The Democratic Establishment is nominating the wrong candidate for all the wrongs reasons. The fact that Hillary is a woman is not enough to qualify her for office; especially given her track record when it comes to honesty and trustworthiness. Once again voters (the actual people who vote) are being hoodwinked by the slick and rich insiders into thinking that Hillary Clinton is the best choice in taking them into the future.
Nothing could be further from the truth and most Americans know that but they are seemingly once again passively allowing themselves to be railroaded by a corrupt political Establishment that is being propagandized by a pandering mains stream media owned and operated by wealthy individuals who do not intend to give up control of Washington.
America burns while it's people fall back into a state of despair and apathy, resigned to accepting their fate at the hands of the Millionaires and Billionaires that Bernie outed.
What's even more disheartening is that our young are learning only too well how corrupt and powerful the political system is and how gloomy the future is for them.
The Democratic primary race was certainly more contentious than pundits and politicians predicted. And it’s likely the spin the Democratic Party establishment will put on Sanders’ historic campaign, which was fueled almost entirely through a grassroots coalition of supporters and small donors, will not pay enough attention to the millions of voters vying for the chance to take back the Democratic Party. But as Matt Taibi writes in the Rolling Stone, they should.
“Politicians are so used to viewing the electorate as a giant thing to be manipulated that no matter what happens at the ballot, they usually can only focus on the Washington-based characters they perceive to be pulling the strings,” Taibbi writes. “Through this lens, the uprising among Democratic voters this year wasn’t an organic expression of mass disgust, but wholly the fault of Bernie Sanders, who within the Beltway is viewed as an oddball amateur and radical who jumped the line.”
In fact, it’s in part Sanders’ “oddball amateur” status that resonates so well with voters. “There’s a longing for real authenticity in politics today,” Tad Devine, a Sanders adviser,told the Washington Post. “People feel that the candidates are too manufactured, there’s not enough spontaneity. They want someone who, even if they don’t agree with them, is telling it like they see it, really leveling with voters.”
Sanders’ campaign also ignited the youth vote in a manner that highlights Clinton’s lack of impact among the newest voters. Taibbi argues that if the Democratic establishment ignores the Sanders’ revolution—though at this point, there’s no sign that is happening—it will be at the party’s detriment.
“Voter concerns rapidly take a back seat to the daily grind of the job,” Taibbi writes, noting the process usually involves back-door deals that muddle the legislation and circumvent the will of the voters.
“This dynamic is rarely explained to the public, but voters on both sides of the aisle have lately begun guessing at the truth, and spent most of the last year letting the parties know it in the primaries,” Taibbi writes. “People are sick of being thought of as faraway annoyances who only get whatever policy scraps are left over after pols have finished servicing the donors they hang out with at Redskins games.”
Polls indicate voters increasingly feel sidelined in the Democratic Party process, particularly concerning factors like the Democrats’ superdelegates, which make voters feel like the system is designed to work around them. A May 2016 AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll revealed only 25 percent of Democratic voters feel the party is responsive to their concerns. On the Republican side, the sentiment is even more disconnected; only 12 percent of GOPers think the party is focused on ordinary voters.
Saturday, June 11, 2016
Thursday, June 9, 2016
BRACING FOR 4 MORE OF THE SAME; ESTABLISHMENT CORRUPTION
Are Americans doomed to be slaves to the Billionaires and Millionaires? Is "trickle down" here to stay? Are student loans, lousy healthcare, bank bailouts, smaller Social Security checks, bulging prisons, and endless wars, and destruction of the environment what will be the norm for the next generation?
There's no denying it. Bernie and those who lined up behind him gave it their best shot. But in the end the Establishment prevailed. Not because that's what the voters (people) want but because the system is so corrupt and rigged that it's almost impossible to take it on; short a violent revolution.
Obama; bless his worn down, graying soul, just bit the bullet and did what he was compelled to do in order to not to have his legacy ground up into dust. He surely made the pact with the devil when elected and the Devil called in the chit today.
Unfortunately Trump is the only anti-Establishment outsider left standing and he is paying dearly for it with the bought for Mainstream Media pounding on him 24/7 in a last ditch effort to sway the public away from him.
The question is, will the Establishment force Americans back into line and surrender to the status quo?
Will the folks that rallied behind Bernie throw their hats in Trumps ring? Are they angry enough to risk putting a loose cannon in the White House?
One ray (or glimmer) of hope is that Hillary may still be outed before her coronation if (a big IF) the DOJ decides to indict. Unlikely given that they cater to the Establishment, but then, anything is possible.
Obama offers a formal endorsement of Clinton; president also meets with Sanders - The Washington Post
There's no denying it. Bernie and those who lined up behind him gave it their best shot. But in the end the Establishment prevailed. Not because that's what the voters (people) want but because the system is so corrupt and rigged that it's almost impossible to take it on; short a violent revolution.
