Bernie's Chutzpah

Chutzpah can only be something very good or very bad. In this case, I think it's pretty, pretty good that DC and MSM gets shocked (Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable) when Bernie speaks truth to power on the issue of the billions of dollars of U.S. military aid to Israel:

I wanted to make sure I was using the term Chutzpah properly, so if anybody else is interested, here's a link to what seems to be a decent explanation.

Share
up
29 users have voted.

Comments

The Liberal Moonbat's picture

That part I was NOT aware of.

You'd think they'd have more self-respect.

#SDBE-T (Shut Down, Ban, Erase Twitter)

up
13 users have voted.

In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is declared insane when he speaks of colors.

thanatokephaloides's picture

@The Liberal Moonbat

A goddamn Trump Tweet made the difference? REALLY?!?

That part I was NOT aware of.

You'd think they'd have more self-respect.

#SDBE-T (Shut Down, Ban, Erase Twitter)

Anonymous Operation "Shredded Tweet"!

Wink

up
7 users have voted.

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."
-- snoopydawg

And he's not allowing himself to be cowed by the MSM, the DNC or any other of the water carriers for Israel. That includes Warren, who is pretty much on the same page as Hillary when it comes to holding Israel atop some kind of religious pedestal. It's this Christian thing about the lands in Israel and the binding of Judaism to Christianity that causes our politicians and government to be TOTALLY IRRATIONAL when it comes to Israel.
The longer we allow our government to do the bidding of AIPAC and the right wingers in Israel, the longer we will expose the American people to the results of escalating anger and attacks from groups in the middle east.
By babying Israel, we put our own people in danger. Years ago Hannah Arendt was incredibly prescient about what has happened to Israel. This is worth a read...

https://mondoweiss.net/2019/03/hannah-arendt-would/

up
32 users have voted.

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

Hawkfish's picture

@Fishtroller 02

Which appeared to be about how the Warrenites were starting to realize that she doesn’t beat the Cheeto in head to head polling. Hopefully most of them will get a clue and come back to the source of her policies...

up
16 users have voted.

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

wendy davis's picture

“if he (netanyahoo, i assume) doesn’t want members of congress to visit, maybe he should decline billions of dollars of U.S. military aid to Israel.”

but how did he vote on all these measures listed here, a horse of a very different color, imo. I can't copy/paste from pdf's):

'US foreign aid to israel, congressional research service', pdf
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

on edit: and i know that he's said as president he would use some of the bucks to leverage israel about this or that. and wouldn't it be great if the TYT woman didn't pronounce israel: IZ-reel?

up
15 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@wendy davis

. . . than a Prez Trump or another Dem (but the latter won't happen coz they can't beat Trump unless he really pucks up with a war or the economy) to do the right thing re. foreign policy.

And let's face it. Bernie seems to be getting bolder and staking his position more solidly on the left to do battle with Biden and Warden (the other candidates are going nowhere fast) and no doubt because folks like you keep applying legit critiques -- although we seem to disagree on electoral strategy insofar as voting Dem in the primaries.

up
17 users have voted.

@Wally room for Bernie to be bolder* on the FP front, and on Izrul** he has a bit more leeway than the others to criticize, being Jewish. He needs to get evolved on Russia (-gate and Putin) too, with some Maduro thrown in. Make it a basis for attacking the MSM/MIC propaganda campaign against certain foreign leaders that always precedes some negative foreign adventure by the US.

*Andrew Yang too has greatly disappointed in the FP area, a guy I once believed had fresh, intelligent and highly independent political ideas

**this is how I'm pronouncing it lately, to mark what I consider the start of the modern era of coddling and arming and excusing the excesses of that country, from roughly 1967 and the Johnson admin and the nasty, peculiar, likely false flag incident of the USS Liberty.

up
8 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@wokkamile

If so, I'm wondering how you think Bernie calling the hoax on Russia-Russia-Russia will help him? I used to be involved in the game (gave it up long ago) but I know that the party faithful, the folks who will be working the phones, canvassing etc. who want to keep their hack jobs have been thoroughly brainwashed into believing the nonsense (then again, I don't think the Russians are completely angelic either). Bernie's gonna need those votes if he gets the nomination and I think there's only so far he can go in getting in their face without losing their support. Like always and everything, it's a balancing act. I'd say the same with Maduro but most voters don't know or care about any of that aside from not wanting to get into another war.

up
7 users have voted.

