A Page of Its Own
When I first started watching this, I thought I would post it in tonight's EB to share. As Goodman's speech progressed, I realized that it deserved a page of its own.
This can and should serve as a measuring stick when sloughing through today's (today being a relative term) corporate media and even some of independent media's morass. It also shows how much more informed and understanding people can be when they stop to ask questions and learn rather than rushing to judgement and spewing remarks based on incorrect or misleading information or their own emotional reactions.
"It's dissent that will save us" --Amy Goodman
Edited to Add:
Anyone seeing the comments to this post would think the essay was about Amy Goodman or Bernie Sanders. It isn't. It was supposed to be about an excellent speech that goes into the motives and practices of main stream media and why we need an independent media.
There were some interesting tidbits along the way, and I learned some things that I either didn't know or had forgotten. Knowledge and reminders are good; ignoring the message because one does not like the messenger is not.
Comments
A dastardly piece of journalistic deception by Amy Goodman
By approx 4:08 she starts moralizing about a "media" responsibility to not promote war. This is all well and good. But tell me how these words coming from Ms. Goodman' whose shows I used to watch frequently, metamorphosed into an ardent HRC supporter and mouthed RussiaRussiaRussia herself, not with Maddow stridency, but with a calm measured tone, while spooning us our portions of crap.
Thus I stopped listening. I became re-interest in politics because of the policies enunciated by Bernie Sanders. When for what ever reason he supinely submitted to the Evil Queen's, I was disappointed--did not contest the fraud. Next, he cravenly not only endorsed the witch but started foaming at the mouth RussiaRussiaRussia--which pretense he still verbalizes.
Can we ignore for one minute WHO gave the speech and
focus on the message?
I, personally, have not walked in Bernie Sanders' shoes, so have no comment other than he honored a contract he signed to support the Democrat's nominee.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
What is the current Bernie message?
Bernie, to use a metaphor, had policies plain as a pancake: simple, straight-forward (flat) and easily understandable. That Bernie may still speak the same way as pre 2016 primary, but the fight is out of him. Supporting HRC at the convention was a reasonable political act of supporting the primary's "winner" are one thing--so, I have already forgiven him for his DNC convention speech. What I can't condone includes his mouthing Russiagate phantasies. More recently, his mealy-mouthed Twitter statement disapproving of the current Venezuela crisis (primarily manufactured first by Obama and now Trump (sorry, my URL for the tweet is not correct). This should be contrasted, and very sharply contrasted with Tulsi Gabbard's strong unequivocal tweet AGAINST ANY American interference in regime change wars.
Some people here are hung up on the fact that Tulsi is in the Council of Foreign Affairs. Does that make her a true believer in Neo-conism? No more than it makes her a Neo-con for belonging to an overwhelmingly Neo-con congress.
How do Gabbard's tweets
regarding climate crisis, Med4All, taxing the wealthy and breaking up the banks compare to Sanders'? I like Gabbard's talk regarding war/foreign agenda, but I really haven't seem much from her on other issues. I am hoping she is not a one-trick pony.
I don't think the fight has gone out of Sanders as he continues to push (often successfully in contrast to the same bills he introduced before his run) his agenda for the lower classes. However, people who are constantly abused (that is what the media and many of his compatriots do) must be terribly discouraging.
The thing that worries me is if Sanders runs and doesn't win the primary that he will have pushed the nominee to the left who if elected will most likely give us Obama 2.0.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
Thanks for the comment but...
The Dim nominee, no matter WHO, is going to lose to Trump unless one of two things happens:
1. The economy crashes
2. He starts a war.
I am betting that both
are going to happen, plus a couple of things we haven't thought of yet. The man has no control.
I recently asked if someone has noticed the number of massive layoffs that are currently happening. The new jobs that are being "created" are in the same vein of what happened in the Reagan years when good-paying jobs disappeared and low-paying jobs became what was being "created." Just how many hamburger flippers, janitors or baristas can this country support?
His base is about 30% of the voting public, and he has lost some of them lately. Seems to me that there area lot of people left after you account for the base.
