This is very disappointing
Submitted by snoopydawg on Mon, 08/26/2019 - 12:48am
Mitch McConnell: You need to explain to the people of Kentucky why you believe that we should do nothing to stop Russia from interfering with our elections. Stop obstructing legislation to protect our democracy.
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) August 25, 2019
It was bad when you said that the first time. Seriously Bernie? You believe that Russia has evidence of a pee tape that will make Trump look bad?
.@realDonaldTrump is tweeting about Russia and “FAKE NEWS” again. Here’s why: pic.twitter.com/FyQK674U64
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) February 16, 2017
Comments
It’s Goebbels versus Goebbels in the U.S. political arena.
“The gloves are off, leading and governing have nothing to do with truth, we’re all psychopaths now, so may the biggest liar win.”
And in other news, the Obamas are buying a $14,850,000 mansion on Martha’s Vineyard.
https://www.tmz.com/2019/08/22/barack-michelle-obama-buying-mega-mansion...
I mention Obama's $15 million house
to someone who was asking why Bernie had 3 houses with the last one costing him $200,00. Yea gads and tiny butterflies..... how can people be so triabilistically narrow minded?
“When out of fear you twist the lesser evil into the lie that it is something good, you eventually rob people of the capacity to distinguish between good and evil.”
~ Hannah Arendt
Bernie was speaking before the Mueller Report
...was released.
Nonetheless, I am not trying to make excuses for his gullibility. Or his sense of self-preservation.
To avoid moments like these in the future, I've decided to purchase "IQ Reduction Pills" on the Internet. This will make the 2020 election season more tolerable.
Populations don’t like wars. They have to be lied into it.
That means we can be “truthed” into peace. — Julian Assange
yes, in the video, but
snoopy's opening Bernie tweet was from yesterday, august 25. but he'd also voted for the defense of NATO/africom act: because russia. it was all based on a whisper campaign from anonymous military insiders who claimed the the great orange man really did intend to leave nato (a he'd campaigned on two years or whatever earlier), which was total rubbish.
it may all have been in the NY/CIA Times.
but i'm not disappointed, snoopy, it's just who he is, a DSA Imperialist at heart.
on later edit: boy, howdy, am i sorry to have breezed by this in my haste:
brilliant, amigo! are they expensive? i'm just a poor blind widow with six hungry chirren to feed... oh, wait: my IQ may already be 20 pts. lower than it once was. never mind!
Not disappointed either
in that, while I support the Bernmeister, I am aware he occasionally trots out the anti-Russia rhetoric, probably for political reasons. I don't believe that privately he buys it, is my guess.
But he isn't a member of the weird DSA group, which may or may not be legitimately organic, and didn't seek their endorsement, and I don't remotely peg Bernie as an "imperialist".
We do agree, wendy, that the NYT acts as the CIA's major propaganda outlet.
you reckon he does it for
'political reasons', and that's cool with you? but this is entirely baffling to me, wokkamile:
'But he isn't a member of the weird DSA group.' isn't he a democratic socialist of amerika? or do you mean he isn't one of the weird ones?
oh, yes, anyone who voted for the defense of NATO/africom bill is by definition an Imperialist, not that NATO is now strictly a hedge against russia, but has expanded. and not that he's the only elected DSA Imperialist, by any means.
but the IMF keeps extending loans so that more nations can afford to spend the magic number percentage of their GDP to enter as full Nato artners; those who fritter the bucks away are under other designations: friends of nato, under nato's umbrellas, and hell yeah, nato's still fighting the Red Tide in the global south and adding fascist nations to their rosters. is there any more vicious and resource plundering an alliance on the planet? of course, Africom and its mission statements are elegantly orwellian.
oh, i'd forgotten this, dagnabbit!
@NATOpress Aug 2 "The North Atlantic Treaty, which founded #NATO, came into force 70 years ago. Today, the Alliance remains the cornerstone for peace and security for its 29 member countries."
but i'm not asking you to peg him as an Imperialist, seriously. glad we agree on that one thing, though. ; )
on edit:
whew; at least he refused to call nicolas maduro a dictator! nor did ro khanna, AOC, liz warren, tulsi gabbard and a few other DSAs, although that list criminalized his 'regime' with ten lies, then said: 'no regime change', just gave the empire ammo for an R2P mission, which by the by, may be on the way in the form of a total military blockade of VZ.
i owe you an apology.
i did a bit of poking around, and bernie calls himself a democratic socialist. on the other hand, ocasio-cortez and tlaib identify as DSAs, democratic socialists of amerika (dunno about omar and the others).
it seems that i'm not alone in thinking that adding 'Amerika' was to connote not socialist democrats in the european nations, though. thanks for causing me to have looked some of it up, though.
Politics is what it is
I looked at Bernie's Kentucky campaign tweets from yesterday. That issue was very much outnumbered by other issues addressed in other tweets. He's addressing the concerns of the Democratic base in Kentucky: https://twitter.com/BernieSanders
I don't believe Russia did much of anything re electoral interference in the US -- whatever spy stuff was done (if absolutely nothing was done, then Putin ain't doing his job), I'm sure, pales in comparison to what the US does all over the world, what Israel does in the US, what Saudi Arabia and other oil countries do in the US, what US corporations do in the US and the world, etc.
In any event, I don't oppose legislation that guards against outside and even internal Koch/Soros/Brock etc electoral interference -- and it would be nice to tack something on about US interventionism, too.
That issue was very much outnumbered by other issues
It matter very much to me that Bernie is lying to us about Russian interference. Since it was created by Hillary's campaign censorship has gone overboard. It's not just directed at Russian bots and trolls, but against legitimate websites that do great good. Cop watch was one that was removed from all social media and for what reason? It had nothing to do with Russia, but lots of sites that were educating the public have been censored.
People instead of being upset that Bolton got Trump to pull out of the INF treaty think that he did it because daddy Vlad told him to. People instead of protesting about the new arms war think it's great that we are going to spend untold $$$$$$ on creating even more nukes. If the PTB decide that we should go to war with Russia what's left of the anti war movement will roll over and cheer the fact.