@Wally has left the horse on R-gate, as Bernie and other leading Ds had the opportunity to at least be a little less accepting of the nonsense and had room to question the evidence for 3 yrs. All that time he could have been leading the charge from the left against this insanity, from a sensible Let's See the Evidence position. The Mueller report was a partial help, on the collusion question, so there is some legitimate room there going forward for Bernie to pull back a bit and reframe the anti-Russia questions towards a more middle ground, and begin redirecting questions on, say, election tampering, towards the true culprits who reside in this country and go by the name of Republicans.

Generally though, I see Bernie backers as less invested in the R-gate issue than the Hillaryites and establishment party Ds, so I see him as having room to be sensible and semi-honest on Russia, allowing for the obligatory denunciations of Putin, which all viable pols must echo.

On the suggestion there is not enough grassroots support for a sensible FP stance by Bernie, agree, although progressive Ds have failed to assert strong leadership on these issues and so have acquiesced to the MIC/MSM neocon view. Look at the debates -- 2% of the time spent on FP, while out there in the real world things are falling apart fast. Yet another opening for a bold progressive leader to call out the MSM for neglecting this vital area, and for framing their questions only in neocon terms.

up
9 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@wokkamile After boldly kissing her Heinoussness's Ass, Bernie picked up the lance of Quixotic Demonrats to call forth a challenge to the windmill of his own cartilaginous spine. Sell out. I may vote for Trump--especially if the Camel, Pocahontas or Mr. Cognitive Decline, aka China Joe are the candidates.

Tulsi 2024.

up
2 users have voted.
mimi's picture

@Alligator Ed
what that means, alligator. I love your teeth, as you know.

up
2 users have voted.

TTTT (too tired to talk)

Not Henry Kissinger's picture

@Wally

Bernie's gonna need those votes if he gets the nomination and I think there's only so far he can go in getting in their face without losing their support.

Regardless of how far left Bernie goes, or how much he calls out Hillbot disinformation, the party rank and file will vote for him because they know if they don't they'll get four more years of Trump.

Think of it as reverse triangulation.

up
13 users have voted.

Peace Sells

Wally's picture

@Not Henry Kissinger

But I still think there will be a a considerable number of Puma and even less strident party types who will adversely react to what is sure to be the massive red-baiting of Bernie if he gets the nomination (maybe even before especially if it looks like he has a decent chance come Super Tuesday). I think it would be even worse if he opted to really make the effort to fight that battle. And I've read folks here at C99% who have noted that the party elite would rather have Trump as Prez than Bernie coz then they'll at least still be in control of the party. And I doubt that local county chairmen/women will put the screws to their hacks like they did in 2016 if Bernie gets the nomination. It's gonna be a rough row to hoe.

up
11 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@Wally

And I doubt that local county chairmen/women will put the screws to their hacks like they did in 2016 if Bernie gets the nomination.

They will put the screws on their lackeys. It's the DNC way or the Highway.

up
3 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@Alligator Ed ?

At least come up with some anecdotal evidence to back up your assertion.

Even if it's a friend involved in local Dem politics told me . . .

up
3 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@Alligator Ed ?

I wasn't being at all optimistic.

How you think Bernie will be magically welcomed by establishment Dems is beyond me.

edit/ sorry for the double post I thought I was combining the two. Too early in the morning. Woke up with some kind of respiratory bug.

up
4 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@Wally You might remember that. I voted for Bernie at our county caucus. Fat lot of good that did me. Looks at what happened to those of us feeling the Bern. DNC did its magic disappearing act later in the year.

up
5 users have voted.

@Alligator Ed I supported in 2012 were Democrats. By 2016, every single one of them had switched party affiliation.
So much for my involvement with the locals. The past 3 democratic party chairmen are now republicans.

up
5 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@Alligator Ed

If so, do you think s/he really would've cracked the whip if Bernie got the nomination?

