Let's discuss what Matt Stoller says about Bernie
Thoughts?
All week Matt has been warning us about how bad this bill was going to be and he was right.
People are not internalizing what is happening. A $6 trillion credit allocation to Wall Street isn't a corporate handout, it's a coup. These numbers are a thorough restructuring of America. https://t.co/ReYBRJNA7q
— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) March 24, 2020
What Matt means:
$6 trillion at 0% interest means you can buy up America, the world really, and essentially rent it back out to the peasants at 2%, 4%, 10%, 20% by buying Treasuries, housing, real estate, MBSs, REITs, ETFs, stocks, natural resources, etc. etc..
How bad do we get screwed? Bigly.
NO rent freeze
NO student debt forgiveness
ONE time payment
$1200 per person
NO money until May
Money will be taxed
Am I being charged interest? Do some have to pay this back? Is this a loan? Cuz it’s def not relief -it’s a bullshit attempt at shutting us up. #stimulusbill— Thia is with Bernie (@ThiaBallerina) March 25, 2020
This article is really worth a read too.
Imagine if the congress approved a measure to form a public-private partnership between the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve. Can you imagine that?
Now imagine if a
totally captured congresspanicky and ill-informed Congress gave the Fed a blank check to bail out all of its crooked crony corporate and Wall Street friends, allowing the Fed to provide more than $4.5 trillion to underwater corporations that ripped off Mom and Pop investors by selling them bonds that were used to goose their stock prices so fatcat CEOs could make off like bandits. Imagine if all that red ink from private actors was piled onto the national debt pushing long-term interest rates into the stratosphere while crushing small businesses, households and ordinary working people.Now try to imagine the impact this would have on the nation’s future. Imagine if the Central Bank was given the green-light to devour the Treasury, control the country’s “purse strings”, and use nation’s taxing authority to shore up its trillions in ultra-risky leveraged bets, its opaque financially-engineered ponzi-instruments, and its massive speculative debts that have gone pear-shaped leaving a gaping black hole on its balance sheet?
Well, you won’t have to imagine this scenario for much longer, because the reality is nearly at hand. You see, the traitorous, dumbshit nincompoops in Congress are just a hairs-breadth away from abdicating congress’s crucial power of the purse, which is not only their greatest strength, but also allows the congress to reign in abuses of executive power by controlling the flow of funding. The power of the purse is the supreme power of government which is why the founders entrusted it to the people’s elected representatives in congress. Now these imbeciles are deciding whether to hand over that authority to a privately-owned banking cartel that has greatly expanded the chasm between rich and poor, incentivized destructive speculation on an industrial scale, and repeatedly inflated behemoth asset-price bubbles that have inevitably blown up sending stocks and the real economy into freefall. The idea of merging the Fed and the Treasury first appeared in its raw form in an article by former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen in the Financial Times. Here’s a short excerpt from the piece:
“The Fed could ask Congress for the authority to buy limited amounts of investment-grade corporate debt… The Fed’s intervention could help restart that part of the corporate debt market, which is under significant stress. Such a programme would have to be carefully calibrated to minimize the credit risk taken by the Fed while still providing needed liquidity to an essential market.” (Financial Times)
But notice how Bernanke emphasizes how “Such a programme would have to be carefully calibrated to minimize the credit risk taken by the Fed”. Why do you think he said that?
He said it because he anticipates an arrangement where the new Treasury-Fed combo could buy up to “$4.5 trillion of corporate debt” (according to Marketwatch and BofA). And the way this will work, is the Fed will select the bonds that will be purchased and the credit risk will be heaped onto the US Treasury. Apparently Bernanke and Yellen think this is a “fair” arrangement, but others might differ on that point.
Keep in mind, that in the last week alone, investors pulled a record $107 billion out of corporate bonds which is a market which has been in a deep-freeze for nearly a month. The only activity is the steady surge of redemptions by frantic investors who want to get their money back before the listing ship heads for Davey Jones locker. This is the market that Bernanke wants the American people to bail out mainly because he doesn’t want to submerge the Fed’s balance sheet in red ink. He wants to find a sucker who will take the loss instead. That’s where Uncle Sam comes in, he’s the target of this subterfuge. This same theme pops up in a piece in the Wall Street Journal. Check it out:
This is the contempt these people have for you and me and everyone else who isn’t a part of their elitist gaggle of reprobates. Here’s a clip from another article at the WSJ that helps to show how the financial media is pushing this gigantic handout to corporate America:.
Fair use so read the rest yourselves to see how bad this is.
History does repeat itself.
ICYMI my other essay on the bailout which Krystal and Saagar covered the day before.
Video h/t gulfgal and Azazello
Comments
You beat me to it and good on you
I saw Rising's show on Bernie's backsliding (and whoizliz, etc) abdicating principles for cash. The dreaded billionaires against which Mr. Sanders and his 40 acre wood rails so often. But when the chips were down, Bernie went spinelessly along with the elitists. So did all but 4 Senators.
Matt Stoller on Rising did a fine job of elucidating this new screw job:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=denWwf3J__s]
Case wrote an essay today about Human Sacrifice. Sadly, he missed the metaphysics of this operation. No, instead of turning dreck into gold, the elites are turning the population into ants. You, snoopy, I, and other animal kingdom representatives are being transmuted into ants. We are the Ant Volk. And how does one treat ants, except when they invade your kitchen? Crush them underfoot with velvet or lead boots. No second thoughts. Got no food in your house? Starve, you useless eater. Can't heat your home? Freeze, you freeloader. Sick? Stay home and die.
Get the message? Yes, Loud and clear.
We should all be thankful to our wunnerful leaders: Commander Cheeto, Nervous Nancy, Chuckles, Mitch McTurtle and a cast of thousands. Don't forget Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Awan Gang, Georgie Soros (the lovable Jew-hating Jew), etc. Throw a stone anywhere in D.C. and one is certain to hit a scum bag or sleaze ball. Batting average close to .900.
The Rising thread, clearly expository of the "Billionaires bailout Bill", reveals than even absent Nervous Nancy's attempt to load the already overstuffed legislation with even more pork, the bill says, plainly, to those who know: Fuck You and We Don't Care How This Looks To You Pathetic Ants.