Then there is the fact that Bernie is outright lying to us. If he was really concerned about outside interference in our elections then he would be speaking out against what Israel has been doing for decades. I bet that is the biggest reason McConnell doesn't want to bring up the bill. Israel would be caught in the crossfire. And remember it was Obama who made it legal again for our government to outright lie to us. As well as every rich person who gets more of a voice than we do. That Bernie is taking part in this lowers him in my eyes.
ETA:
Russia Gate has created fear mongering in people who have bought into it and think that everything that has happened is because of Russia Russia....
This issue had divided us even more than we were and Bernie hopping on the Russia train is going to hurt him in the long run more than help him. Besides this means that he is buying into the falsehood that Hillary only lost the election to Trump because of their help instead of keeping the blame on her like he did during the primary when he said that she shouldn't be president for a number of reason. Bottom line it's a cop out. What will he do to reverse the damage in our relationship with Russia if he gets to be president? Continue the ruse and keep the $$$$$$$ flowing?
“When out of fear you twist the lesser evil into the lie that it is something good, you eventually rob people of the capacity to distinguish between good and evil.”
~ Hannah Arendt
I've written to folks in Bernie's campaign
. . . about this and how his mere mention of issues regarding Russian interference in US internal affairs really pisses off some folks on the left. I encourage you to do the same. Send something to David Sirota or Brianha Joy Grey or to whomever you think it might do the most good. But if you end your appeal with "up yours," I don't think it will be very effective and most likely even counterproductive.
So you want me to contact his campaign and ask them
to tell Bernie to stop lying to us? Bernie is the one that has made that decision and is the one who is doing it.
Why would I say that? But again if you don't care that your candidate is lying to us that is one you. I do because of the serious repercussions that are happening. What other things might he be lying about if he keeps doing it about this serious issue? Did people learn nothing from Obama's bait and switch? Just what does he get out of doing this? Will this cause the DNC and their friends from doing everything they can to stifle his campaign if he goes along with this? Hasn't seemed to work yet.
“When out of fear you twist the lesser evil into the lie that it is something good, you eventually rob people of the capacity to distinguish between good and evil.”
~ Hannah Arendt
Just a suggestion
I've found that there are folks in Bernie's campaign who will respond to concerns. Maybe not exactly the way I would have preferred but at least they have been alerted and made aware if they weren't already. I've previously noted that I've also written the campaign about Assange (see Wendy's concern in this thread). So blind obedience? C'mon. Not fair.
About salutations... It was an indeterminstic plural you, not re you personnally, more in the context of the overall discussion. You can also scroll through the other correspondence below. I have certain ideas about fairness and decency, too.
Here's a very likely
theory from Aaron "Ahoy!" Maté
On the rest above, it's very easy to just get angry and cynical and vent, rather than taking a step back and trying to find a solution. Sanders' excellent spokespeople are indeed reasonable and reachable. But as AHM above suggests, this one may be beyond rational reasoning and into the realm of politics, where sometimes you must do what you must do.
Did you read the replies?
People are not happy with him doing this. He is telling his supporters that they were duped into not voting for Her instead of their not voting for her because of her history. Blaming again Russia for Hillary's loss instead of her making this crap up out of thin air as the Wikileaks email showed. The DNC and other state's election programs interfered with people voting for him and causing him votes. Russia did not put Trump in the WH. Hillary's pied piper would have had more affect from giving Trump $2 billion in free advertising than Russia's supposed $100,000 did. Did Bernie talk about that?
“When out of fear you twist the lesser evil into the lie that it is something good, you eventually rob people of the capacity to distinguish between good and evil.”
~ Hannah Arendt
A politician's deceiving the country because it benefits the
politician is justifiable and excusable? Why? Is is equally justifiable when Trump deceives the country because the deception benefits Trump? Or only when a politician whom you support is engaging in a self-serving deception of Americans?
I don't understand that kind of "moral" compass AT ALL.
I could understand it better and find it at least more credible in terms of "It's wrong and inexcusable, but he's still best candidate with a chance of winning. So, I'm voting for him/supporting him/donating to him/volunteering for him, or whatever is accurate.
er...and stir in
julian assange. yes, bernie (and warren) finally broke his silence in may, 2019, and he/they said he shouldn't be indicted under the espionage acts (according to the Intercept)(17 counts, iirc). but still, his lies keep that alive as well, according to a couple of the subtweets.
An obscene percentage of the country
has been propagandized by Bernie's opposition into believing that Russia! is the source of all evil and must be stopped at all costs so help us Gawd.
If you're going to pander, pander where it a) gets the most traction, and b) lets you fan a fart in the direction of the people who initially created the smear by using it against them effectively.
Sooner or later, every politician is going to pander. Might as well kill two birds with one stone. I'm voting for him anyway, as long as I can.
What I can’t accomplish, as much as I’ve tried to,
is get my head around the unforgiving dissing of Sanders when he sometimes has to play the game to stay in the game. I don’t like these type of disingenuous games at all, and would like him to be less compromising, but I choose to give him slack for the sake of his potential candidacy, which I believe is a lot more favorable than another four years of Trump.
For most of us there’s little that is more difficult than compromising our integrity, but somehow I don’t feel like I’m compromising mine by continuing to support Sanders despite his apparent deficiencies. There’s a certain rigidity that I am personally uncomfortable with in being uncompromising. But that’s just me, and I respect the limit of what others are comfortable or uncomfortable with.
You're not going
to find many saints among our politicians. I learned that long ago, and have made adjustments in my expectations accordingly. Some however set extremely high bars in political, moral and ethical terms for the pols given us, and thereby are setting themselves up for constant disappointment.
I prefer to be a little more flexible (within reason) and I hope others will come around to this position but I have no great expectations for that either.
Wake me up when Bernie begins taking point loudly, constantly with anti-Russia, conspiratorial rhetoric of the Rachel Maddow variety. That will be the moment when I am a little less forgiving.
Please don’t expect me to wake you up,
or be responsible for becoming more forgiving.
Bernie Sanders: You need to explain to the people of CA
Why you believe that we should've done nothing to stop HerHeinous from interfering with our elections.
Why you believe leaking debate questions to selected candidates is D-okiedokie. forward together
Why you believe six out six coin tosses is probable. super delegates
Why you believe it's okay Padilla stopped counting in California's last primary. move along
...