I didn't even get involved in presidential politics at the county level in 2016, never did actually, but I knew a lot of the players going waaaay back. Without a shred of doubt, I can attest the county chairman in my part of the swamp was even meaner than a croc holding accountable folks even with the lowest level hack jobs when it came to making sure they worked for and were very generous to HerHeinous. In a way, I understand, coz otherwise he wouldn't have been doing his job. But I am also sure that he would have found a way to neglect his duties if Bernie got the nomination. But that's the nut we have to crack and I you're gonna have to come up with a lot to convince me otherwise. It's gonna take the jaw power of guys like you to crack that ossified bureaucratic shell. So when Bernie get the nomination, please not so kindly direct all your chompers in that direction.

Hey, while looking up alligators, I found that a youngin is called a Wally! Hmmm, it also looks like if you ever crawl out of that swamp of yours, you'd def be at a disadvantage to a croc.

up
4 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@Wally I came to vote for Bernie and did so.

I will vote for Bernie in the million-to-one chance he gets the nomination. I will gladly vote for Tulsi--in 2024. She will / is getting the 2016 Berniecrat Stomp. Smears galore, mainly from the Left, or at least that's what these establishment authoritarians call themselves.

up
3 users have voted.

@Wally

up
4 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@HenryAWallace

. . . he has the power and backing to push those ideas which will require a critical mass of activists. His candidacy in and of itself has pushed his opponents left (aside from Biden and a few others who will be dropping out soon enough).

up
7 users have voted.

@Wally

Chomskey, Cenk Uygur, et al? Some of whom, at a certain point, began urging Bernie to stop criticizing Hillary and urged us to vote for her? I have no idea what they are up to these days. I stopped paying attention to them after that.

up
6 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@HenryAWallace

Neither did I.

And I've long ago disabused myself of the notion that anybody will follow my advice or pay much attention to my opinions even my own blood.

Then again, Cenk, Thom, and Noam ain't the only lefties out there. Politicians, however, do tend to listen to a critical mass that's insistent and won't let go. Bernie's a politician.

And at least those guys supported Bernie in 2016 and again now (I dunno about Hartman) which is more than can be said for . . . most Americans. But we'll see how it pans out. Only so much each of us can do about any of it.

up
3 users have voted.
Deja's picture

@Wally
He was all in for Her. It was so repulsive I listened to regular radio stations when he was on so I didn't puke while eating my breakfast. Stopped religiously listening to NPR during same timeframe for the same reason. Hell even Amy Goodman ignored the fix that was in against Bernie in 2016 and jumped right on the Hellary bandwagon. Haven't listened to her in so long, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if she disseminated the Russiagate propaganda too, just like NPR.

up
8 users have voted.

@Deja

and whether you take Hartmann at his word. He at least acted as though he was very much n for Bernie at first. He even discussed two of my own pro-Bernie posts during his show--and I was so all in for Bernie then, it was almost nuts.

up
3 users have voted.
Deja's picture

@HenryAWallace
Maybe I missed hearing him at the beginning. But at some point during that year I'd be sitting in my truck, in the dark, early morning hours, eating my breakfast outside of the warehouse from hell where I worked. He irritated me so bad I switched to obnoxious local morning radio. Then Amy Goodman would come on as I started work.

up
5 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@Deja

Yikes, maybe I should stop listening to them, too!

up
5 users have voted.

@Wally This jibes with what I recall from the last cycle. Then he backed HRC in the general. I don't recall either any serious griping about the fairness of the primary process or whether HRC was a legit nominee.

TH is an excellent historical source for yesteryear vids, audio and commentary about the New Deal and FDR. He has so many Roosevelt clips and info, I wonder if he isn't being assisted by the Roosevelt Institute.

But most here won't approve of his willingness to compromise to achieve his most important objective, to get Trump out of office. And he foolishly went along with R-gate. So, another flawed, mixed bag progressive, not everyone's cup of tea.

up
1 user has voted.