I think I will watch a film about War, war in which real shooting kills people, not "sanctions", not stealing medical reserves (e.g., CQ and HCQ in France).
Shining Beacon on the Hill? How about Bonfire of the Vanities?
Agreed
But what are you thoughts on Bernie? Or Warren?
Mine are just what Matt said. We watched for years as some republicans placed holds on legislation that we wanted passed and lots of times they were secret holds or filibusters that held everything up till it was changed. So if Bernie was actually against the Iraq war why then didn't he fight with everything he had? Same with this bill. I asked that yesterday and was told to shut up cuz he will come through for us. Welp he didn't. Fiery speeches just like Warren, but then when it counted nada.
Matt Stoller's analysis is completely correct
He incisively dissected the rank corruption of the bill. He perfectly described Bernie's kabuki objections to only one provision of the bill--and then voted for it. They call it controlled opposition. I call it spineless hypocrisy. Why didn't he put a hold on the bill until all the obscene wealth-transfer to corporations and financiers was removed? Nope. He likes playing rebel in the Congress. The big boys give Bernie a pea shooter and let him toss spit wads around, knowing he couldn't hurt anything.
Yeah, Liz...Whoizliz? She ain't no Cherokee squaw but she is an aromatic decaying residue of someone who once pretended to care about the ant people. She has lied her way to power with the same cunning but not the malice of H. Rodent Clinton. Warren in her school marmy way is as much a rat as Her Heinous.
This one is good too
Guess what? Trump just repealed the law with a signing statement. Funny how Obama never did many of them to help us.
Hmm I wonder what the other is for? Just like the 2008 bailout the money should come to us and then we could stimulate the economy ourselves and everyone would be happy. This means we should have gotten $13,000 plus instead of $1,200 that lucky people will get. Eventually. Maybe.
Jimmy Dore has jumped the shark!
Warren revealed her true colors long ago. Bernie has been fighting the best that he could against just about everybody so long as I can remember. He is having almost daily livestreams but getting absolutely minimal MSM coverage. What the fuck more can he do against the concerted opposition. Holding his breath and pouting is not the answer. Jimmy Dore has joined Bill Maher as mud to me!
Do you feel the same with Stoller?
He is the one saying that Bernie could have done more to block the bill. Yes he's doing well with his talks on the epidemic, but how will he get money to people during the unemployment crisis? It's not going to help people who escape being sick if they become homeless or die of starvation. I haven't seen any of his talks so maybe he has covered it.
Did you listen Stoller's interview with JImmy Dore?
Stoller outlines what he believes Sanders could have done. Can you detail how he got it wrong?
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
[EDIT] Matt Stoller understands how the Bill
...the Bill was passed. He knows the roles that everyone had and the games they played to pass the Bill as it was written. He could repeat corrupt things the Bill got wrong. he knows the People were harms as much as possible and blames the Republicans. He doesn't mention what a decent Bill would have done..
He didn't say the Bill is a massive wealth transfer from the bottom to the top. Yet again. But he did say that the banks and Feds are already wide open to rescue too-big-to-fail banks and corporations and monopolies — and no Bill is even necessary for that. Which essentially means they can double dip: Blow the money from the Bill then go to the discount windows for more, much more. The money is all coming from the same place: Thin Air.
He does know the kabuki well, and he knows the rolls that everyone plays to seize the money and control over government to feed into the corporations, institutions, and organizations that bankroll them — the open maw of capitalism that enriches them downstream.
But he does not know the People. He does not know authentic populism. And he has NO idea who the Left is. He thinks the Left are Progressives inside the Democratic Party trying to be liked so the Party doesn't primary them with someone more cooperative. And because of that, he cannot articulate a solution that is NOT more of the same. "Organize and get serious" is an empty slogan delivered to an audience (Dore's audience) whose politics are beyond his comprehension.
As he admitted, he has no idea what voters will do. He doesn't know the body politic because he, himself, is playing a role and trying to make friends strategically with certain people whose circles he needs to penetrate. Stoller plays the role of the interpreter and explainer of the "inside" of power and politics and money. He spins this story in his books the way he "experiences" it as an onlooker and as old hand in the gossip circle. He delivers to his Readers a privileged view he thinks will excite and astonish and anger them. He believes he's telling hard truths that will influence people. But to what end?
The truth is, he's aimless; he has no political destination. He's a political gamer. He hovers close to his sources and their objectives. To him, his audience is an abstract presence. Whoever his audience is, they are not in this movement and they not in Dore's audience. Like many writers of his kind, he is writing for his publisher, his fellow writers in the niche they share, and for the Twitter fans and hangers-on they muster.
I have no issue with his views. I see where they come from.
_____________________________________________________________________
[EDIT]
Oh yeah. I don't see Bernie Sanders as anything like Stoller describes. Stoller view is dehydrated and bitter. He is engulfed in the common wisdom of the jaded and corrupt.
Bernie is the right leader for the people at the right time. He has the right vision. He holds a light that the people can see. He lights up the way. The only way forward.
With him as President, the American people will know what they want and what they need to do. It doesn't matter if Bernie gets it done. It only matters that he shines the light at the top.
He has worked tirelessly to enlighten the people. If Americans get this wrong, then there was never any hope for them. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose.
We are about three weeks from seeing what having a sizeable chunk of Americans with nothing left to lose looks like.
Your comment deserves an essay of its own
For my part, there are portions of the comment which are supported by events Stoller reports:
Yes and no. Yes to the first half. But blaming Republicans for the Bill is not to excuse Dems from culpability. Stoller was rightfully upset with two Dems who purportedly are populists. One is spineless former firebrand Bernard of the 40 Acre Wood farm in Vermont. Bernie is not the man he was earlier in his career. Stoller says he is lazy. Perhaps. More likely, Bernie still talks the talk but lacks the energy and moral courage to continue walking the walk.
Stoller also condemns Liawatha, of the Massachusetts tribe of pseudoCherokees. They have a Casino on Boylston street with a big gold dome on it. Liz made her way to the alabaster dome of the District of Corruption. By golly, gosh, with just a little time for mellowing and attitudinal readjustment, Mz Liz backtracked on her trademarked economic populism. This year, she was nowhere to be found in the list of Stimulus Bill (SB) objectors. Heck no. This time she was just as neoliberal a Wall Street toadie as anybody could be.