I would suggest that we start looking to retake the Senate big time (with non-corporate Dems, of course) in 2020 just in case though.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
Breach of Contract
Is there a legal term for not honoring a contract if the party therein violates the terms of that contract'? As in the DNC's perpetration of fraud against Bernie, and by extension the American voters?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Most likely it was a separate agreement
from the joint funding contract that Sanders signed with the DNC. It is almost strange that so many people chose to turn on the victim of the DNC's fraud rather than the perpetrator. (Okay, I cannot resist: Maybe it was a Russian plot!!)
Most people probably do not remember the stink that was raised when Trump said he probably wouldn't honor the same type of agreement the Republican candidates made with the RNC. It was proof to many of just how despicable he was/is, yet turned around and blasted Sanders for honoring his agreement. Humans are not very consistent and rarely rational. = )
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
It's odd that you characterized
My question as turning on the victim.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
WindDancer, you might be correct
He could have been required to sign a nondisclosure contract to receive funding and other details which killed his campaign before it started.
But here's my sticking point. I still like Bernie, who until 2016, for 40 years has been a principled fighter. But I cannot respect him anymore as one likely to abide by those principles when pressured. Although he did actively (although futilely) campaign for HRC, he needn't have been quite as active-..Attendance for Bernie meeting after HRC stole the nomination was in the tens or low hundreds versus 30,000 before the convention.
Bernie is mealy-mouthed, as I have commented elsewhere, in his tepid condemnation of another deep state war (Venezuela) in the offing. One would get no sense that he is anti-neocon. I am not saying that he is a neocon but politically he is a fellow traveler.
We are talking about the guy
that wrote and pushed through the Yemen resolution, right? I am not saying he is perfect. There is a lot of room to grow. However, his domestic policies are basically sound. That's why I would like to see a Bernie/Tulsi ticket for 2020. There is no one person who can be 100% on all the myriad topics facing the country, but he could appoint people that would make up the difference in his weak areas.
I question just how actively he campaigned for HRC. After the convention he did campaign for some people running in Senate and House races as well as write a book and work on creating an organization for progressive ideas. He actively fund raised for others, but not for HRC. In fact, he refused to hand her campaign his donor list. I am sure throughout all this, he did say that she was preferable to Trump (which I don't agree with as I believe they are the same) but he didn't push her in a way that was meant to convince his supporters that she would in any way be good for the country.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
I'd be interested to hear your take
On his motivation for buying into the Russia hacked our elections propaganda.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
I have found very few statements by Sanders
regarding the whole Russia thing. There was the CNN interview and one other in Politico. While there be more that I have missed of his actual statements, the ones I have seen have not been damning.
Part of everyone's confusion is that there are three (at least) parts to this Russia story and they can be distinctly separate. Although, I do not believe that most people and certainly not the media are separating them.
One would be the online trolling. To me, that is a "who cares?" issue. If Russians weren't doing it, some obliging American would say the same things. Besides, the US does it all the time in other countries as well as in the country.
Another would be the hacking issue...whether or not they hacked into the DNC computers. There is a distinct difference between hacking the DNC computers and hacking the election, by the way.
Sanders stated in the CNN interview to a question that specifically addressed the Intel that he had been briefed on the hacking of the DNC by the Intel people and he believed their conclusions. Compare for a moment the reaction from everyone when Trump implied at the Helsinki (I think it was) meeting with Putin that he believed Putin over his Intel people. Sanders' response was pretty much was that hack was "unacceptable." If the Intel people had given him less convincing evidence, I think Sanders would have couched his response a bit differently.
Would you agree that the hack was unacceptable? Would you agree that the information regarding HRC damaged her campaign (not to the point that is why she lost...she did that all on her own) and consequently helped Trump? Do you think that Mueller indicted 13 Russian individuals and three entities on false premises?
The third leg of this monstrosity is the collusion issue. On that particular issue, Sanders has not made any conclusive statements. He just said that the Mueller investigation should run its course. I agree with that. Not with the expectation of finding collusion per se, but because the parameters that were set for the investigation includes seeking out corruption which Mueller is obviously finding plenty of.