Obama; bless his worn down, graying soul, just bit the bullet and did what he was compelled to do in order to not to have his legacy ground up into dust. He surely made the pact with the devil when elected and the Devil called in the chit today.
Unfortunately Trump is the only anti-Establishment outsider left standing and he is paying dearly for it with the bought for Mainstream Media pounding on him 24/7 in a last ditch effort to sway the public away from him.
The question is, will the Establishment force Americans back into line and surrender to the status quo?
Will the folks that rallied behind Bernie throw their hats in Trumps ring? Are they angry enough to risk putting a loose cannon in the White House?
One ray (or glimmer) of hope is that Hillary may still be outed before her coronation if (a big IF) the DOJ decides to indict. Unlikely given that they cater to the Establishment, but then, anything is possible.
Obama offers a formal endorsement of Clinton; president also meets with Sanders - The Washington Post
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
MAINSTREAM MEDIA ACCUSED OF WHORING FOR HILLARY
Looks like the mainstream press is being called out by angry voters after they unwittingly misreported that Hillary Clinton had clinched the Democratic nomination.
Reporters covering Clinton report harassment following AP call - POLITICO
A number of journalists who cover presidential candidate Hillary Clinton reported being harassed by angry readers as a result of the AP's decision to declare Clinton the "presumptive nominee" last night.
"I won't be answering calls from unknown numbers today, after third call from Bernie supporters telling me they'd hunt me down in the streets," New York Times reporter Amy Chozick tweeted on Tuesday.
Other reporters told POLITICO that they received angry and insulting messages but not threats.
WNYC's Andrea Bernstein, who has covered Clinton since 1999, told POLITICO that she has received harassing emails — calling her a "whore" and "shill" for Clinton — but no threats. Tamara Keith, NPR's White House correspondent, tweeted a screenshot of a profanity-laced Facebook message that accused her of "lying about the primary." Ruby Cramer, who covers the Clinton campaign for Buzzfeed News, tweeted that she had received similar messages. POLITICO's own Gabriel Debenedetti said he has received nearly a dozen emails calling him a "corporate whore" and accusing him of aiding Clinton.
Keith declined to comment, Cramer did not respond to a request for comment and Chozick said that she had nothing to add beyond her tweet.
Reporters covering Clinton report harassment following AP call - POLITICO
A number of journalists who cover presidential candidate Hillary Clinton reported being harassed by angry readers as a result of the AP's decision to declare Clinton the "presumptive nominee" last night.
"I won't be answering calls from unknown numbers today, after third call from Bernie supporters telling me they'd hunt me down in the streets," New York Times reporter Amy Chozick tweeted on Tuesday.
Other reporters told POLITICO that they received angry and insulting messages but not threats.
WNYC's Andrea Bernstein, who has covered Clinton since 1999, told POLITICO that she has received harassing emails — calling her a "whore" and "shill" for Clinton — but no threats. Tamara Keith, NPR's White House correspondent, tweeted a screenshot of a profanity-laced Facebook message that accused her of "lying about the primary." Ruby Cramer, who covers the Clinton campaign for Buzzfeed News, tweeted that she had received similar messages. POLITICO's own Gabriel Debenedetti said he has received nearly a dozen emails calling him a "corporate whore" and accusing him of aiding Clinton.
Keith declined to comment, Cramer did not respond to a request for comment and Chozick said that she had nothing to add beyond her tweet.
HOW A RIGGED SYSTEM WORKS
In reality Hillary Clinton is NOT the Democratic Nominee and won't be until it's decided on at the July convention.
Yet the media went all out to twist the facts and make it appear that the deal was sealed with the message being to voters; don't bother voting.
Why the Associated Press called the race for Hillary Clinton when nobody was looking - The Washington Post
Monday evening, unexpectedly, the Associated Press sent out an announcement: Clinton was already there.
Over the weekend, Clinton won two more Democratic contests that drew her within shouting distance of clinching the nomination — the Virgin Islands and (more important) Puerto Rico. On Monday morning, she needed 23 moredelegates to hit the 2,383-delegate mark that constitutes a majority for the convention. She had 1,812 pledged delegates and commitments from more than 500 superdelegates, but she was a bit short of the threshold.
What happened on Monday was that the Associated Press received commitments from enough superdelegates — just enough superdelegates, in fact — to put Clinton over the top. With 23 more superdelegates in hand, Clinton reached the 2,383 mark, and the AP made the call.
Understandably, that out-of-the-blue determination prompted even more frustration and confusion than was already expected. How was the AP sure that those superdelegates wouldn't change their minds? Why release new totals the day before the critical primaries in California? Who were the superdelegates that made the difference?