Stoller didn't offer solutions although hinted strongly that more benefits be given to those needing it, for a longer period than in the SB both in terms of direct aid and indirect aid. I don't believe his intent was to identify a cure for the SB, but he certainly loudly indicated a need for gross and fine reformulation of Washington scheming by the pawns, from the people, to the rich. This combination is a distinct perversion of an earlier ideal "of the people, by the people, for the people".
As to whether Stoller "knows" real populism is unanswered by the interview on Dore's show. Upon what do you base your conclusion? You may be correct, but Stoller's testimony does neither affirm nor contest your assertion.
I speak from instinct
...and serious observation. You know... I don't disagree with anything you said. I have a 360 view of the political dynamic as it moves through time. The criticisms that people have are based on valid perceptions.
Off and on, I look at Bernie through a dark lens, too. It's a parallel universe where Bernie (and Liz and Tulsi, too) were commissioned by the Party to sheepdog the Left and the anti-war Left. In this parallel universe, Bernie and Tulsi are co conspirators in the kabuki election cycle for the good of the Party. If Bernie did stay in the race, it would be because the Party asked him to keep the Left distracted a little bit longer.
Back in this reality, Yang, Pete, Liz... they all returned to the Party nest, on command. Joe will win most of the remaining primaries. The Party can arrange that. They can cancel the remaining debates and the media blackout will continue on Bernie. The Special Ops Epidemic will continue to distract and disrupt. Joe will remain in his bunker until the Party flips his replacement. I find it unlikely the Democrats would put Joe up against Trump, but they might if they think Trump was fatally wounded by the Pandemic. They will think, "Joe is the only choice voters have!"
I see all of that through a clear lens, too. I'm pretty sure that this is the last chance Americans will ever have to take over their government and make it work for the people. I can see that door slamming shut for good. Through the clear lens, I see that people might be impacted by the Plague just enough to shock them into saving their country and securing their own wellbeing. If Bernie thinks the people are there for him, he will lead them and shake things up.
Conversely, if they end up with Joe, or another right-wing Dem, as a candidate, I hope that the Left has One.More.Lesson to teach the Party that has sabotaged them for centuries. I hope they deliver a long-lasting soul-crushing defeat to the Democratic Party in the 2020 Federal election. This for the sake of the New Left that will rise from the Party's ashes. Let it burn.
Stoller might not have said it in this video
but he has been saying that all week. See the tweet I posted under the video. He knows it's a transfer of wealth and a total sellout from congress. I have posted some of his other articles here this week where he discusses just that.
Shades of Obama? Or is this snark?
Obama put out the lights one by one.
The public option, the war surges, FISA, legalizing in country propaganda, etc.
One could no longer see what was possible. That was the light he held up during the election. When he got into office, the light dimmed more and more until it was pitch black. People lost their moral compasses; they lost their way, they forgot the vision.
This entire time with Bernie, the people can still see what they want. They can see what they are fighting for. They can see what has been denied them. Bernie is still keeping that light on. When he finally goes away, the darkness will descend again. The people will forget what was possible, and leaderless, they will tumble into the next three-year distraction.
That's simply what always comes next. So, it is not snark. Many folks here have already moved into the future darkness, and that is realistic. I was going to do that earlier, myself. I still plan on catching up to you there because I intend to keep politics at the macro scale Real — and free of fantasy and denial. To me, that means influential macro politics will be black and fully opaque in the future. The light comes back only at the micro-political scale, where influence is only local. It's the world of personal focus, simple interactions, zen endeavors, the mindful self — and service in small communities. Macropolitics become invisible and unchanging. Government is merely a bureau.
I read a half dozen Bernie boards and Leftist boards over at Reddit every day. Like an anthropologist, I plan to gaze upon these vibrant communities while the possibilities and visions are still illuminated, until Bernie leaves and the light grows dim. Maybe I'll tell them about the Firebird. When the possibilities are no more, the center cannot hold for long. Will these good people become about something else? Or nothing else? I want to know how it ends.
your take on
Stoller was effectively and accurately rebutted above. MS indeed has been calling out this giveaway to corporate America, and has been trying to explain that it actually involves a $6-10t amount, not $2t or the mere $500b that Bernie mentions.
Beyond that on Stoller, you may be confusing his anger over Ds allowing this to happen with their feckless and cowardly leadership with some notions you ascribe to him of "bitterness" etc.
As for Obama, it was clear for all who had eyes to see that once he switched from his kumbaya presidential campaign of the glowing rainbow to taking office, he had dimmed the bulb overtly as he announced he would be governing largely as a safe bipartisan centrist who wanted to make friends with Republicans and not rock the boat. For many on the white liberal-left, still in thrall to Obama and the promise of rainbow politics and unicorns, this was enough to keep them happy as they continued to feel self-satisfied at supporting an articulate, clean black guy.
As for Bernie, many of the mistakes of naive trust by the idealistic lib-left towards Obama were repeated with their new torch bearer, as they imparted to him glowing qualities he never had and as they generally overvalued him as a progressive leader and politician. Stoller's interesting insider take was a welcome corrective to the solid year of cheerleading for Bernie seen on prog boards, YT and twitter. He may have slightly overstated things here and there, maybe, but overall his analysis seems closer to the truth than the rosy, walk-on-water take we get from the Bernie cheerleaders.
As I've repeated throughout this thread
...I can see both views of Bernie — Bernie the keeper of the vision and Bernie the opportunist. Either appear to be a valid reaction, depending on the person doing the perceiving.
Perception is a choice we make, or a predisposition of character. In the same way, voting in a Presidential election is a contest between perceptions. In an election, one perception will win and it will write the history of the era. The opposing perceptions will remain, but only one will become the author of reality that Americans carry into the future.
None of this was ever anything more than that.
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is best of them all?