If you have more statements that Sanders himself has made, I would be glad to see them.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
Hmmmm...I must've missed the forensic evidence
From DNC's computers that proved they were hacked.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
That could be because they were “wiped”,
or went missing altogether.
“ …and when we destroy nature, we diminish our capacity to sense the divine,and understand who God is, and what our own potential is and duties are as human beings.- RFK jr. 8/26/2024
Or it could be like Julian Assange said it was
Leaked by an insider, NOT hacked by Russians.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Is that all you got from my response to your question?
A quibble over word choices? Let's make it simple then. Hack = stolen, Leak = stolen, Stolen = "to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force" (Dictionary.com)
Your previous question asked me to get into Sanders' head. I responded by telling you what he has said because I am not a mind reader. Your comments (and others') have stated that Sanders' has belabored the story regarding possible Russian interference in 2016. I asked you to provide more than what I have found to prove your point.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
Considering the implications
Of each of those scenarios, I'd hardly characterize my clarification a "quibble" of word choice.
In fact when the Democrats first began making their evidence free claims of Russia "hacking" into the DNC's computers, members here at C99 had lengthy discussions over the differences between the risks involved of a DNC insider leaking the Podesta emails to Wikileaks, and the subterfuge the Democrats put out there of Russians hacking into the DNC computers.
Many of us here also discussed the possible links of the murder of Seth Rich and the identity of the DNC insider who leaked the documents to Assange, as well as the conveniently timed appropriation of our entire electoral process by the DHS after the claim of Russian "interference" was made by the Democrats.
I'm surprised you don't remember those lengthy "quibbles" many of us here made over that distinction and why it was relevant.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
So, can we assume that since Sanders believes
Russians hacked the DNC, you do as well?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
You can assume anything you like.
That doesn't make it true.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
?????
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Here's Bernie in his own words on Trump and Russia
That he is pushing this crap is very disappointing.
The only people who said that Russia hacked the DNC computers was CrowdStrike which is owned by a person who really doesn't like Vlad. The FBI never looked at them.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Thank you for the clip.
Now let us examine what Sanders said.
"The issue of whether or not Trump, or his associates, his campaign had colluded with Russia in the election is an issue of incredible consequences."
Sanders here does not make a conclusion that the collusion is a fact, but states IF it did happen, it would be important.
"I think the American people are a little bit astounded that when you have an authoritarian type guy like Putin who is moving Russia more and more away into an authoritarian society, why it is that President Trump has only positive things to say about this authoritarian figure?"
Still no statement from Sanders that he believes there is collusion or about Russia hacking the DNC. It happens to be a fact that Trump has said many good things not only about Putin but a number of authoritarian leaders. Those statements are a matter of record as shown in the next few clips.
"What hold does Russia or might Russia have over the president? The American people want to know that our president is representing the best interests of the American people, not Russian oligarchs or the Russian government."
If this clip had not been made in 2017, I would say this statement is the lead up to a run for the presidency; although, it could still be viewed in that context as the idea of Sanders running again was (and is) still a possibility.
Meanwhile, there is still no statement here that Sanders believes that there was collusion, nor anything about hacking of any kind. Is there a possibility that Russia has some kind of hold over Trump? Looking at that question in view of the many, many proven connections that Trump, his campaign and associates have had with Russia, it is a fair question. The answer could be as simple as Trump's regard for authoritarian figures being the hold or as simple as a continuation of his wanting to build a hotel in Moscow when his term is up.
Is it a fact that American people would prefer their leaders to work in their best interests?
This is far from being part of the Russia! Russia! Russia! mind set. Sanders asks questions. It is up to the viewers to find the answers. Asking questions is not the same as making conclusions.
Apart from the above, foreign relationships are not Sanders' strength...domestic policy is. However, as an elected official, he is often called on to address these issues. He usually does so in a manner that leaves doors open. I would be willing to bet, though, that he knows more about Russian politics and objectives than 99% of the rest of us do.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
Nice spin on this
He is insinuating that Russia does have something over Trump. And that Trump is putting Vlad ahead of us.