@Wally
sticking out of his back from 2016. But Thom is correct to speak positively about Bernie.

I would never have known about this video if not for this thread because I have boycotted
TH every since he screwed Bernie and censored any caller who mentioned the DNC cheating in 2016.

up
4 users have voted.

@Deja had Bernie on his show regularly on Fri mornings, Breakfast With Bernie, for probably a full decade of shows before the 2016 cycle. It would be surprising news to me, as a semi-regular listener back then, that he didn't back Bernie at least for the bulk of the '16 primary season, until perhaps it became clear HRC was on the verge of winning.

TH, clearly an FDR Dem (and not so much a G these days) was and is always about keeping Trump out of power and now getting him out. From what I've heard, he's is more flexible than I am (and considerably more flexible than 99% of the posters here) about backing whoever the Dems nominate. During his occasional call-in segments about the race, he strongly discourages negative talk about other D candidates, only wants to hear who the caller backs and why.

As for Amy Goodman, on R-gate while she had on Stephen Cohen a time or two (and not much more) I recall seeing him on only paired in debate with a pro-Russigate person, so my sense of it was that AG was not a strong R-gate skeptic. Max Blumenthal, iirc, called her out some months ago for having on pro-regime change guests re VZ and not challenging them. Overall, she's shown in recent times she isn't quite as Lefty Lefty as some of her listeners believed.

up
3 users have voted.
Deja's picture

@wokkamile
I started getting disgusted with NPR shilling for Hills on my 35-40 minute drive to work back then in my truck sporting a Bernie bumper sticker. I complained to my brother who suggested KPFT (Houston Pacifica station) for whom he volunteered. That's when I started listening to Thom Hartmann during my drive in.

Until, apparently later in 2016, I had only read things he wrote on truthout I think -- never listened to him. So, I stand corrected.

However, I'm definitely not a Vote Blue No Matter Who person. Thom and I are polar opposites on that; plus, his interrupting and talking over of callers, then screeching about them doing that to him when they're just trying to get a word in edgewise is ridiculous. I have a hard time taking people like that seriously, and it's rude.

I think maybe Amy has been assimilated, unfortunately -- at least by the DNC Borg. And that's unfortunate. Hopefully she still reports on Native American and Indigenous people. I stopped listening to her after I landed a better job and couldn't wear my headphones or earbuds anymore.

up
6 users have voted.

@Deja is an odd one, not unlike alleged lefty Rachel Maddow. Both carved out a solid progressive profile in their early career, then once the money rolled in or the opportunity knocked for riches, they showed what are perhaps their true stripes. Sorta DNC like I suppose. And there are other interpretations available for cases like Goodman, in a Lefty Gatekeeper way.

The Byzantine internal conflict at Pacifica goes back quite a few yrs, and our local station is always doing fund drives, claiming to be on the precipice of pulling the plug. But Goodman somehow managed a real sweetheart deal of a contract early last decade with that supposedly broke lefty network, making her a millionaire a few times over. Google "Amy Goodman Pacifica contract" and you will know as much as I do.

up
5 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@Deja

to the Ford and Carnegie foundations for $1 million a few years ago and ever since she has been hit and miss on what she covers. She is fully on board with Russia Gate and was even defending the Syrian war by having a known AQ war lord on her show and letting him spew his bile. This is very sad.

up
9 users have voted.

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

@Wally

the people I named. I guess I'm not seeing a connection.

up
3 users have voted.
wendy davis's picture

@Wally

urban dictionary for ISTM (it seems to me). but as to your thesis of being 'easier to pressure bernie', etc., me, i admire verisimilitude above all, not only in candidates, but elected officials as well.

when anti-imperialists, those with 'peace plans' written in disappearing ink) vote for the defense of nato/africom act (based on a whisper campaign from the NYT), or challenge this trump/netenyahu tempest in a tea pot that's dominated several news cycles already, i want to know the truth of their voting records, not what they say.

when the *only true peace candidate* only speaks of american blood and treasure wasted in wars of choice and regime changes, not of the millions killed and in diaspora in those 'enemy nations', it sure does set off my bullshit detector into the red zone.