Our perceptions, as you correctly imply, determine our view. The elementary example of that is the glass half-full or half empty? This story has not been written in full yet. History is written by the victors. Bernie will not be among the victorious. My opinion--my opinion of Bernie currently has been molded by a series of missed opportunities, failure to fight, and backsliding. Unforced errors such as the open borders idiocy also have dimmed my perception of a once-noble character. The most recent evidence of spineless abdication in my view is the cowardly decision to vote with the other 95 corporatists in the Senate on the greatest free gift financial institutions have ever been gifted with.
Too many lost opportunities here. If indeed Bernie is a true Warrior for Freedom, Justice, and Liberty, then he is a most horrible field commander. I wonder what flaws Sun Tsu might find in Bernie's 40 year campaign combined with his 2020 feeble attempted frontal assault on TPTB.
Sun Tzu would say that you are describing tactics.
Sun Tzu would ignore tactics. He would have his eye on the overall strategy.
Don't forget, in a perfect victory your opponent never knows that he was standing on a battlefield.
Perhaps this is why China has been winning
"Victory through peace"-- Xi Jinping
I know very little about Stoller,
cannot say he is a tool, cannot say he is serving some masters, nor can I say the opposite.
But I can say he knows more government officials that I, knows more about how they operate than I, and he knows from personal experience who these politicians are and how they go about their work much better than I.
And I agree that Bernie was accurately defined and correctly nailed by Stoller.
Stoller has no way of solving the problem of the oligarchy than I, so no matter our differences in place, career, age, life experiences, we can absolutely agree we are too quick to be drawn personally to a politician with some charisma, and then we are to quick to overlook the obvious.
I am glad he is out there raising hell.
If that is all we can do, then let's do it.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Where I disagree with Matt Stoller
I disagree with Matt Stoller on a couple of points:
First off, Stoller asserted that the Federal government is bad at distributing checks. As a retiree who has never missed getting my Social Security check, I call bullshit. No need to echo Ronald Reagan’s shpiel about government incompetence.
Second, he defines Sanders’ movement as a mere “cult of personality” without mentioning M4A, living wage, green new deal, college debt, etc. This is a true progressive movement, not a “cult”, and it’s as if he’s trying to sheepdog progressives away from it.
"Please clap." -- Jeb Bush
Best comment.
Thank you.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
Our government's response to the pandemic
and the stimulus bill are clear examples of government inefficiency.
Just because SS checks have been sent out on time for decades has little bearing on the websites crashing with new unemployment claims, and the announcements checks will be coming late.
He isn't complaining that the programs should be privatized. He is complaining that government has become inefficient for no good damn reason.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
It seems to me that government inefficiency
...could explain why we have an old, outdated infrastructure, plastered with blight. Or why the Pentagon cannot account for $21 trillion dollars of our money, no matter how hard they try.
It's outdated computers and fractured databases, and a bureaucracy that doesn't want change the inefficient way things are done. Neglect piles up until one day it basically get classified and people stop talking about it.
It's like the Federal Reserve or Ft. Knox. Only 'Top People' are allowed to look inside.
Elizabeth Warren accidentally spilled the beans
when she said, "I am just a player in the game."
While she was speaking about herself, what she really revealed is that all of them are just players in the game. Some of those players are allowed the role of nibblers at the edges which is what I believe Bernie is. And as long as the nibblers stay within their confines, ie, Bernie as the amendment king, they are allowed small gains in exchange for voting for legislation that rewards the oligarchy and big corporations.
What Matt Stoller is doing and has been doing is educating us on just how bad the game is. This is how people with good intentions and good ideas become compromised. If you completely refuse to play the game, you are shunned and rendered totally ineffective by being unable to get any support for good legislation.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
There is that risk
there's always a risk when you set out to do the right, principled thing. There's always also the chance he and the cause could come out stronger on the other side with taking a firm stance against playing the game, calling it out for what it is, refusing to go along.
It has been his choice all along, and he's chosen to play the game. This was most clearly evident in his FP comments on Russia and related -- he didn't really believe what he was saying (I don't believe he suddenly gets naive and stupid just on FP) but was just going along to maintain his game player status.
Well, at least Stoller has performed the useful service of finally pointing out that Bernie, like Obama and Trump before him, doesn't walk on water. This will be met with the usual denial and refusal to see the truth among Bernie's fervent followers who think Bernie is The One to Light the Way. Stoller will join Michael Tracey in the small group of independent-minded lefties who will get plenty of incoming flak for their truth telling. But it needed to be said.
The game and insiders
Stoller was an insider at the staff level so he had plenty of time to observe how the game is played. I was a long time staff person in a local government which is a microcosm of the federal game but at a far less vicious level. This is why I give Stoller's comments validity and weight. At any level of government, campaign donors have power, the extent of which varies according to the size of the governing body. The lower the level of government and the smaller the governmental unit, the less power the donors generally have, but it is still there in the form of citizen advisory boards and other boards that actually have some power like planning commissions and similar boards.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
I mentioned elsewhere, it was a devastating interview.
Stoller pulls no punches and uses a lot of inflammatory language that it's going to be hard for a lot of people to get past. But I think he lays out with copious detail what happened and it's sure hard for me to disagree. There seems to be a lot of "fighting for" with very little achieving and if Stoller's timeline is accurate, and I don't doubt it is, this sure feels like ultimately Bernie ran cover for this. FFS, he voted for it! Why? He didn't need to. Sigh.
I'd be interested to hear a serious rebuttal. I know this interview is going to piss a lot of people off, but I really want to know where he got it wrong.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
IMHO,
the way they get to Bernie is via committee assignments and his ranking on those committees. They threaten to pull his assignments and ranking if he does not play the game.
If they do not cooperate, the DNC establishment ups the ante like they did with Tulsi, ensuring that bills do not get a co-sponsor or recruiting a corporate friendly candidate to primary them.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
You would think
that after 40 yrs in politics and decades in Congress, and at age 78, Bernie would finally be at the point where such trifling matters needn't concern him, and he could just speak the plain harsh truth, actually fight meaningfully, and damn the consequences.
Deep State plan is working
Discredit all alternatives to The Way Things Be, discredit any and all opposition to the Thugs in Power, make everyone so jaded and cynical that they turn away from politics altogether in disgust.