UNCOUNTED: The True Story of the California Primary
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5ugmNoanx8 width:480]
up yours
PEACE
You need to explain why you spent $6 on a tomato
Was it Trump free? Democrat free? You used cash with a photo of a racist American president? How was it transported to the place it was sold? Blah blah blah.
I don't know why you are attacking me
and it's starting to seem like your stalking my comments. Please stop. Try not to take every duopoly criticism so personally, that post was not about you it was about Bernie Sanders ignoring election fraud within the D party of California. Watch the video first, then blow your stack at me about the content, that would be a more civil discourse I think.
This is still a non-partisan site last time I checked, perhaps those are also words with no meaning to you. ~shrug~
gee
Personal foul on fellow commenter — uncool. n/t
Unfair Wally
Bernie not contesting the primary rigging goes hand in hand with him saying this about Russia. Will Bernie do anything this time if the election is stolen from him? He sees the hoops and loops that candidates have to jump through in the first time in history of the ever changing rules and just acts like that isn't intended to keep him from winning. Faith in your candidate is one thing, but blind obedience?
“When out of fear you twist the lesser evil into the lie that it is something good, you eventually rob people of the capacity to distinguish between good and evil.”
~ Hannah Arendt
Sigh ...
I'm not at all a fan of constantly re-litigating the 2016 CA Dem primary. I would imagine this still matters to about 2-3 dozen people out there. Probably a significant overlap with the few dozen who still are so concerned about Hillary's emails. Bernie decided not to challenge it, and so it's a moot point. All irrelevant to today, and very tiresome.
Just my take. It's not personal, it's strictly (political) business.
This was from this month of this year in case you missed it
and it goes directly back to what he didn't do when he got the primary stolen from him. If he loses again this time will he blame Russia for it instead of the DNC and their sycophants which is doing everything they can to degrade him and his views.
No this is not irrelevant to today. As I said to Wally this propaganda has seen some very severe consequences and those will just intensify if Russia is made to look the bad guy that cost whomever lost the election this time to Trump. IF you don't care about election rigging that is on you. I do care that Bernie is lying to us. I don't understand why you don't.
For you maybe, but I for what am disgusted that she got away with an illegal act that we are finding out may have put our security at risk. China has Hillary's email in case you weren't aware of that. Other countries may have too.
“When out of fear you twist the lesser evil into the lie that it is something good, you eventually rob people of the capacity to distinguish between good and evil.”
~ Hannah Arendt
More millions of voters DID NOT VOTE for Her
then voted for Her, I don't know what you mean by litigating, like in a court with lawyers and stuff? Are those the current D talking points? "Ho hum, GOTV we are too tired to count"? That is what keeps the flushing sounds going:
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election_in_California,_2016
Minimize the facts all you want but 8.7 million for Her (if you believe the SoS), a plurality does not a majority make. Democrats are just not that popular with the 99% in California, and neither are Republicans. frack not
No, eye, I meant
endlessly re-litigating primary vote controversies from 3 yrs ago in today's court of public opinion. Although, bc Bernie was the aggrieved party and thus should have had the requisite legal standing in an actual court of law, there was a time (prior to the statue of limitations expiring) when he could have gone to court to get a proper vote count.
But he didn't, and most of the rest of us moved on. Not "D talking points" -- just a reality check from wokkamile's talking points.
Your mileage obviously varies. A difference in views from yours truly doesn't mean I'm thereby a Dem operative, for eff's sake. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Bernie's donors and/or volunteers were ALL aggrieved parties,
cheated by crooked Hillary, a corrupt, literally bought and paid for DNC and thousands of accomplices in the corrupt Democratic Party. I'd go further and say all Americans are agggrieved, whether or not they know it or feel aggrieved. ALL Americans are entitled to clean elections and clean counts. Also, IMO, you've underestimate the people to whom this "still" matters. and always will matter, by millions.
So was the chaos deliberate or mere incompetence?
If the chaos was not due to incompetence, who would gain from the chaos. Now introducing chaos is not a new technique. Other techniques include closing polling places and overwhelming the few that are left if they can ever be found. This gives an advantage to the side that worked hard at absentee ballots. And in the general confusion, manipulating the count is much easier.
When I worked in polling sites, patronage was very much a real thing. Jobs depended on which factions within the democratic machine won the primaries. So there was no problem getting people to work the polls, and many of them very experienced. Nobody gave a shit about the general as whoever won the primary was going to win the general--in that case, senior citizens were enlisted. The primaries brought out the political activist thugs.
It would be interesting to map the polls against the places that had chaos and see if there was a pattern favoring one candidate or another. I suspect that areas of high chaos corresponded to areas where polls suggested high Sanders support.
Ask NGPVAN, Inc. for those details
I have the feeling Ds already know the answer inside their proprietary database. Nothing says transparency like a proprietary database, eh? Have citizens build it for free, and then monetize the power out if it ka-ching! lol Yet another insecure db with faulty firewall too, if I recall correctly. And now who has all their base? base base
all your base are belong to [random chaos]
right on
PEACE
I personally believe that he said what he said
and did what he did in 2016 in order to leave himself the ability to get to where he is *today*: by giving the necessary blowjobs and making the necessary noises. Within the DNC, rings simply have to be kissed. To me, it is clear that he played the long game- the only game in town, if you want to get onto the ballot in many states.
Will that turn out to be enough? Probably not- they'll find new and clever ways to screw him, I'm sure. But if he had gone Tulsi on them on the spot, the DNC assholes would have made sure to *completely* exclude him from this cycle, just as they are doing to her now. It has been hard enough for him to walk that tightrope as it is.
There will be those who don't like that, but I can find it within myself to forgive him for being a politician, and playing the way he saw it. He is the best politician for the non-war-lover, non-oligarch fraction of us that I've personally seen in many cycles. I'm still planning to vote for him in our sparkly-new open primaries. If he can somehow get elected, I have reason to hope that some motherfucking heads will finally roll at the DNC.