when a group of DSAs and 'progressives' criminalize the maduro 'tyrannical regime' for killing his own people, running a corrupt govt., holding illegal elections, then saying 'no regime change', i call foul. the list goes on, as it always has. people are urged to vote for the lesser evil, because 'this election is the most important one ever!'

a lot of sorta-left-of-center people in amerika love the intellectuals among us as 'enlightened thought leaders', yes? have any said 'why not vote green' for instance? even saint noam chomsky advised voting for hillary clinton, remember?

i dunno, my bottom line is 'watch how they vote, not what they say'.

up
9 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@wendy davis

. . . of our lifetimes to effect substantive change. I really don't think it's gonna come around again and if it does, it'll be too late.

Also, I touched on some of the other issues you raised in one of my responses above(?) to wokkamile regarding the reality of doing a balancing act on a tightrope when it comes to electoral politics.

up
10 users have voted.
wendy davis's picture

@Wally

hopes, thus beliefs, then. peace to you and all, when you can manage it.

up
7 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@wendy davis

when the *only true peace candidate* only speaks of american blood and treasure wasted in wars of choice and regime changes, not of the millions killed and in diaspora in those 'enemy nations', it sure does set off my bullshit detector into the red zone.

Sorry, not buying your thesis. The true peace candidate is Tulsi. Tulsi does talk not only about America's needless losses of soldiers and material, but also of the aggrieved nations which the Pentagon purports to liberate.

Bernie a peace candidate? Knock me over with a quill feather. Let me know when your B.S. meter gets recalibrated.

up
4 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@Alligator Ed

Not that's there's anything wrong with being Quixotic (you negatively cast Bernie as being quixotic in another post in this thread)..

up
3 users have voted.
wendy davis's picture

@Alligator Ed

trust you on this:

'Tulsi does talk not only about America's needless losses of soldiers and material, but also of the aggrieved nations which the Pentagon purports to liberate.'

she certainly hadn't on the 'pimplegate debate scandal OMG!', nor in any of her ads on youtube. i was on a youtube search mission yesterday for new dvd's of new and old protest songs, plus one i'd liked on the 'BURN: washington's spies' series.

but she was one of the signatories to ro khanna's letter to pompeo criminalizing the 'tyrannical maduro regime with dastardly hegemonic/guidoesque lies, then 'no regime change'. is that 'peace', or just not calling for war? big dif to me.

by my reckoning, mike gravel was far more of a 'peace candidate' than miz gabbard, and even howie hawkins whose peace plan seems to be devolving a bit. he's at least been qualified to be nominated by the greens to be the green candidate, although i thought tht was supposed to happen in august...tick, tock.

up
7 users have voted.
orlbucfan's picture

@Alligator Ed beliefs. She's not experienced enough for POTUS, and neither are Beto, Yang, Buttagag, etc. Rec'd!!

up
1 user has voted.

" Our solutions to the climate crisis must match the demands of physics."
c/o truthout

up
6 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@sny @sny

I mean, even Sleepy Joe came up with responses to those foreign policy questions.

Takes too long to answer, not the answer:

up
14 users have voted.

@Wally and Tulsi for not immediately jumping when the CFR comes calling for a response. Let them cool their heels a while in the waiting room. And all the candidates would have their FP staff experts write innocuous blah blah responses anyway, to avoid any news-making, too-honest responses.

Re the above video link to the Hill: that Saagar guy (conservative/R?) was a bit misleading in his assertion that Warren backed HRC in 2016. EW was neutral until after the CA primary in June, which H won convincingly, then she endorsed her when the outcome was rather clear. Wish the liberal host had known to clarify this.

up
2 users have voted.

@wokkamile

up
11 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@HenryAWallace

There was so much crap that happened in California that Bernie should have protested the results. I don't remember who it was that told the country that she did win California the day before anyone voted. And so many votes were never counted or went missing. Just two things off the top of my head about what happened there.