That leaves the Establishment free to do whatever the hell they damn please, including playing swapperoo with the Democratic Party nomination, secure in the certainty that no one will care enough to raise a peep of protest.
It's a game and we're all being played. Again.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Second best comment.
Thank you!
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
Very interesting take
from Stoller. "Lazy loser" is maybe a bit harsh, but it does highlight something about Bernie which rings true, namely the seeming preference for mere speechmaking and grandstanding rather than doing the hard work to learn the nuts and bolts, organize and get legislation passed. For him, it does seem more important to look like he's fighting the principled fight rather than actually fighting to achieve victory. Bernie's kabuki on this latest corona bailout bill is a perfect example.
Stoller's anecdote about Geithner's views of Liz Warren -- someone he feared -- and Bernie -- someone Geithner laughed at -- is classic.
Also spot on are Stoller's remarks about Bernie engendering a bunch of cultish followers who think he walks on water. Yes, reminiscent of the Obama followers. And the Trumpeters.
I'm fairly confident Stoller will now get plenty of aggressive pushback from Bernie's backers. But it looks like he has attempted to tell the truth, which can often be harsh and dangerous.
Color me unconvinced
that Stoller is as righteous a truth-teller as people want to paint him. You KNOW the Establishment is going to pull out all the stops to marginalize, trivialize, discredit and isolate Sanders so that they can carry on with bidness as usual, including their quadrennial game of musical chairs. And that includes a lot of Trojan-horsing, sheepdogging and Judas-goating.
If they can get enough Sanders supporters to give up and switch or drop out, they win again - and we lose again and again and again.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
I don't think the
Establishment is worried at this late point in stifling Bernie in the primaries, what's left of them. He is already defeated. It turns out there were never enough Bernie backers to defeat the establishment's pick of the season. Turns out that The Revolution was not the right campaign theme to sound this time.
Not a huge surprise. And it's just fairy tale land to base a campaign strategy heavily on getting a huge surge of young voters. That group always disappoints.
So you're saying that Bernie did all he could to stop the bill
I still think Bernie would make a better president than Biden or Trump and even Obama, but why would he vote for the corporate bailout that did the barest minimum for us? Do you know how many people who don't qualify for unemployment benefits because of their gig work? Uber is denying that people can qualify for it.
But even AOC and Omar are speaking out about how bad this is and yet they voted for it too.
Personally, I think
that Bernie himself is showing us just what we are truly up against. While that may sound terribly optimistic and naïve to some out here, I think that is exactly what we are being shown - we have NO power to stop them unless we all take the power away from our owners, which is indeed a huge thing to even attempt to accomplish and we WILL NOT accomplish it through voting, even though he will spout the corporate line and tell us to vote so as to defeat the Orange Beast. And he probably voted for that damned bill knowing if he did not that too would be used against him - "see, he didn't even vote to give you the paltry $1200 dollar check, how can you believe in any progressive ever again?"
I'm just musing but every time Bernie caves I wonder about just what that shows us all. He's always said it is about us and not him, and while I know we all think 11th dimensional chess games are being played on us and they are, I am beginning to wonder if that is his ultimate goal. Perhaps the only way to stop it is to burn it all down? I don't know, but it's beginning to look more like that's the only option since voting does NOTHING.
I did stop donating to him though. What would be the point when our owners will make damned sure he never sees the inside of the White Hut?
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
They voted for it because
it would be complete political suicide to vote against it right now.
Did you see the coverage of that one republican congressman from Kentucky, who vocally opposed it and also forced an in-person vote in the House, which delayed the process slightly and made congress gather in one large crowded room (against all current safety protocols) because he wanted a debate?
He was crucified. Trump went after him. Republicans went after him. Democrats went after him. He has been deemed to have blood on his hands because of his actions. He’s a pariah now. Maybe a ‘hero’ to some few, but at an enormous political cost.
If Bernie still wants to have any political future whatsoever, opposing or holding up this bill would have been outside the realm of even thinking about it. That seems glaringly obvious to me.
I’ve not been a Bernie supporter (or a supporter of anyone else) during this campaign cycle. I’m hardly a Bernie cheerleader. In fact, I gave up on Bernie being any kind of savior back in 2016 and 2017: endorsing HRC, brushing aside the treatment of his supporters, getting on board with Russiagate...
I had no expectations that this time around he would be different. He showed us then that when it comes down to it, he is fully committed to the Dem party and to the political establishment. So I followed that often-quoted advice from Maya Angelou:
To be clear, this is about Bernie’s political core beliefs. I do think he sincerely wants to improve things, but he also truly believes that the basic “two party system” is the only viable path to any kind of power. Thus he plays their game.
So it is certainly no surprise to me that he voted for this emergency “rescue” bill, and given public sentiment, it would have been insane for him to stand alone in opposing it.
I personally don’t think he has any chance at this point of getting the nomination, but if there is such a chance, then him getting in the way of this bill would have put a stake through the heart of any chance he might have.
Yes I did see what the republican said
I included some of his reasons for why he didn't like it here. And just who was it that gave him crap for it? John Kerry, Trump and I'm sure a lot of other insiders that wanted it passed ASAP.
Hopefully there will be another bill coming up and it will be better for us. One of the squad said there would be. Pramilla? I'm horrible with names.
Bernie said there would probably be
one or two more bills.
It took me about a minute to see Stoller
He's a bitter, despair poisoned man. He saw just how evil the system is and saw that he could not defeat it and retreated into impotent rage. Such people - and there are millions of them - must be avoided.
Bernie could have put a hold on the bill, and McConnell would have told him he was out of order and passed a worse version of the bill over Bernie's dead body. McConnell not only would, but could have done this, and the people would have applauded him for it. Bernie could have voted against it, making the final score 95-1, and the DNC would run anti Bernie ads saying he was the only person to stand against your check and Bernie would be assassinated in a week. It is one thing to decline a fight that you cannot win, a fight you cannot survive, and a fight where your loss may accomplish something. This was the second.
On to Biden since 1973
It wasn't a total loss either
It was Bernie who got those minimal provisions for us ants into the bill, and Bernie who made sure they stayed in over a tsunami of greedster objections.