And if he doesn't, then we'll most assuredly get Trump again, and nothing will change at the DNC (or in our national political reality) in the remainder of my lifetime. That'll be too bad- but I'm old, child-free, and my field of fucks is rapidly growing fallow.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
The DNC is pretty much a lost cause
but saying what he said and doing what he did have reduced the magnitude of his being traduced in the MSM, thereby giving him at least a chance this time.
Deceiving Americans about Russia put Bernie where he is now?
Last time, Bernie's supporters, badgered media about its biased coverage (and non-coverage), carried on an online war with media, filed lawsuits to expose the corruption, and, in general, fought his batter in every way possible and also donated and worked their bottoms off for him. This time, they were out in force much earlier than last time, doing all that and more. )Fool us once....)
But it was his deceiving Americans about Russia was what put media in check?
Any evidence for that?
What? No "Moscow Mitch"?
I was hoping he was past this finally.
Seems not. So, which is it, Bernie? Do you believe this or are you cynically trying to appeal to those who do?
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
I’ll take cynical for $1000 Alex.
"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."
It’s a bad look either way.
I almost think the opportunist pandering is worse but neither strike me as a positive thing.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
Exactly--and I'm planning to vote for him in the primary.
I essentially agree.
The question for me is does Bernie fight the fight he is in or the one he, or we, want him to fight? I’d love for him to be the shiny white knight but that isn’t the battlefield he finds himself on and he does not have the power and influence to shape it. So it’s live with the uncertainty he creates by playing the game as it is or he is pure in our view and gives his enemies more to contort into weapons to use against him.
Bernie’s record of action, while not a perfect match to my desires, is rather consistent. It is a known I can live with when compared to the inconsistent or unknown record of everyone else. Isn’t it a bitch when pandering and lying is a universal tool? On balance I have to go with record over hopey changey, me too bullshit that passes from the lips of everyone else.
I’m beyond done with words and pretty ideas on fresh websites but no record to back up anything. But, again, I don’t live in the US anymore and can’t imagine that I ever will again. I don’t have a dog in the fight. YMMV.
"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."
Just ensures no diplomacy with Russia if any dem is elected
Trump can't meet with Putin without being called a traitor by every mass media outlet. Plus the neocons control foreign and defense policies. Bernie has the smarts to control the neocons, but if he meets with Putin he will be expected to harshly insult Putin by the Western press or he will be called soft on Putin. There goes any chance of diplomacy. I don't think Putin takes this stuff personally as he knows the game, but it will the democrat who will shut off any backdoor connections. If the dems control both House and Senate expect them to ratchet up sanctions, trade embargoes, etc
#Treason
Summit/s!
Excellent
points. Bernie will have talked himself into a cold war corner if he gets elected.
Cold? Seems we've been in a cold war with Russia
(again) since at least 2016. It's quieted down a bit since the Mueller report came out. But, while Hillary was shrilling about 17 intelligence agencies and D.C. Democrat after D.C. Democrat was on television claiming Russia had interfered with our election and hacked our democracy (whatever the eff that means), I thought Iraq Redux might be on the agenda, only into Moscow instead of Baghdad.
Assuming the cold war begun by FDR/Truman ever ended. I'm not sure it did.
Maybe they're building justification for a war with Russia.
In case they "need" a war with Russia.
My dad’s life and career was derailed because of McCarthyism,
collateral damage of the “Hawaii Seven” trial in the early 1950s.
Never heard of the “Hawaii Seven”? Here’s a PDF of a biography of John Reinecke, one of the accused in the “Hawaii Seven” trial:
https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/41148/1/A%20Man%20...
McCarthyism is fascist — progressive Democrats and allies should know that better than anyone. Yet now we see most people in that camp blithely pretending that their sweeping neo-McCarthyist anti-Russia campaign is at worst a white lie with no moral downside and negligible effect on war and peace and foreign policy — just a little white lie that will harm no one except Trump & Co.
Well said!!
Look at how many people are calling Tulsi a Russian apologist and other names even though she is a member of congress. Who will be next in this new McCarthyism agenda and what will be the consequences. Will we eventually see people rounded up again like what happened during the first one? In case those who are blithely saying that this is no big deal I guess it has escaped their notice that we are back in Cold War thinking and both sides are building new weapons. Obama started this with his Trillion make nukes cool again and there are some in the Pentagon thinking that it might be okay if we use mini nukes because they won't cause too much damage.
Then there are the people in Trump's admin that are suggesting moving missiles into Asia and possibly putting some in Poland where we are already building up troops and military equipment. We barely and luckily survived Cold War 1. Will we survive Cold War 2?
Words do have consequences. So do actions.
“When out of fear you twist the lesser evil into the lie that it is something good, you eventually rob people of the capacity to distinguish between good and evil.”
~ Hannah Arendt
As you know,
McCarthyism was the result of intelligence (or what passed for intel) that Hoover had gathered during and after World War II and passed on to McCarthy, a rightist anti-Communist like Goldwater and Nixon.
The goal was to combat/end Communism in the US. American leftists were questioned, ostracized, blacklisted, etc. Russia got attacked because it was a Communist nation (the first Communist nation?), not simply because it was Russia.
Today, the American left (or neoliberals pretending to be the American left) is relentlessly attacking a non-Communist, capitalist Russia simply because it is Russia and using Russia as a weapon against Trump and Company.
We're not attacking the American left as did McCarthyism, but a rightist President and members of his family and entourage. We're not holding televised hearings with the accuser and the accused each represented by counsel, similar to a trial. It's all being done in media alone and by allegations and words like "meddled" and "interfered" and "colluded". It's weird is what it is. But, I don't know if it's actually like McCarthyism, other than no-Communist, capitalist Russia and Communist Russia being the common thread. \\
If another nation were the accused, say, France--if France had "meddled" with our election, bought facebook ads and "colluded" with Trump (an über capitalist) would we have even thought of McCarthy?
(I am so very sorry about your father and your family.)
McCarthy was a front for a much larger organization.