This is just one video of him saying something about Russia and Trump. He has said that Russia did interfere with the election. I'm not going to go looking for them so I can prove it to you.
Im sure that you can show where Mueller has proven that people on Trump's campaign have connections to people in Russia and that it helped sway the election? Just because he has indicated people doesn't mean that they are guilty. Flynn did speak to someone in Russia before trump became president, but it was on behalf of Israel the first time. The second time was to ask Russia to hold off on kicking our embassy staff out of the country after Obama did to Russia so that they might not have a bad start to their relationship right off the bat. Did Flynn lie? Probably not. From what I've read he just didn't remember verbatim what he said months ago but the FBI had him on tape.
Getting back to the topic of this essay. I like what Amy says about the job of the media and not just being the government's stenographers. But I find it hysterical of her when she has done exactly that by pushing the Russian propaganda on her viewers. And she hasn't been honest about our role in Syria. I don't know if she has been wrong on other issues because I stopped watching her after she started parroting Russia Russia Russia.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Similar to an ear worm when a song gets into your head
This is what happens when people spend too much time watching the kind of news the oligarchy finances.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
bing! Exactly! And exactly my
argument for two plus
years. Campaigned for HRC??
Sure, with a wink and a nod.
and... "we all know Hillary supports (free college)."
Of course we knew just the opposite, Bernie dog whistling his way thru those HRC campaign stops.
"... he did say that she was preferable to Trump... but he didn't push her in a way that was meant to convince his supporters that she would in any way be good for the country."
Exactly. He damned her with faint praise, and she bristled every time he opened his mouth, all the while Bernie sending her a big F.U. Yes, he may have made some mistakes after the Cali primary and Convention a few weeks later - and those mistakes cost him a few supporters. But honoring the obligation to "campaign for the nominee" wasn't one of them. Bernie fulfilled that obligation about as well as anyone could and still not give her a ringing endorsement.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
I have never understood why
people refused to see this. He probably would have endorsed the plague stronger than he did her.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
me, neither.
Some "concerns" about
Bernie's other "issues" after
the Cali Primary might be Legit, maybe,
but campaigning for Hillary isn't one of them.
I though he played the Convention about as well as he could have played it, again damning Hillary with faint praise during his Philly speech.
There was some stuff he might have played better, but the "sheep dogging" b.s. is just that. And as 2019 has proven, none of those post-Cali "mistakes" killed his 2020 chances. None.
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.
It would be interesting to compare
a Sanders's speech for HRC against one he has done for someone else.
For Hrc: Well, she's not Trump. Here have some toast and margerine.
For someone else: Here is a person, a fighter for the working person, who you can really put faith in. Someone who has proven her/himself time and time again. ETC. Here have cake and cookies and soda and bread and fish and ETC.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
Regarding whether or not he campaigned for FSC, haven't voted
for a Democrat, much less a Republican, since I was a so-called Deaniac
-- just for the record. So, I have absolutely no dog in this fight.
However, it's not entirely accurate that Sanders didn't campaign for FSC (aka HRC).
Please watch minutes 1:24-1:51 of Wolf's interview with Bernie (CNN).
Bernie's words, paraphrased, were,
Frankly, can't see why this particular point is such a bone of contention, since Bernie repeatedly vowed to support the Dem Party nominee from the very beginning of the 2016 Presidential cycle. As they say, "it is what it is."
Blue Onyx
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
I don't either
But it sure has some people in an uproar. The word "trust" comes up a lot as if keeping his word is somehow a betrayal.
Anyhow, what Wink and I were both saying is that yes, Sanders did campaign for HRC but he did't do it whole-heartedly. What he didn't want to see was Trump in the WH, and while I see his point, I do not see any difference between Trump and HRC, but he said he would do it and he stood by his word. I can respect that.
Yes, he was in 12 states, but he was also promoting candidates for other offices more so than HRC.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
Hi, WD13! Sorry, but I misspoke. I meant
to emphasize that it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that he campaigned for FSC. What I didn't mean to do, was to defend it.
But, as they say, "to each his own." After all, we're kindred spirits on other topics.