We did our best to answer those questions.
How does the AP know the superdelegates won't change their minds?
Overnight, the Associated Press published an explanation of how it collects those commitments. It's worth excerpting at length:
The AP surveys the superdelegates throughout the primary season to track whom they plan to support at the July convention.
If a superdelegate tells the AP he or she plans to unequivocally support a candidate at the convention, that's added to the candidate's tally.
Those who decline to answer, say they have yet to make a decision or express any reservations are listed as uncommitted.
What's important to remember is who these superdelegates are. Pew Research broke down their demographics earlier this year. More than half of the 714 superdelegates are members of the Democratic National Committee. Another 261 are members of Congress or governors.
Yet the media went all out to twist the facts and make it appear that the deal was sealed with the message being to voters; don't bother voting.
Why the Associated Press called the race for Hillary Clinton when nobody was looking - The Washington Post
Monday evening, unexpectedly, the Associated Press sent out an announcement: Clinton was already there.
Over the weekend, Clinton won two more Democratic contests that drew her within shouting distance of clinching the nomination — the Virgin Islands and (more important) Puerto Rico. On Monday morning, she needed 23 moredelegates to hit the 2,383-delegate mark that constitutes a majority for the convention. She had 1,812 pledged delegates and commitments from more than 500 superdelegates, but she was a bit short of the threshold.
What happened on Monday was that the Associated Press received commitments from enough superdelegates — just enough superdelegates, in fact — to put Clinton over the top. With 23 more superdelegates in hand, Clinton reached the 2,383 mark, and the AP made the call.
Understandably, that out-of-the-blue determination prompted even more frustration and confusion than was already expected. How was the AP sure that those superdelegates wouldn't change their minds? Why release new totals the day before the critical primaries in California? Who were the superdelegates that made the difference?
We did our best to answer those questions.
How does the AP know the superdelegates won't change their minds?
Overnight, the Associated Press published an explanation of how it collects those commitments. It's worth excerpting at length:
The AP surveys the superdelegates throughout the primary season to track whom they plan to support at the July convention.
If a superdelegate tells the AP he or she plans to unequivocally support a candidate at the convention, that's added to the candidate's tally.
Those who decline to answer, say they have yet to make a decision or express any reservations are listed as uncommitted.
What's important to remember is who these superdelegates are. Pew Research broke down their demographics earlier this year. More than half of the 714 superdelegates are members of the Democratic National Committee. Another 261 are members of Congress or governors.
Friday, June 3, 2016
WHEN BERNIE WINS WE ALL WIN
Bernie's campaign has given voice to countless Americans who are hell-bent to take back our country.
It has changed our nation and our politics—hopefully forever. Now it's up to all of us. To you and me and the courage and grit it's going to take to fulfill the promise of this historic moment.
Thursday, June 2, 2016
HILLARY THE POT VS TRUMP THE KETTLE
Look who's calling the the kettle (Trump) black as if the pot (Hillary) was any better.
Trump has Trump U. and a short fuse.
Hillary has the Clinton Foundation, private email servers, and secret speeches to bankers.
When push comes to shove neither candidates are qualified to lead this country.
Democrats can still save their party from the shipwreck Republicans suffered but time is short.
Running two of the most disliked candidates on the planet against each other is going to be nothing more than a massive baggage dump from both sides with little time to what the country needs.
Trump has Trump U. and a short fuse.
Hillary has the Clinton Foundation, private email servers, and secret speeches to bankers.
When push comes to shove neither candidates are qualified to lead this country.
Democrats can still save their party from the shipwreck Republicans suffered but time is short.
Running two of the most disliked candidates on the planet against each other is going to be nothing more than a massive baggage dump from both sides with little time to what the country needs.
As much as Hillary tries she is not able to shake off also being seen as incoherent; especially when it comes to explaining the email fiasco among other things.
Trump is the master of sleaze and will be relentless in his attacks on Hillary given the baggage she carries into this campaign.
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
EXTREME CORRUPTION REQUIRES EXTREME MEASURES
There is no salvaging this so-called political Establishment. Better to junk it and start with some new fresh ideas and people; a system based on one person - one vote that represents all the people, not a political machine made up of a small group with special interests that serve themselves.
Ironically, the two parties reached this collision point from opposite directions. The Republican Party’s establishment wanted almost anyone but Trump but the party’s favored candidates fell victim to the reality TV star’s skill at exploiting their weaknesses – almost as if he were playing a high-stakes reality TV show.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump
In contrast, the Democratic Party’s leadership tried to arrange a coronation for Hillary Clinton by discouraging other candidates from challenging the powerful Clinton machine, arguing that a virtually uncontested nomination would save money and limit the exposure of Clinton’s political weaknesses.