It was already in place in the US, but fully deployed by the Nazis we brought back from WWII, as they enacted their eternal blood revenge against the Russians. They introduced the fear that would haunt Americans for the next century. They matriculated through the Federal government and established their Neocon fiefdoms in the State Department, the Pentagon, the DOJ, and especially throughout the Intelligence Community, which pulled the media (and later the corrupt media monopolies) into their national brainwashing and dis-information programs. Our entire government is infested with these predators, and with their closely related Israeli cohort. They have led us into loss after loss, endless failed wars, failed diplomacy, everyday war crimes against sovereign nations. They've spent our treasures and put the people into staggering debt, mortgaging their lives and futures to pay for it all. They neutered the people's government through the privatization and contamination of fundamental government social services, which they gifted to the corporations to financially exploit and corrupt so that the US can never again achieve a collective vision. They have created a mentally ill society that normalizes the evil and injustice at play in their diminishing lives.
This will continue, on and on, until this nation is destroyed, for there is no mechanism to stop it.
Elections are completely irrelevant.
Populations don’t like wars. They have to be lied into it.
That means we can be “truthed” into peace. — Julian Assange
Maybe you're overly optimistic
Don't count on Americuh being destroyed aside from the whole planet being destroyed. No survivors. Not even Mad Max. No wooden ships. If the situation is as totalistically designed and inevitable as you imagine, there's no where to run, no where to hide.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhcflDSUMvc]
EDIT/Add block quote:
Maybe you think we are in a situation equivalent to that of the Jews and others being systematically gassed to death by the Nazis. Sorry, but no. Not even close. And how can a writer keep civilization from destroying itself, if that destruction is set in stone?
There's a mechanism but as long as a majority of people don't avail themselves of it especially when we're presented with the opportunity of our lifetimes, well, then fuhgeddaboudit.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr8ljRgcJNM]
The kids get what's at stake. They are fighting for their lives and the life of Mother Earth:
I recall when many of us felt about our parents and old fogies in general the way Bob Dylan expressed it in this classic take:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxLECbf0nOA]
And nowadays, the kids feel just that way about us most of us boomers. At the very least, I'm taking the option of saying, "No, not all of us."
So It's Not 1942. But Is It 1934? '35?
I'm sorry, but I find a slippery sloped strawman reductio absurdum to be an old, hackneyed response to the information and power disparities today leading to fascism.
I wonder if they said the same thing in 1933 Germany - I'm sure they did, I mean the 1933 Germans were nowhere near burning and gassing humans in ovens, right?
"While Germany might be trending fascist, they're not burning anyone in ovens."
There is an implied,"...Yet," within that argument if we look back historically and allow for the possibility of "It Happening Here".
Let's shift to Mao and Stalin? While they might not be classically fascist, I think we can agree that authoritarian communism is closer to Fascism than Socialism. Accept that correlation, and compare our present situation and the potential for those kinds of effects due to political responses.
I expect to see food burning to protect markets in the near future given our chaotic and kinetic "resource strapped" planet. Would burning food amidst mass famine and martial law qualify for the kind of fascist future Pluto mentioned above?
How about debtors prison and slave labor/indentured servitude amidst economic catastrophe and resource pressure? Could you see that going fascist?
History might not repeat itself but it certainly does rhyme. I don't think we're going to be able to predict the tone, face, and fashion that fascism takes here, but I don't think you can look at the power and information disparity, the lay of the land, and the general trends and see anything but a Boot coming.
Today, with Great Wealth comes Absolute Power and Absolute Impunity. Epstein. QED.
That foul, abhorrently evil INSTITUTIONAL child trafficking / extortion ring of the Rich, Politically Connected and Famous - continues. Do we need any other symbolic issue to point at the heart of this?
Pluto mentioned the Paperclip transformation of the US after the war, and I'm completely with him. The winding down of WWII is one of the most bizarre stories in history from inside it, but if we were to have some more time - a century or two - I'm sure we'd see it much more like suing for peace, armistice, and negotiation rather than complete surrender. It's far more conspiratorial than open and honest.
I mean, the German spymaster, Gehlen, became the US Spymaster overseeing the Russian Front. Nobody got the German Loot, either, except for the Nazi exiles in Argentina and their banksters.
That stuff sounds normal when reading about ancient history. But, I mean, those people burned people in ovens by the million, and we defeated them. Can't be that we worked with them and wove them into our national fabric.
Pluto, I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on this, because I'm with you. I don't have to wonder whether or not "It Can Happen Here". I'm pretty sure it already did. But "It" didn't look like burning people in ovens, so we missed it.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
What happened to Stalin? What happened to Mao?
What happened to the Berlin Wall? Were the concentration camps liberated? What happened to the Thousand Year Reich?
Of course fascism is in the process of happening here but it hasn't gotten to the point of us getting carted off to the gas chambers. . . . yet.
The think I'm most worried about is the time contraint to stop global heating and climate catastrophe.
And that folks don't see the golden opportunity, the chance of our lifetimes, that Bernie's canididacy presents to us. It's a horserace. There's a much better chance of Bernie pulling it off this time around than 2016.
But Bernie's this and that. Not good enough. Flawed. Let's wait for the Apocalypse and the Second Coming! For now, though, let's curse the darkness for it is ordained that it will only get darker! That's the ticket!
What Makes You Think That Climate Chaos Isn't Part of the
plan? Why didn't we stop burning? Why didn't we profit wildly from renewables? Market forces and profits? Perhaps, but whose market forces, and who's profiting? How will they guarantee they keep their profits?
Certainly looks like some kind of nefarious plot from the 60s through now. If getting carried off into gas chambers is required to observe fascism, I'm afraid we're never going to see it.
What happens to all national despots eventually? They get outlasted and absorbed by outside power and organization, or they fall from their lack of power and organization. That is how nations fall - from a lack of information, organization, and power to control the populace.
What if it's a global despot? What if it's a global despot with near omniscience and omnipotence? There are not many chinks in that armor, if any at all.
Waiting for active, mechanistic mass extermination will probably never yield correlation. We're being exterminated right now, just on a longer, more organic timeline. Look at birth and fertility rates, life expectancy, infant mortality, general health and well being, homelessness, farming practices, food quality, water quality...
How many Flint, MI, New Orleans, Gulf of Mexicos, do we have to have before we can see this? How much inaction by ALL Establishment authorities on these life or death issues can we allow before calling them out on their pogrom?
