruling class power. Johnston I've found is somewhat hypocritical in her back and forth against the oligarchy and plutocracy by continuing to believe the democratic party can be reformed by electing better politicians.
Johnstone essentially called
them out, saying the
only way for a Dem win is thru
her. "Them" of course being the DNC wing
of the party.
And she's right. "They" can't win without us, as proved in 2016, so she's not exactly saying anything that ain't true. And, if the DNC still thinks their way - the Turd Way - will win, well... they obviously believe in fairy tales and Russian tampering.
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.
But the DNC has told us that they are implementing
Thee most progressive platform evah! Look at all the nice shiny words they put in their platform. This was just before they kicked out anyone who voted for Bernie that is.
I'm not surprised by the number of democrats who voted for the FISA bill. They voted for every other time it's come up including the first time when they voted to make spying on us legal. Pelosi has voted with the republicans whenever they needed her to and right after the Shill lost the election she said that she doesn't think that they needed to change anything. Including impeachment. She's just stringing her fans along with the hope that she will impeach Trump because of his relationship with Putin.
BTW, Twittler is debating whether to tell people that they were exposed to Russian propaganda during the election. Just like Facebook did... except most of the ads that were posted were done so after the election was over. How does that work? Inquiring minds and all.
Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.
Soviet scientists
(and you don't really think the Commies really gave up control, do you?) have perfected their psychic warfare abilities to where time is irrelevant. That's why we should work a first strike on them.
Orwell: Where's the omelette?
The DNC has a sad because Bernie won't give them his email list
Perez wants Bernie to turn over his donor's email list, but Weaver is telling him that he has a long way to go to change their directions. Especially after they kicked out the Berniers from the DNC.
DNC overhaul struggles as Sanders-Clinton rivalries persist
I don't know if Perez understands how angry people are for what the DNC and Hillary's campaign did during the last primary. But if he can't wrap his mind around the betrayal people feel then he's the wrong person for the job. Who would have been a better pick? Ellison. Why wasn't he picked? Because the DNC and the democrats would rather lose to Trump then let a progressive win. Their recent actions show that they have no intention of changing their policies.
The comments on the article are pretty much as you'd expect. The Shillbots are still saying that Bernie isn't a democrat, that Jane stole money from the college and every other accusation they had during the primaries.
There are times I wish I could eat popcorn.
ETA: and the Russians interfered with the election of course. Can't leave that out of any discussion..
Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.
You have my sympathy in being unable to eat popcorn
Popcorn drenched in schadenfreude might be the only consoling factor involved... not that anyone aware could hope to see the current CorpoDems win so much as a smile from the victimized public...
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.
Thing is,
if the Democrats promised, oh, say, that they'll eat breakfast almost everyday, what percentage of the voters would believe them?
Orwell: Where's the omelette?
breakfast
The question here is just
whatwho the Democrats would eat for breakfast....."US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
ROFHystericallyLMAO
I believe that the CorpoDems are on the same diet as are the CorpPublicans - that of the non-billionaire-American worms on which they feed their paymasters in order to get some of their leavings.
Psychopaths don't see 'normals' as people or any other living creatures as 'real', just as animated machines with bizarre but manipulatable emotions, such mobile objects being either currently/potentially useful or not, and in the latter case, disposable.
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.