But the unlikely candidacy of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, technically an Independent although he caucuses with the Senate Democrats, revealed both a powerful hunger for change within the Democratic Party and Clinton’s political vulnerabilities amid a season of voter discontent.
Whereas Republican leaders failed to suppress their voters’ uprising – as Trump torched his GOP rivals one after another – the Democratic leadership did all they could to save Clinton, virtually pushing her badly damaged bandwagon toward the finish line while shouting at Sanders to concede.
But it has now dawned on some savvy Democrats that Clinton’s campaign vehicle may be damaged beyond repair, especially if more harm is inflicted by the FBI’s findings about her sloppy handling of government secrets. The Democrats see themselves stuck with a status-quo, legacy candidate at a moment when the public is disgusted with government dysfunction and demanding change.
Yet, whether the Democrats have the guts to go through the pain of denying Clinton the nomination may depend on what happens in California and inside the FBI.
Ironically, the two parties reached this collision point from opposite directions. The Republican Party’s establishment wanted almost anyone but Trump but the party’s favored candidates fell victim to the reality TV star’s skill at exploiting their weaknesses – almost as if he were playing a high-stakes reality TV show.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump
In contrast, the Democratic Party’s leadership tried to arrange a coronation for Hillary Clinton by discouraging other candidates from challenging the powerful Clinton machine, arguing that a virtually uncontested nomination would save money and limit the exposure of Clinton’s political weaknesses.
But the unlikely candidacy of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, technically an Independent although he caucuses with the Senate Democrats, revealed both a powerful hunger for change within the Democratic Party and Clinton’s political vulnerabilities amid a season of voter discontent.
Whereas Republican leaders failed to suppress their voters’ uprising – as Trump torched his GOP rivals one after another – the Democratic leadership did all they could to save Clinton, virtually pushing her badly damaged bandwagon toward the finish line while shouting at Sanders to concede.
But it has now dawned on some savvy Democrats that Clinton’s campaign vehicle may be damaged beyond repair, especially if more harm is inflicted by the FBI’s findings about her sloppy handling of government secrets. The Democrats see themselves stuck with a status-quo, legacy candidate at a moment when the public is disgusted with government dysfunction and demanding change.
Yet, whether the Democrats have the guts to go through the pain of denying Clinton the nomination may depend on what happens in California and inside the FBI.
The corruption is indeed extreme and requires extreme measures to counteract it. You can start with the bank debacle of 2008 which consisted of untold numbers of criminal/fraudulent acts for which admissions of guilt were made but still no one was prosecuted. Don’t you think that’s strange in a country that claims to adhere to the rule of law? These criminal acts were committed in the Bush term but were ignored and condoned in Obama’s administration.
Crimes committed costing American taxpayers Trillions and no one prosecuted? Now, I’d say that’s extreme.
Another example is the privatized prison system which goes unabated under the Obama administration. Let’s take drug related crimes as an example of an extremely corrupted justice system.
One look at the prison population will show you how corrupt the system is. The cells are stuffed full of the under represented poor while to better connected group(s) that are committing the same crime are carted off to cozy rehab center. Extreme injustice? Yes indeed.
Then there's the rich kid who claimed he was too wealthy to know the difference between right and wrong (the afluenza defense) that got off killing people with his car which has got to be the most blatant example of how extremely corrupted the justice system is.
The Democrats have a clear option in Bernie, who is NOT a part of the same system and which is why he’s referred to as an “outsider” and who has stayed true to his principles by maintaining his Independent status most of his life.
He has drawn a red line when it comes to taking PAC money and has demonstrated how corrupt the system is by playing with a whole new set of rules; small donations from the people who he speaks for and will represent once elected. How’s that for an extremely novel idea?
Crimes committed costing American taxpayers Trillions and no one prosecuted? Now, I’d say that’s extreme.
Another example is the privatized prison system which goes unabated under the Obama administration. Let’s take drug related crimes as an example of an extremely corrupted justice system.
One look at the prison population will show you how corrupt the system is. The cells are stuffed full of the under represented poor while to better connected group(s) that are committing the same crime are carted off to cozy rehab center. Extreme injustice? Yes indeed.
Then there's the rich kid who claimed he was too wealthy to know the difference between right and wrong (the afluenza defense) that got off killing people with his car which has got to be the most blatant example of how extremely corrupted the justice system is.
The Democrats have a clear option in Bernie, who is NOT a part of the same system and which is why he’s referred to as an “outsider” and who has stayed true to his principles by maintaining his Independent status most of his life.
He has drawn a red line when it comes to taking PAC money and has demonstrated how corrupt the system is by playing with a whole new set of rules; small donations from the people who he speaks for and will represent once elected. How’s that for an extremely novel idea?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)