These are all MASSIVE experiments. Glyphosate, factory farming, irradiating food, market based medicine, 5G, Frankenfoods, privatized water, weather manipulation, negative interest rates, Corexit? Massive social experiments on captive populations causing death and destruction. Better Living Through Chemistry was a terrible idea, and it didn't die until the 70s, and then it was only a ceremonial death.
The next version of fascism won't bring the people to the concentration camp, it will bring the concentration camp to the people.
Waiting for the ovens to fire up is far too late. It was 6 years too late in the mid-20th Century at the speed of radio. It might as well be 600 years too late in the time of the internet.
Peace~
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Now or never. . . .
Or as Bobby D. sang in The Times They Are a'Changin' . . . . "the chance won't come again."
Or Phil (RIP):
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNp1kqnRw-U]
Yup
The fact that no country is doing much of anything to fight climate change has made me wonder if there is anything that can actually be done to stop it or is there some other nefarious thing going on. Looking at how many rich people are buying bug out countries or moving to bug out countries for when the poo hits the fan blades makes me think that they just thin that the can ride it out and when all of us non persons are gone they will remake the world as they see fit for themselves. Cynical but yeah...
From medications that end up killing us, to water and air pollution that ends up killing us, to lead in many cities water supplies with Newark, NJ being the one in the news now, but many others waiting their turn and that it has been going on since 2013 when Booker was guv and Obama pres and lots of graft took place. To the new gov paying some ex con with no skills in science claiming that the water supply was safe even though it was shown to have high lead levels............. to every other gawd damned poisoning act that we the people are being submitted to. Oh yeah it's a slow genocide of the undesirables. Many people see it while others can't believe that it's happening. All going back to who was imported into the country during operation paperclip and going forward.
Then there is the breakdown of society because of increasing poverty and intentionally underfunded social programs.
“When out of fear you twist the lesser evil into the lie that it is something good, you eventually rob people of the capacity to distinguish between good and evil.”
~ Hannah Arendt
Breakdown of Society Is Moving From a Brave New World to
1984 on their timeline.
Up to this moment, we're a spot on hit for Huxley's Brave New World. When that comes down, get ready for the Boot of 1984. I think we're in the transition.
Your commentary on the desire to "not see" is also spot on.
I've sent you a PM...
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Two towns in Montana without clean water for 4-5 years
So far no federal program to provide drinking water to the town that has loads of crap in its water supply. But this shouldn't come as a surprise since this country is far behind on updating its infrastructure. Just no money for it right? Right?
“When out of fear you twist the lesser evil into the lie that it is something good, you eventually rob people of the capacity to distinguish between good and evil.”
~ Hannah Arendt
There's no where to run, no where to hide
We're a broken people living under loaded gun
It can't be outfought
It can't be outdone
It can't be outmatched
It can't be outrun
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51iquRYKPbs]
That's the song that has been in my head for the past few days.
Is it great yet?
The Lincoln Park guy committed suicide
As did Phil Ochs (mental illness and too many bad chemicals).
I sincerely and heartfeltly hope you're not at any kind of point in your life where you are contemplating such a drastic, self-destructive course of action.
Maybe read Albert Camus's The Myth of Sisyphus?
Linkin Park guy
Yes, I knew about Chester Bennington. I knew the day it happened. I checked his twitter that day and saw that the last tweet he shared was about plastics pollution. He will never know how many people that were affected by what he did. As for me, I will never learn another new song no matter how long I live. It took me over a year after he died to listen to any music at all.
I could never do that to my kids. I do, however, agree with the words of the song I shared.
As for Bernie, even if he pulls a rabbit out of a hat and wins the presidency, I doubt he could outrun it either. That's why I'll stay home. That's how defeated I believe we all are.
Is it great yet?
Play of words
Phil Ochs used to say he died in Lincoln Park during the 1968 Chicago police riots.
I'm glad you are blessed with family.
Thank you. I'd never thought about them, outside the
atomic bomb and the space program. Silly me, I guess.
“No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up.” Lily Tomlin
may i add a bit to your superb
analysis?
and those countless war crimes have killed so many, sent so many into the homeless diasporas, and actually created more enemies and more radical enemies of the west because of it. has that been part of the unstated hegemonic plan as well?
from iraq > libya > syria > iraq again > african nations...ISIS, ISIL, Da'esh, Al queda, those armaments traveled, and are still traveling.
who will stop the western hegemon? those who can and must to survive. and yes, the ruling class will not cede to a multipolar world, more's the pity.
‘Every single empire, in its official discourse, has said that it is not like all the others, that its circumstances are special, that it has a mission to enlighten, civilize, bring order and democracy, and that it has a mission to enlighten, civilize, bring order and democracy, and that it uses force only as a last resort.’
~Edward Said
Neo-McCarthyism is Authoritarian, Not Ideological.
Political ideologies are so 20th Century... Don't these fools know that history ended in the 90s?
The only thing that matters is authority and loyalty. It matters not what political pole you come from, what matters is how you assault the center with such disobedience to your team.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Thanks. I think that I understand McCarthyism,
even if I did not weave our German imports into my view of McCarthyism. I also think I understand some of what is going on now.
As I posted above, using the term "Neo-McCarthyism" seems to be based solely on Russia being a common element. For that reason, I think it's a misnomer that masks the actual nature of this Millennium's "eek, RUSSIA!
"Russia, a name into which we invested so much during the Cold War to that it may still raise negative emotions, just by being uttered. McCarthyism is also a term to be reviled seventy years later. Inasmuch as I don't believe it fits the current "eek, Russia" nonsense, it seems to me even ironic in some way to call the current nonsense about Russia "neo-McCarthyism."
I Did Not Intend to Suggest That You Didn't Know About
McCarthyism.
I was simply suggesting that McCarthyism, the original, at least had an ideological bent to it.
Today's version is not ideologically based. It's authoritarian based. As such, given our binary "with us or against us" situation, I think it's going to be a tougher nut to crack and a tougher one to avoid - on all sides. Today's version, not being bound to an ideology makes it more difficult to spot the hypocrisy. I think on ideological grounds it was easy to see the hypocrisy and shy away. Authoritarian grounds means that you must see the hypocrisy and embrace it, or be the Other.