Blue Onyx
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
I didn't take what you said
as a defense, but as a statement of fact. Sorry, if my response made it seem otherwise.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
What WindDancer13 said.
"Anyhow, what Wink and I were both saying is that yes, Sanders did campaign for HRC but he did't do it whole-heartedly."
Exactly. Not only not whole heatedly, but he virtually stabbed her in the back. Not quite that harsh, but he most certainly did Not go out of his way to praise her, often instead "damning her with faint praise." That many on The Left criticize Bernie for "campaigning for Hillary" is total b.s. Yes, he made the campaign stops. As he pledged. But actually campaign for her?? Hardly.
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.
There is no way for me to separate the two
She is talking about how the media needs to get back to reporting the news separate from the government talking points after she herself has been involved in talking about the false Russian stuff and as Ed states the White Helmets. Even worse was that she had a Syrian warlord on her programs pushing his ideas of the war without even saying who he was or his actions.
I like what she is saying, but I find it hypocritical.
As some have stated they did listen to her message. I did. The whole thing. But I still find her hypocritical because she's calling the kettle black when she is the black pot.
There were problems with running a campaign of Joy while committing a genocide? Who could have guessed?
Harris is unburdened of speaking going forward.
Ummm, one person said they watched four minutes
of the video. No one else has stated that they have watched any part of it until you.
I cannot find anywhere in the postings to this essay where Ed comments on the White Helmets. Maybe you would like to point me to what I am missing?
Syrian warlord? Please provide references for that.
After doing a research of the Democracy Now website, there is one video of Amy Goodman interviewing Orlando von Einsiedel who directed the film The White Helmets, an Oscar-nominated film. Einsiedel has in the past directed Oscar-nominated documentaries, so it is pretty reasonable to interview him. Questions asked during that interview include the criticisms regarding the White Helmets. The DN piece was an interview about a film, not an endorsement.
All other mentions of the White Helmets by DN were simply in the purview of reporting news. The same can be said of the news Goodman and DN has reported about Russia. It is news, and they are reporting it without all the hype. I cannot find any evidence that she is of the Maddow and ilk regurgitation machine.
I wonder who we will get any kind of accurate information from when this purge of any and all kinds of reporting is done because we choose to not apply critical thinking to what we hear and just condemn the source and ignore the message. Isn't trying to destroy the people who show the most integrity in reporting walking right into the same propaganda trap that the US is fond of setting?
That is not to say that DN or Goodman always ask the right questions, but they do ask more questions and cover more sides of issues than do main stream media outlets...questions along with the responses that are meant for viewers to think about and determine for themselves what the answers are after doing all the necessary research. DN only provides a springboard, just as does any of the other independent media sources.
I wonder why Greenwald, Chomsky, Hedges etc continue to associate with a program and interviewer who some here imply or outright state is a propagandist.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
It's Consistency That Really Matters
I, unfortunately, have to agree with Alligator Ed. For people like Goodman and Bernie, it takes a certain lack of integrity or at least lack of self awareness in a person to be for a set of policies and principles for so long, and then effectively turn around 180 and start supporting what you formerly were against.
The trust evaporates. How can I (or anyone) be sure what you really support? It might have been politically expedient. It might have made sense at some levels, but essentially by doing that, you are working against yourself and the way you want the world to change.
And that's not to say you cannot change or evolve. But, if you're in the public sphere, you have to explain that change or evolution--and it needs to be genuine and convincing. Gabbard has done that. At one time against the equality of LGBTQ+ people, but then through life experience she says she discovered she had been wrong. Evidenced by her almost flawless support of legislation for LGBTQ+ rights since that realization. Trust kept.
Bernie, campaining against Clinton for so long--pretty vociferously at times--suddenly supports her after the primaries with almost no detailed explanation. No voice against the corrupt primary practices (therefore, to my mind, he endorses those practices). Trust called into question. What does he really believe? Was he a stooge? Did he play us? (Not that I really think he did--but thoughts like that did enter my mind from time to time.)