There was ABSOLUTELY ZERO chance that he could have gotten those provisions, or anything better, passed as a stand-alone bill - sneaking them into the corporate giveaway was the only chance he had. So he took it, and now he's being vilified for it.
We NEVER EVER learn.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
If you are referring
to the enhanced UI benefits, Stoller says it was actually Schumer and Bennett who put those in, not Bernie.
Sure Schumer put them in
And then what did Goldilocks say to the three bears?
On to Biden since 1973
Schumer put them in...
and would have been juuuuust fine with Lindsey taking them back out at the last minute. I mean, I don't remember hearing Chuckles complain when Graham started whining about the UI provision. Only Bernie.
Hell, maybe that was Schumer and Graham's plan all along, until Bernie threw a wrench in the kubuki works by threatening to forestall the bailout and tank the markets. That sat Graham down real quick.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
I'm old and sometimes foolish, but
one thing I have learned. Do not expect perfection of anyone or anything.
Bernie is the best we have at the moment. He has plenty of people throwing mud at him. Why in heaven's name should we pick him to pieces too? There is a very old Aesop fable about this. You cannot please all the people no matter what you do.
Thank you, I absolutely agree.
n/t
Hell is empty and all the devils are here. William Shakespeare
The "solution" seems simple enough. The ants just need to stop
sending their rent payments to the 1%. The Feds will make sure they print enough "money" to keep them afloat. And the PTB don't have the means to evict us all.
chuck utzman
TULSI 2020
Stoller is right that much of the bill is awful
but he is delusional if he thinks that Bernie could have stopped it or even held it up for any significant period of time.
The pedantic meanderings
of some make me want to abandon this place at times. Where is the heart in thrashing someone like Sanders in a world full of imposters?
Not from the heart, janis b.
from the reality.
For all my admiration of Bernie's long career of advocacy for the working class and poor, people of color, women...when it came to the simple premise of using his power to de-couple the bank bailout from the people bailout, which guaranteed the people's benefits would be held hostage, as the clearly were, he said nothing.
You will not face the depression to come here, the long lines at food banks, the rise in crime, the sight of people being turned away from health clinics for who knows how many years.
You will read about it, see videos of it, but Sanders supporters will be living it.
At age 78, it could have been that last stand of his legacy, history books could have devoted chapters to his last stand.
I hope the oligarchy doesn't find NZ an attractive investment. If they do, you will get a taste of what the pedantics with so little heart are expressing right now.
We just might be shocked and dismayed right now. This is a LOT to digest.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
I appreciate your response otc
Somehow though, I still find it difficult to separate heart from reality. "This is a LOT to digest", is for me an even greater impetus to give heart a place of prominence.
A pledge to Feeding America is one place to start.
Right?
I mean, what on earth his point, here? That it's all really Bernie's fault?
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Stoller attacking Bernie from the left?
Chuck Schumer approves.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
So does Russia
What I've gotten from some comments here is that no criticism of Bernie is allowed? Is this right? And because I do agree with some of what Matt says others are thinking about leaving the site? Don't. I'll be the one who leaves if people here think that others shouldn't state their opinions. Boy that didn't take long. I left DK because I couldn't speak my mind. Nice!
Huh?
What are you talking about?
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
No snoopy, that’s not right
Your opinions are just that, yours. Others are just theirs. Criticism can be constructive for all.
Actually, that's a totally bullshit take.
What? you think I'm Russiagating you for posting this vid? WTF?
I'm talking about Stoller, who, if you know anything about the guy, has every reason to be working for Schumer here.
Get a grip.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
I am sorry to see this thread go off a discussion
of what Stoller said.
Shoot the messenger all you like, but Bernie, like absolutely all of the rest of the Senators and Representatives put Banksters first, we poor second. It will be disastrous.
Stoller doesn't strike me as a Schumer guy at all.
There are a lot of us who are angry with Sanders, a lot of us who think he is really great, but I think this whole discussion should be about whether or not Stoller is accurate in his assessment, and/or where he is inaccurate.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Just so I'm clear....
Stoller's take is that Chuck Schumer is actually the hard working, Progressive guy here and Bernie is just a lazy, grandstanding slob who stole Chuck's thunder?
Also, we should all just pretend Chuck didn't just give the banks 4 Trillion in funny money and instead blame Bernie for not getting Liz Warren to help filibuster the bill?
IOW: It's Bernie's fault the bill gave the banks $4+ Trillion, but it's to Chuck's credit the bill had any Progressive crumbs at all.
Do I have that right? Or is there something here I'm missing?
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
I didn't get that memo.
At all.
I think he was pissed at Bernie for not doing something about damn Schumer!
Get 12 jurors in a room to discuss what evidence they heard, what instructions they received from the judge, and they will go into that jury room and have all the kinds of discussions and downright fights and arguments that occur on blogs, FB, or anywhere else.
Let's just deliberate on how we view the evidence.
It is inevitable some jurors hate cops, for example, or in a family law case, some might truly hate men who cheat on their wives, and would NEVER give them custody of a child.
This should be our jury deliberation with time out for coffee, the restroom, for lunch, and let's all keep pointing to the evidence without regard to our personal prejudices.
I hear jurors take breaks, tell stories, then get back to the business at hand.
We should be able to do that here, on this site, when very few, if any, allow that privilege.
You don't even won't to hear my story, sir, of how I am spending my shelter in place.
It would curl your toes!
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
What does that mean?
What could Bernie have realistically done about Schumer? What was he supposed to do?
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Try.
Just try.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
C'mon counselor, how about some specifics?
It truly amazes me how many people are biting on Stoller's beltway upside-downism hook, line and sinker. As if Bernie is some great Magi who can point his staff the Leadership of both parties and say 'OBEY'!
But ask what Bernie should have done differently and its all vagaries and misdirection.
So go on then, prove me wrong. Give me a plausible factual scenario where Bernie's opposition causes the bank bailouts not to happen.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Yes you're missing the forest for a tree
Where did Matt say this? I just listened to it again and I didn't hear him say that.
Yeah just Chuck... smh.