I do think the distinction makes more than a bit of difference, but YMMV.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
You're confirming my points.
Yes, that's obvious and was implicit in my post. Communism is an ideology. So is "anti-Communism" to coin a term for purposes of short cutting. But, how is "simply suggesting" something to me" not implying that I am unaware of it? I wasn't angry or annoyed by the implication. I just did want to negate it. Obviously, I did not succeed in convincing you because you replied with more explanation of the current stuff.
Moving on....Your post makes it clear that I also did not get my original point across, despite two posts by me on the subject, so shame on me. I'll try one more time and then realize that I am not up to the task and stop trying.
My point was that there is no "today's version" of McCarthyism: What is going on today is nothing like McCarthyism and referring to the current sitch as neo-McCarthyism or a version McCarthyism only masks the actual nature of the current crap. Not only do I think there is a distinction between the two; I think they are nothing alike. The only commonality is that the nation we targeted in the 1950s, the USSR, when it was Communist and trying expanding its reach, was often called Russia. The nation we target now, a capitalist nation, is also called Russia. That's it.
Thinking it's a version of McCarthyism or neo-McCarthyism whenever the US establishment accuses anyone of having any sort of connection at all with a capitalist Russia does not, IMO, reflect analysis, but, worse, obscures the real issue at hand.
Come to think of it, I believe that my previous two explanations were better than this one. I should have given up after the second one.
Bernie's Neo-McCarthyism?
OK. Fair Enough. Have a Nice Night. nt
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
The obvious thing McCarthyism and neo-McCarthyism have in common
is, that people who like to imagine themselves as having the moral high ground feel free to defame anyone who disagrees with them, in the process employing every trick from snide innuendo to extravagant accusations of treason, all based on zero real evidence.
They don’t care about ordinary people whose lives may be upended, based on exactly nothing.
Edited to add:
Typical of McCarthyism is the normalization of the tactic of “guilt by association”: accusations like “You { know | associate with | met with | hang out with | had contact with | were friendly with | spoke up for | gave a ‘platform’ to } people who are X (or did X or support X), you must be X too, you are an X lover or X apologist or X enabler, we will now treat you as guilty of anything and everything X are guilty of.”
And the fact that Sanders
feels he must agree with Russiagate even if he really doesn't but "just says it" because he has to in order to get anywhere near a nomination or election, absolutely reeks of McCarthyism, IMHO. That same oh well, have to get along to go along even if you're just saying it, was just as much a part of it as the actual hearings and destruction of actual lives.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Fellow McCarthyite Travellers
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKNqYxzNVts]
Technically, Russia has meddled
Not to Russia! Russia! Russia! Levels but technically it is true. Israel has gone beyond meddling. But from a sound byte perspective, is Sanders going to corner McConnel and expose his hypocrisy if he says Israel? Or DNC?
No.
He pretty much HAS to use the attack vectors available to him.
This is for keeps. For the entire human race. I don't give a flying fuck if someone starts purity preaching from their ivory tower.
Just. Fucking. Win.
Win what?
that to me is the bigger question and one hell of a lot more important than who wins. Winning office is one thing, winning a viable future on this planet is another.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Gore had attack vectors available
So did Kerry when they got the election stolen from them but they didn't pursue them. Then Bernie didn't do anything either so instead we got Bush, Bush and Trump. All ran on the DP ticket.. now the question is will Bernie fight this time if he gets robbed or roll over again? I think people should get to know that answer.
“When out of fear you twist the lesser evil into the lie that it is something good, you eventually rob people of the capacity to distinguish between good and evil.”
~ Hannah Arendt
Do you think that going on about Russia! which Republicans
laugh at, will corner or defeat McConnell? IMO, this is not the time For Sanders to worry about McConnell anyway, or even about Trump. This is the time to worry about Biden and Warren. And the best strategy for Sanders there is to differentiate himself from those two phonies as much as he can.
Besides, surely, there is enough real stuff about McConnell to criticize without catapulting the Russia! propaganda. What is McConnell supposed to do about it, anyway? Take a war vote? Propose sanctions? Take a meaningless vote saying Putin bad? The Constitution puts foreign policy with the POTUS, not Congress.
Candidly, if this were another kind of board, I would not post a thing adverse to Sanders until after the primary (or the election, if he wins the primary). Hypocritical or not, I don't believe in criticizing the candidate whom I am supporting. I would not defend him on something like this. He is my candidate, not my idol. I think he is wrong on certain things; and I will not defend what I believe is wrong. However, I would not add my "voice" to his detractors, either.
Why am I supporting him? Because he is the best candidate put up by the only party that has a realistic chance of winning and I don't consider him evil, as I did with Hillary and with Obama when he ran for re-election. And no one is perfect.
On edit: And I don't feel a need to vote in the Green primary because (a) I don't believe Greens are likely to nominate anyone evil and (b) even if they did, he or she will lose the election. So, there is no possibility that I will aid and abet an evil President by skipping the Green primary. I will, however, vote Green in the general because I am not in a purple state.
This was why we left DK
No one candidate should be above criticism regardless if you're voting for them or not. People who posted 'adverse' things about Hillary were banned or told to leave and here we are. Even though they were true it was called right wing talking points. Just a way to shut down the conversation IMO. I have explained why I don't like Bernie signing on with Russia Russia Russia in the comments here and in other essays. The GOP has a hard on for war with Russia too and they say Russia interfered with the election. They just haven't signed on with the Mueller BS. And Mueller couldn't make a case for Collusion and didn't show any evidence of how Russia did it. I bet Bernie knows that and yet here he is spreading propaganda. Nope...
“When out of fear you twist the lesser evil into the lie that it is something good, you eventually rob people of the capacity to distinguish between good and evil.”
~ Hannah Arendt
When I said Republicans laugh at Russiagate, I meant
Republican voters, not the GOP and not Republican politicians. I should have been more specific. Let's assume that McConnell wants to be re-elected and the vote in his state is not rigged. In that case, the only thing that McConnell has to worry about is Republican voters in his state. Will they be impressed by Sanders or anyone pointing out that McConnell has taken no action on Russiagate. They think Russiagate is a hoax and they mock it. So, no, they will not vote against McConnell because of that, either. To the contrary, they'll respect McConnell more and mock the acccuser(s).