Warren was being looked at for Hillary's VP which could be why she didn't endorse anyone during the primary. I think she didn't because she will never support the things Bernie does even if she is right now running on his platform. She says she has a plan for everything. Yeah she does..it's Bernie's plans.. BTW. Warren said that the primary was rigged. Until she walked it back..

up
26 users have voted.

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

@snoopydawg

the day before the California primary.

From my standpoint, Bernie should have protested a lot of things in 2016.

Being vocal could have cost Warren in any number of ways; and Warren doesn't do things that Warren believes might cost Warren. A Profile in Courage politician, she ain't. However, I don't think Hillary would ever have looked at Warren seriously for VP. That may have been the word on the street. That may have even been what what Warren was told. For all I know, that may even have been an official announcement from the Hillary campaign. But it was never going to happen for many reasons.

up
12 users have voted.

@HenryAWallace Warren's overall positions were much closer to Bernie's. And I understand she was heavily lobbied by both Bernie's and Hillary's camps to get her endorsement.

Trying to put myself in her shoes in 2016, I suspect she felt it was Hillary's nomination to lose and probably the general as well, and she not only didn't want to oppose the frontrunner, but also didn't want to be in the position of one woman undermining the candidacy of a woman who would have made history. IN all this, consideration of her own future political prospects probably were not irrelevant. She decided on what she probably considered the safe route.

As to the CA primary that year, that was up to Bernie to contest, if he felt wronged; not a thing to bash Warren for.

up
4 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@wokkamile

. . endorsing Bernie. Her standing up and clapping to Trump's thrashing of Bernie and a few socialist-minded congresspeople when he said "America will never be a socialist country" still speaks volumes in my mind.

And let's not forget Warren early on cosigned a letter in 2013 urging HerHeinous to run for President, so it's not like she wasn't supportive before the nomination was secured.

up
22 users have voted.

@Wally definitely cringe-worthy. No need to stand, applaud and smile, especially with her colleague Bernie right in front of her, the object of DT's rhetoric. Seated mild applause with no smiling would have been politically sufficient.

But Dems in the modern era of weak lefty leadership have tended to run from these labels that Rs throw at them -- socialist, liberal -- and they look pathetic and weak as they scramble to prove they are not what the other party accuses them of being.

up
7 users have voted.

@wokkamile
Policy aside, and most Americans don't vote for policy, but rather personality. Warren will never win because she looks like the grade school teacher that you hated, a scold, a fishwife. That's probably unfair, but that's politics. I think that's why McGovern lost. The country agreed with his policies (at least quietly) but his personality projection sucked. He look like he was always sneering. Whereas corrupt old Uncle Joe projects the genial grandfather (albeit one with wandering hands).

up
10 users have voted.

@The Voice In the Wilderness 6-8 other issues or events voters considered before they would have gotten to the personality factor. And Nixon wasn't exactly Prince Charming.

The two major issues -- VN War and the Economy -- were in Tricky's favor by the summer of '72 as the conventions were held. Just about the way Nixon planned it, including the behind the scenes arrangement to get perceived lefty-lib McGovern as an opponent (see Watergate). Dems were badly divided over the War, the union leaders and old party establishment guard (the LBJ wing) being viscerally and politically against the antiwar types, while the party convention had new rules which enabled the antiwar left and imposed diversity numbers (minorities, females) on state delegations.

The convention was so chaotic that the nominee gave his acceptance speech, the most important speech of his life, at 2:30 in the morning. Then his VP pick, barely vetted by his staff who claimed to have been too busy trying to wrap up the nom, was revealed to have a skeleton in his closet, and McG handled it badly. Basically, the election was over by the time Dems left their convention, or at most w/n a few days of that when McG withdrew his nominee Eagleton.

up
4 users have voted.

@wokkamile
Either as a decision maker or a human being.

up
1 user has voted.
orlbucfan's picture

@wokkamile Not sure about the "ex" part.

up
2 users have voted.

" Our solutions to the climate crisis must match the demands of physics."
c/o truthout

@wokkamile

I meant that silent does not necessarily equal neutral.