Dave Dayan is also saying the same thing and yet he didn't give kudos to Schumer which you seem hung up on and I don't know why you are so hung up on that. Of course it's not just Schumer who passed this turd. Pelosi also gets credit for it and one of the worst things about this bill IMO is that it was done behind closed doors and not done in public. There have been too many bills that have left out congress' public input. I will leave out the GOP's part in this because it's expected that they sell out. I think people need to quit thinking that dems will save us because they won't.
Did you miss the part that I have been saying since I first heard about this that it's a corporate coup? The Stoller tweet and the reply says exactly what it is. Bernie wasn't in DC during the write up of the bill.
You might want to watch it again and see what Dayan said about it too or you can look at the articles I have posted here and in my other essays on this shit. Or you can just blame Schumer....
Bernie has been talking about how bad the TARP bill was for us and yet here we are again getting screwed even harder. I am not going to hold my breath on whether he endorses Cuomo if he gets switched with Biden. If so maybe that will wake some folks up.
The federal reserve just joined with the treasury department which is a huge problem. I posted an Mike Webb article on that too.
The biggest thing Matt got wrong was saying Warren is a fighter. Huh? She tweeted 8 things that should/shouldn't be in the bill and yet not one of them held up, but she voted for it anyway.
Watch it again or stand with your comment.
Don't be obtuse.
It wasn't a direct quote (obviously). But he certainly called Bernie lazy and a lot of other names and definitely made the point about Chuck Schumer being the one who added the UI provision. But you know that.
They have these things now called telephones. Ever heard of one? They're really cool because you don't actually have to be in the same place as the person you are talking to.
DDay and Stoller are cut from the same Fauxgressive cloth. It doesn't surprise me in the least they agree on this.
Gee, now why would I want to blame the Democratic Minority leader for a final bill that Stoller himself says Schumer negotiated and wrote?
Easier to blame Bernie for not objecting more strongly to Schumer. Or something.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Sorry,
but Stoller lost me, no matter how angry and experienced he attests to being, when he said - “a bunch of dumb cultist leftists are building a cult of personality around Bernie, a fundamentally lazy and stupid politician, so that they can protect their moral vanity.”
That, to me, is fucking arrogant and mean. I don't trust him, therefore I can't support what he has to say about Sanders.
It's like a bad impression...
of what Stoller thinks a 'far left' Progressive is supposed to sound like, when actually he's just spewing the same old, run-of-the-mill neolib invective Progressives are subjected to every day over at places like Agent Orange.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
I think you're right about ...
Stoller is not a
neolib by any stretch. He just wrote a book about the evils of monopolization and the consumerization of the citizenry. He has loudly denounced this bailout bill as the largest giveaway to corporate America in history, and has accurately noted that it is not a mere $500b or even $2t but potentially a $6-10t handout to the big corps by Congress.
He has plenty of criticism for Chuck and Nancy, but even more for the progressives like Bernie who should have stood up early and often to clearly explain what massive theft was going on. Instead, he asserts, Bernie and some others on his side stood silent to allow Chuck and Nancy to cobble together a corp-friendly bill with some crumbs for the people. These are not the complaints of a neolib.
Or are some of you saying any strong criticism of Bernie is by definition a sign of neoliberalism?
A lot of us...
have been reading Stoller since the early days at Dkos.
He's always been a slippery, Fauxgressive who plays the inside-outside game but whose Progressivism always stops right at the point when it starts threatening the vested interests of the powerful.
A lot of that going around nowadays. Don't you think?
No, I'm saying there seems to be a seller's market on beltway denizens all finding ways to denigrate Bernie from the left. Was there a memo or something?
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
I wouldn't know
about Stoller from "the early days at Kos" -- which takes us back 15-18 yrs ago, when Stoller would have been in his mid-20s. I don't really care what he was saying 18 yrs ago at an early age (whatever it was he was saying in 2004), and don't find it relevant here. Just as I don't give a flip about what Bernie might have written back in the 60s and 70s. It's just more ad hom messenger-shooting to deflect from discussing the messenger's substantive charges.
"Fauxgressive"?? That dismissive term gets thrown around often and loosely by some self-defining online True Progressives who seem to be nervous about ideological reservation-straying and independent thought. I would however be interested in your evidence to back up your charge, from recent-times Stoller, not his comments as a 25-yo néophyte policy wonk or pundit. And preferably something more than past comments on E Warren, who is (or was for most of 2019) viewed more favorably as a lib-prog in most libDem quarters as compared with some of the jaded left progressive boards. (I commented on this months ago in a number of posts, usually with a hostile reaction.)
For instance, today, and in the past year, has Stoller backed a neolib Dem for president? Biden perhaps? Is Stoller happy seeing MBNA Joementia appear poised to take the nomination?
Did Stoller prefer Bennett? Booker, Harris, Bootajudge or Klobbachair? Bloomberg? Or just Any Neolib Will Do? Please point me to Stoller's writings reflecting this sentiment and I'll be happy to take a look and maybe reevaluate my view of the current day Matt Stoller.
Was Stoller's criticism of Bernie on the bailout about covering for neolib Chuck? Or was it more about criticizing Bernie and the prog left for not being more forcefully vocal early on -- you know, showing actual bold leadership to meet the times -- about letting neolib Chuckie have so much power in writing the bill with corporate puppet Mitch?
Stoller obviously seems to be saying that consistent, coordinated and aggressive public statements by Bernie and the prog left (yes, including Liz) about the massive, historic corporate handout nature of this bill could have put more pressure on the otherwise unaffected Schumer which could have led to a much better bill for the people. I think that's the gist of it.
(No subject)
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Look forward. Not Back.
Another nonsensical rationalization I've been hearing for a s long as I've been blogging.
The guy has a long MO of Fauxgressivsm from then until the present. It's not like he was only pulling this crap in his twenties and got over it. It's his bread and butter and has been his entire career.
The video speaks for itself. But don't insult my intelligence by asking me to research historical blog posts while in the same comment telling me whatever I find is not relevant.
I'm not your monkey.
And as far as 'dismissive' terms go:
We who live in glass houses....