McConnell may also want to be re-elected Republican Senate leader. If so, he has to worry about his caucus. Will they vote against him because he took no action to give Russiagate credibility, the primary target of Russiagate having been a Republican President and US Senators knowing what nonsense Russiagate is? No. If McConnell is not leader next time, it won't be because of this.
So, McConnell has nothing to lose by ignoring or mocking Sanders for this. Sanders might lose some respect from Republican voters, though. Some were going to vote for him last time. I can't imagine this getting the votes of any leftists who were not going to vote for him anyway. I don't see what he hopes to gain.
Henry, I modified a quote from your comment
Although there are enough nut jobs occupying every shade of the political spectrum who still sees Rooskies under their Beds, in the closets or attics--or surveilling their smartphones, that any politician who expects to retain any respect for his/her intelligence will avoid Russiagate like the plague is has been.
Thanks, AE!
In fairness, while some of us have succumbed to being made paranoid about Russia!, someone is surveilling our smartphones. Our relatively stationary dumb ones, too. As the old saying goes, "That you're paranoid doesn't mean that 'they' are not actually out to get you." But it ain't Russia. Once again, we have met the enemy and he is us. hattip, Walt Kelly, of the Pogo comic strip. (RIP, both Kelly and the strip)
Thanks, Mr. Snowden,, for the heads up! I'm so very sorry that doing what you saw as your duty to your fellow Americans and everyone else the NSA surveils cost you and Assange so very dearly. (Land of the free.) I wish you had taken Assange with you because you seem to be faring much better than he has. Unfortunately, he sought refuge in an embassy located within the border of our "special" ally/minion Than again, which Western nation cannot be "persuaded" to be our minion?
Sorry
but I don't see how your comment addresses what I wrote.
“When out of fear you twist the lesser evil into the lie that it is something good, you eventually rob people of the capacity to distinguish between good and evil.”
~ Hannah Arendt
OK: The part of your reply to me to which I responded:
In the beginning of my reply to Battle of Blair Mountain, I posted:
Your reply to that post of mine said, in part:
Because your statement about Republicans and Russiagate could be interpreted as conflicting with the one that I had made, I then said:
I simply wanted to clarify that what I had meant by "Republicans" mocking Russiagate had nothing to do with the GOP or any other Republican politician(s). After I felt that I had clarified that, I explained the thinking behind my origiinal comment. Hope that clarifies my attempted clarification .
I did not address anything else in your post about Kos or Russiagate because I didn't see any need. Your post spoke for itself without my 2 cents.
BTW, this is a very interesting thread, both for what it reveals about individual Caucusers and for what the thread tells us about Sanders and/or Russiagate.
"what it reveals about individual Caucusers"
ding! Isn't that the point when party members come here
shilling forselling their candidates? To group focus on a "non-partisan" speaking matrix. How many bots slurp this data? I don't know, but it's what campaigns do now, and if they don't they "go to joe three zero three three" lol"Your mileage may vary" encompasses every thing and leaves no one behind. good job keep going
PEACE
edit: wrong wording, no one needs to disclose anything it's all right in my face pretty much.
Thanks, eyo!
Maybe five years ago, I encountered online a man who claimed to have worked for the DNC as an attorney, all the way back when Hillary was a newbie on the Watergate case. He was retired, of course. He claimed that she had tried to deny Nixon access to an attorney, which is unethical. I'm not sure how someone right out of law school could do that, but whatever. It's more than moot now.
He also claimed he'd been in "hot rooms." Apparently, that is (was?) a term for a place where professional (flesh and blood) posters posted. He told me that posters with similar writing styles would be grouped together, using the same screen names so that "the group" could post 24/7, if needed.
I did see one clear case of that during the 2016 primary, when two people used the same screen name, but had very different posting styles. One was whiny, accusatory and could barely post a comprehensible sentence. The other was clearly better educated and more lucid. And the more lucid half of the team had not posted until primary season and stopped posting when Hillary lost. However, they could have been parent and child or spouses using one screen name.
He said, too, that the DNC had several posters, as did every Democratic politician. And, the same posters could, and would, post for and against the same candidate. So, let's say, for example, that Chafee had paid people to post on behalf of him and his metric system platform. (Could have been more obvious that Chafee was not actually running? But I digress...) But, let's also say that Trump was worried enough about Chafee to pay people to post knocking Chafee, to help ensure that Chafee was not the Democratic nominee. The same poster group might do both! If true, the joke was on whoever was paying the owner of the "hot room," I guess.
Was my online correspondent who he said he was? Was what he said true? I'll never know for certain, will I? Because, on the internet, no one knows (if) you're a dog or a retired DNC lawyer with accurate inside info.
Of course, all the above was before facebook and twitter became such big "things." It's likely more effective to hire a small team to tweet and facebook than it is to try to hit every board on the net. At least, that is my assumption. I really have no idea.
ymmv (-;
Do you have any proof....
that party shills are operating here? If not then I will kindly ask you to stop the accusations and leave it up to the management to decide if any users here are indeed "shills".
crowd psychology
no, and I edited that comment to reflect such. I conflated shill with plain old outright selling of candidates, nothing hidden to disclose, as far as I know. I am not a dark pattern expert though, I just read about them on TV. heh
PEACE
I'll remind you...
that disagreeing with your political viewpoints does not a shill make. Folks are free to promote/sell the candidate of their choice without being accused of shilling.
I see DKos tactics regularly bemoaned here yet they pop up time after time.
This is a main reason I gave up on the Bern
He probably had a Russian follow him back to Vermont after his honeymoon--and the Bern just found out about it. Is he getting as delusional as Pelosi and Mad Maxine?
Waters want to impeach
Pelosi doesn't.
So I assume, following your logic, that Waters is delusional at least in that respect if not more so.
What specifically has Bernie said about Russian meddling in US politics that you find to be delusional? Please stick to what he actually said and not an assessment or paraphrasing of what he said.
I wish he wouldn't even bring up Russia while on the campaign trail and I've written to his staff about it. But I really don't find anything he's said that I'd consider to be false or delusional (unlike the case with most Dems who have gone bad taco shit bonkers).