As for the rest of your post, first, I don't know that, had Warren endorsed, she would have endorsed Bernie. I realize that is a common assumption, but no one actually knows; and you know what they say about assumptions. (She did sign a letter urging Hillary to run yes, I've read a lot of spin about that, too. The only fact, though, is that she did sign it.)

Also, I could imagine and spin out a bunch of reasons for Warren's 2014-16 behavior, but what is the point? Neither of us knows what her thinking was, so we'd be merely opining and speculating; and you know what they say about opinions.

Moreover, my bottom line is that I don't think anything could have justified Warren's behavior around the 2016 primary--and I don't mean only her decision not to endorse anyone.

up
8 users have voted.

@HenryAWallace Unless a President Bernie nominates her to Treasury (a girl can dream).

I really, really want to watch Senate consideration of some of the bills she has introduced and watch the Rs try to explain why they are voting against.

Besides, I consider it likely, or at least possible, that a narrowly reelected T-Rump could be facing a hostile congress with Dims in control of both chambers.

up
1 user has voted.

Nastarana

snoopydawg's picture

@wokkamile

for the reasons I wrote in my comment. There are supposedly over a million ballots that were not counted. And California wasn't the only one that was futzed with and yet Bernie didn't do anything about it.

; not a thing to bash Warren for.

Can you show me where I bashed or blamed Warren for what happened with the California primary? You say that you missed hearing anything about the primary not being run fairly. Don't know how much attention you were paying back then, but many of us have told you about it since you started posting here, but maybe you aren't reading the comments about it? Or something?

up
6 users have voted.

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

@snoopydawg there were some reports of election irregularities in CA that year. But I don't recall seeing a solid case laid out by a major credible analyst. If you have a cite, I will take a look.

I was beyond busy at that time and hadn't heard of this website, so didn't have the opportunity to see and review what info people here were reporting.

But in any case, it was Bernie's call not to insist on waiting for a complete count, which took weeks, or to call out election suspicions. Meanwhile, the news cycle registered the official result, if somewhat premature and perhaps uncertain, and the world moved on.

Obviously Bernie decided to pick his fights, and on this one take a pass, live to live another day. Pols are pols and do what they do, often with political self-preservation in mind. The virtuous, principled saints, always standing up for what's right on each and every cause, are very rare in the political realm.

up
2 users have voted.

@sny Questions all served up like they are all based on facts. In the category of 'When did you stop beating your wife? they fit right in.

." What, if any, steps would you take to counter Russian aggression against Ukraine?"

This fits with the talking point that Crimea was the result of "Russian aggression"
That is total hogwash, overlooking the fact they voted twice to rejoin Russia and btw they are doing a lot better than the lives of people in Ukraine under Neo-Nazi rule from the US aggression/coup that has thrown that Country into its economic ruin.

"What, if any, additional steps should the United States take to remove Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela?'

Why not just cut to the chase and ask what they will do to precipitate another Regime change aside from the economic war against the Venezuelan people that is already killing many thousands of people with the blockade of foods and medicine (which is illegal under international law).
What about mentioning it is a sovereign entity, and that "removing Nicholas Maduro" should be the decision of the citizens of Venezuela?

"Do you support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and, if so, how would you go about trying to achieve it?"

First of all it is an illegal "occupation" under an apartheid regime and that phrasing makes it sound like two equal forces, with equal responsibility for the situation.

The two State "solution" can never happen, Netanyahu isn't the only high ranking politician that has said that, but it is a good argument to keep the status quo intact because no realistic person believes that anyone but Israel would be drawing the lines because they've said so and the proposed lines ventured carve up Palesinian lands into disconnected bantustans surrounded by illegal settlements. So of course it would be rejected by the Palestinians and once again the failure of the agreement would be blamed them, not Israel.

How about proposing a real Democratic Country with equal rights for all people? Too much to ask for?

The TPP question is all about a final, total corporate coup, NAFTA on steroids where laws passed by the citizens of this Country are secondary to corporate interests. Where an international panel/Court rules on whether any laws passed (clean air act for example) inhibit profits of corporations in that unique Court.
Either the law gets repealed or the fine is based on projected profits.Ntm there is no appealing the rulings.