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
briefly as this thread
is nearly done: I see u have no evidence to back up your "fauxgressive" or "neoliberal" charge. If it were so clear, it would have taken 2 minutes of looking at one or two prior posts on his website, which are nicely lined up for anyone to visit and cite. Doesn't seem like much to ask. (relevant too. but not the Young Stoller stuff from 2004)
Btw, Stoller today describes himself more as a New Deal Dem. Sounds about right from the recent Stoller I've read and seen in interviews. Bernie might have done much better describing himself as such, but instead went Euro with his "democratic socialist" label, which might have been a winner in France or Denmark, but obviously not here.
last post ...
The fatal assumption in Stoller's argument...
is that UI benefits would not have been stripped out of the bill if Bernie hadn't intervened.
How many times do they need to pull the rug out from under Progressive legislation in the final draft for people to realize how this kabuki game is played. Anybody remember the Public Option as one of MANY examples of the last minute bi-partisan bait and switch?
Sorry Matt, but if Bernie doesn't speak up, there's no guarantee UI stays in the bill.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
I think you just proved my point.
Someone else wrote them into the bill before Bernie opened his mouth made his speech.
I watched Jimmy Dore and Max Blumenthal discuss this in detail.
At the time Bernie made that wonderful, fiery speech, the deal was already made.
I prefer Bernie to anybody, but I am not happy he missed his chance for posterity. He might have just pulled it off.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Chuck Schumer is not your friend.
You really think those provisions even get written in the first place without Bernie? Like Chuckie's really looking to help Progressives so much he would have fought hard for UI on his own or would have fought against Graham's amendment without Bernie holding everybody's feet to the fire.
If you say yes, you really haven't been paying attention for like...oh thirty years.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
No one is saying that
again why are you so hung up on Schumer? He was one of many that wrote the damn bill. Stoller's point was that there was no way the bill would have passed if there wasn't help for main street. Even Mnuchin and Trump would have stood firm to give us some crumbs.
Yeah? Where were they when the rubber hit the road?
Were they saying squat, or were they sitting back and letting Bernie tote the whole load?
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Here is what AOC said
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u23YwwfTVU&list=TLPQMjkwMzIwMjDGJUu8VUi...
before she too voted for it. Guess what? I am millions others in my shoes will get nothing from what they just passed. Nada. Not one thin dime. So am I pissed that no one stood up for me? Damn right I am.
Again it's funny how the GOP can always hold up bills with filibusters and secret holds, but no democrat ever can.
It was the sort of
fiery no-holds barred speech that others, like Bernie, should have been making, and much much earlier in the corporate giveaway negotiation process.
A little late from AOC -- whose vote wasn't specifically recorded as it was all a voice vote on the bill, but I didn't hear her No voice on the voice vote either -- but it is an example of how progs and libs could have stood strong publicly, early on, with a righteous denunciation of the trillions of dollars of corporate gifts.
An early coordinated effort from the left (AOC, Bernie, the Group, Liz and Katie Porter, among others), a series of such speeches, and maybe an organized joint message system on YT and twitter, would have made Schumer and Nancy think twice about selling out the people for a few crumbs as they gave away the country to the big corps.
Why are you being so insulting?
It does not make your point.
I am glad you are a big supporter of Bernie.
I was, was many years. I have been an admirer of his for 40 years. I was not sleeping...
What I AM awakening too ,right now, is that he is going to be gone from politics in just a few years, due to age.
This was a missed opportunity for him to walk into that room, set this country on fire.
Notice I have not referenced Schumer in any form or fashion?
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Because I'm pissed off...
at all of you who are buying Stoller's gaslighting bullshit.
You all have been around long enough to see what's really going on here, but for some reason in your grief at your own impotence you are choosing the person LEAST responsible as the scapegoat.
It's fucking absurd.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
FFS it's not just Stoller saying this
Look at my previous essays on this. I have included articles and videos from lots of people who aren't Stoller. But you're just hung up on whatever he said about Schumer which he didn't say what you say he did.
I'm talking about what Stoller says...
because that is the video you posted. Now you want to talk about someone/thing else?
And if I am misinterpreting his comments, then please tell me precisely where I'm wrong.
Simply saying "He didn't say that." and pointing somewhere else isn't helpful.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
In your opinion.
You are welcome to it.
Do I get to have mine?
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
I'd like to hear it.
Because the only rebuttals I've gotten so far from you are vague one liners and complaints about tone.
You said you wanted an actual substantive discussion. Yet I'm still not seeing much from you on that score.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Let me try one more time.
I am of the opinion that Bernie was in a unique position to make some decisions and make some stand that could have, at the very least, showed the country this bank bailout was wrong.
He did not take advantage of that position.
I do not think that opinion is the least bit vague.
I see that you are pissed off about Stoller's harsh criticism of Bernie's lack of leadership.
Stoller is pissed off, too.
Who isn't pissed off about something right now?
In fact, BEFORE I saw that video, I was pissed off that Bernie didn't raise 9 kinds of hell over this bank giveaway. Perhaps "country giveaway" would be the better descriptor.
Stoller did not gaslight me into any position or opinion. I was already there.
So, let me assure you, Stoller didn't gaslight me into the wilderness like a fucking Neanderthal.
He had ZERO effect on me.
Your reaction to him is fury.
My reaction to him is consensus.
We have both had our say, we totally disagree, you have resorted to personal insults, I admire your fire.
I encourage you to stay lit up.
I just wish you had not put your torch to my ass.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
One more time...
then I'll stop.
What specific 'decisions' should Bernie have done differently that would have changed the outcome for the better?
As far as Stoller goes, he is a professional beltway pundit with his own agenda, a book to sell, and an axe to grind (did you know he used to work for Bernie?).
He is not a good faith actor.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
I have never said Bernie could have changed the outcome.
What I said was that he was in a perfect position to describe the bank giveaway, it's harm, it's theft, and that it was being used to rob (even kill?) the working poor and just outright poor of the nation. The 99%ers.
He has many staunch supporters, and even the establishment D's want to shut him down. A microphone, a bully pulpit.
All he had to do was table that bill for some public debate.
Stoller may have some agenda, but I do not.
I must reiterate here. I know squat about who Stoller is, where he came from, or what his motives might be.
I respectfully disagree with you about Bernie's moment in the sun.
I am going to fend off your insults by showing you the utmost respect.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
I never insulted you.
Stop making things up.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Pages