Once you lose that trust, it is hard to get back. I would not be disappointed with a Bernie presidency. I would vote for him. But, I'd vote for Gabbard over him in a heartbeat, because she has kept my trust and I'm more certain she means to stick by her policy proposals. Yes, that might change in the future. But, for now it is true.
Goodman, I have listened to a couple of times since the 2016 election. But, I'm always very careful to analyze what she is saying, because I no longer trust her to be consistent with her support of policies.
What I am hearing is a demand for perfection
or people must do things the way I think I would do them rather than a matter of trust. If someone who is really trusted does something one does not like, does that person really have to spell out their reasons? Is that really trust?
Sanders is not to be trusted any more:
Because he honored a contract he signed to support the nominee;
Because he said that HRC would be better than Trump (something I don't really agree with as I think they are the same);
Because he didn't fight against a system that cheated him and could and would have silenced him.
That is a requirement for perfection, not trust.
...
I am thinking that I should have just recorded the speech with no identification, just maybe a picture of a pretty landscape so people would have listed to the MESSAGE.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
No, it has nothing to do with "perfection"
Sanders cannot be trusted because the enemy can control him and admitted as such in one of the Podesta emails where they said they had "leverage" over him.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
So becasue THEY said they had leverage over him,
Sanders is the one who cannot be trusted.
That email had to do with the HRC campaign feeling that Sanders had violated their non-aggression pact. Does that really mean that Sanders was brought to heel? Does that mean he quit working for the people?
Corporate Democrats cried because he did not "enthusiastically" endorse her, rather he just endorsed her as an alternative to Trump, and many Sanders' supporters cried that he endorsed her at all without taking into consideration what his choices were (Hint: he had none).
Sanders, in the meantime, went on to campaign for the same things he has always campaigned for along with encouraging people to get involved which they have done as we can see the numbers of new people in the political arena now who are interested in actually serving the people they represent (not enough yet, but it does take time to come back from the brink of complete corporate ownership).
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
Interpret what you will
Of the phrase where do you want me to stick the knife in when referring to how they were to "Leverage" Sanders.
For me, the connection seems self explanatory. They had the means and the desire to control him.
My reasons for not trusting my enemy, and those they control, has nothing to do with my personal feelings for Sanders, or Sanders as a politician, per se. In fact, I think the more relevant question should be why would I trust anyone who is being controlled by my enemy?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Interesting choice, but it does not make your point.
The email you reference is in response to one that stated:
Yeah, that sounds like Sanders is in their camp and that they have some kind of "leverage" with him. That particular email was written a full nine months after the "leverage" comment and obviously shows that they do not control Sanders or there would be no need to "crush him."
The "leverage" email was sent in May 2015. The following excerpt comes from a Podesta email on September 2015. This sure doesn't sound like it is coming from someone who considers they have the means to control Sanders.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
I was tempted to go back through the material
I have archived, and the comments I've written on this subject, but then asked myself, to what end? It seems clear to me you are still coming at politics with a belief in the electoral process and Sanders political agency.
My view of our electoral process is coming from a distinctly different perspective. No longer the shiny-eyed kid on Christmas morning, I've since been inoculated from "inspiring" political rhetoric. There is no Santa Claus. We do not live in a democracy. And imagining that we will effect change through the electoral process from an enemy who controls the entire electoral process seems inexplicably illogical to me.
That said, I will refrain in the future from inserting my reality into your preparations for the David and Goliath battle you imagine you are waging and will not comment further in your essays.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
You've neatly expressed my position.
Basically,
fuck amy goodman.
She pushed the white helmets in syria after I knew it was a fake.
She had Many people on her show pushing the 'Assad must go' bullshit and didn't push back.
Same with the roosya,roosya,roosya Bullshit.
NO independant analysis/examination of the Original servers-shit! The FUCKING fbi Never examined them-they just took Crowdstrike word for it and crowdstrike has been shown to have conflicts of interest which they Never disclosed. Other people did.
The mess we're in happened BECAUSE reporters like amy Refused to Do Their FUCKING JOBS and settled in at the trough instead.
And Now I'm supposed to heed her words?
Re-read my opening line.
It's only veal if it's slaughtered.
I stepped Out of that pen, thank you.
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march