All in a court that have lawyers for judges who also take turns as legal representatives for the corporate interests in other cases and rulings supercede any US Court ruling in the matter. In short, your laws don't count.

up
12 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@aliasalias

I watched her response to this on a youtube video in which she explained they provided her with a wide range of essential information about foreign policy but that she wasn't necessarily committed to any of their positions. Me, I'd rather be informed by a group like Code Pink or other lefty organizations.

up
3 users have voted.

@Wally but she is/was a member of the CFR. We may have seen the same YT video interview where she explains she became a 5-yr term member when she was elected to the House and got some committee assignments in the FP area. If she's still with this group, she is rather an unconventional member who doesn't seem to adhere to their ideas of the US as the world's policeman.

Actually it would bother me considerably more if she were a member of the AC, as that group of MIC propagandists doesn't disguise its hard neocon leanings wrt an aggressive anti-Russia position. It's a group that's been working hard to whip up a new Cold War with Russia and demonize Putin at every step, including the R-gate bogus story.

up
5 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@wokkamile

that's two I owe you for now (also bds).

up
4 users have voted.
wendy davis's picture

@aliasalias

and thank you. i admit i was agog, aghast, and agape at the questions. but, yanno: CFR & all...

up
6 users have voted.
karl pearson's picture

One of the appealing characteristics of Bernie Sanders is his agitating for change. He's done this for years, when many others in the party were silent. IMO Bernie Sanders is the closest candidate to an authentic opposition of all things neoliberal. I'm glad he's calling out the right-wing party of Bibi and making lots of people uncomfortable. He's good at stirring pots.

up
23 users have voted.

o allow members of Congress to visit maybe Bibi can respectfully decline billions of dollars in US aid.

We all know Bibi will never do that.

BTW, Saders did not say that the US should cut off the aid, at least not in the video in the OP.

But, yes, what Sanders did say was no doubt enough to tick off Bibi and extremely pro-Isratel groups in the US.

up
16 users have voted.

@HenryAWallace for Bernie to say even the semi-bold things he did, given the political climate in recent yrs towards backing Izrul to the hilt and the power of AIPAC to destroy dissenters. Semi-bold suggestions can be considered bold and courageous principled stances at certain times.

up
9 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@wokkamile Semi-bold. You mean like CA rep E. Swalwell, who promises to be bold without the bold? That's how bold Bernie is on foreign policy. He will cave under immense Neocon/MIC pressure. Domestically, he still has a good game plan but...

up
3 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@Alligator Ed

re. Bernie's foreign policy perspective and activism:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/02/foreign-policy-disting...

2016 is not 2020.

Sanders is poised to once again widen the parameters of acceptable debate. In 2016, he found a surprising appetite for his anti-capitalist heresies among the progressive young. In 2020, Americans will learn whether there’s a market for his anti-imperial heresies too.

-- Peter Beinart in the Atlantic article linked above
up
6 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@Wally I will adjust my critiques accordingly. But while talking the talk is good, will Bernie be tough enough to walk the walk? This doubt underlies my reservations about Bernie's candidacy.

up
3 users have voted.

@Alligator Ed made of sterner stuff than Swallowell and 99% of the rest of the tepid timid Dems, so I would be optimistic he could stand up to the pressure. He would clearly be able to withstand the establishment pressure better than Liz.

True though, historically in the post-WW2 era, only one president has been courageous enough to tell the MIC to stick it -- and we know what happened to him -- so the odds favor your pessimism.

up
11 users have voted.

@wokkamile

for a politician with no speech impediment is not an accomplishment. What if anything, Bernie's statement may accomplish, remains to be seen, to say the least.

up
2 users have voted.

a few days ago, a slick, smooth "Bernie supporter." She opened with, "We're pleased lately with Bernie's performance." What? Pleased lately? His performance? Who's "we?" Sounded like a DNC-style Democrat putting in some time on the Bernie campaign. It was surreal. Poor Bernie; I bet he has no idea.

up
3 users have voted.
Wally's picture

Well worth watching.

up
2 users have voted.