What if Bernie had run in 2016?

I think he would have won. After all, he represents a state which is a historically red state. However, despite what Fox News tells you, The Democratic party is in no way "left wing". They preferred to lose with Clinton than win with Sanders.

After all, he is  a threat to the big donors for the duopoly.

Trump isn't.

The Problem Isn’t Bernie, It’s the Party.

Given that health care is a big topic, I think he would have had a lot more appeal. Toss in that he comes from a historically red State (Vermont). The only people he didn't appeal to were the big donors.

AOC DISMANTLED As Just Another Dem | Breaking Points

My question for the people who want to say that the Democratic Party is in anyway "Socialist":

Why didn't they run Bernie Sanders in 2016 (and 2020)?

Seriously. They fact that they went with Hillary Clinton, and, even worse, ran JOE BIDEN should show that the Democratic party is in no way Socialist.

I liked AOC at first since she said she was a Berner, but she went with the Democratic Party. And now she is doing things like this. I'll let this person dissect her and the Democratic party, but the Democratic Party is not in any way a left leaning party.

.

Fred Hampton and Racial Harmony

From "The Underhanded History of the US"

I have a lot of respect for Fred Hampton. He was probably one of three leaders who might surprise people as to how inclusive they were since most people don't associate Malcolm X with being inclusive. Malcolm's going on the Hajj changed his perspectives toward race which may have led to his assassination by the Nation of Islam (see Netflix's Who Killed Malcolm X). Likewise, Martin Luther King may have been too far to the left for the establishment.

 But I want to talk about Fred Hampton.  A short bio of Hampton is:

He came to prominence in Chicago as deputy chairman of the national Black Panther Party and chair of the Illinois chapter. As a progressive African American, he founded the anti-racist, anti-classist Rainbow Coalition, a prominent multicultural political organization that initially included the Black Panthers, Young Patriots (which organized poor whites), and the Young Lords (which organized Hispanics), and an alliance among major Chicago street gangs to help them end infighting and work for social change. A Marxist–Leninist,  Hampton considered fascism the greatest threat, saying, "nothing is more important than stopping fascism, because fascism will stop us all.”

He majored in pre-Law and used his knowledge of the law in his community police supervision project. I would like to think he was intelligent enough to not have been as into armed self-defence since that was the ostensible reason for his assassination. My opinion was that he was someone who would have unified diverse groups into a viable resistance. Divide and conquer has long been a tactic of repression and I think he was well aware of that. Or to use his own words:

"We got to face some facts. That the masses are poor, that the masses belong to what you call the lower class, and when I talk about the masses, I'm talking about the white masses, I'm talking about the black masses, and the brown masses, and the yellow masses, too. We've got to face the fact that some people say you fight fire best with fire, but we say you put fire out best with water. We say you don't fight racism with racism. We're gonna fight racism with solidarity. We say you don't fight capitalism with no black capitalism; you fight capitalism with socialism"

J Edgar Hoover, the head of the FBI, Knew that the radical coalitions that Hampton forged in between the Black Panthers, Young Patriots, Young Lords, and other groups in Chicago were a stepping stone to the rise of a revolution that could cause a radical change in the United States. I'm not sure what the exact course of events were that led to the brutal murder of Fred Hampton, but it was planned at high levels. The Chicago police announced the hit squad who killed Hampton had been attacked by the "violent" and "extremely vicious" Panthers and defended themselves accordingly. 

But Hampton didn't shoot back. He had been drugged and was slaughtered in his sleep. This is why I would like to believe he wasn't tooled up and knew that option was not the best choice. I would like to believe that he knew that being non-violent does not mean being submissive, but it also doesn't mean being a fool.  Unfortunately, he let the wrong person into his inner circle.

I'm not sure how much I agree with Judas and the Black Messiah, but the bottom line is that Hampton was someone who understood what the issues were, and still are, in US culture. I imagine him being the first black president. Even sadder is the fact that he was sold out by a Judas and we are left waiting for a second, or first, coming.

Then Bernie Sanders would have seemed conservative if Fred Hampton had been around.

Mentioning Fred Hampton is the best way to celebrate today. Focusing on the issues that effect us all is the best way to remember him. I wish I could have him say it, but the quote above pretty much does the job.

I am hopeful that there is another Fred Hampton out there who will work to unify the races because he really speaks the truth to power. It's hard to believe that such a person doesn't exist in the age of the internet. We need the new black messiah to straighten things out between the races.

But will people listen to that person?

Biden COLLUDED With Deep State To SMEAR Hunter Biden Laptop Story Before...

I know the person who repaired Hunter's laptop--this sucker is real.

It's not Russian disinformation.

The same thing applies to my lack of support for Hillary Clinton. I was an early Sanders supporter and I considered it a joke since I knew the Democrats would never allow him to run.

The nice thing is that the Democrats can continue to neglect the problems with their party, but I will never vote for the duopoly.

It's time for a change.

 

A vote for the Green Party is...a vote for the Green Party (or any other third party for that matter)

 OK, I didn't vote for John Fetterman in the last Pennsylvania Election (FYI once one emmigrates from the US, one votes in the last place they were domiciled--it seems I am currently stuck with Philadelphia due to bureaucratic BS). I don't like him for a variety of reasons, but I also Demexited in 2016 and haven't looked back on the duopoly since. I'm not going to get into why I dislike the "Berners" who have remained within the Democratic Party other than to say that I dislike them.

I voted Green in 2022 even though Dr. Oz was not my type. Although, I was walking around singing "Arc en Ciel" the day of the election...

 

De toute façon...

My point, My vote for Jill Stein in 2016 didn't change the election result, the electoral college did that. And the Russians had nothing to do with that, unless you want to tell me that Catherine the Great promised the Continental Congress a "Donkey Show" a few centuries later on.

My Green Party votes haven't changed the results since the duopoly pretty much runs things for the time being in the US. And no matter what Fox news tries to tell people, there really isn't that much of a difference between the two parties.

Seriously, if the "Democrats" really were socialists, they would have run Sanders in 2016 (and 2020) and won.

Electoral college or not.

But the duopoly doesn't want that to happen. And anyone who remains within the duopoly is a traitor to the movement behind Bernie.

Let's do Malcolm X's birthday instead of MLK!

Malcolm X, who became El Hajj Malik El Shabazz, is a very interesting person to me. He should have told the teacher who said he shouldn't be a lawyer, that he would be the best at whatever Malcolm put his mind to. 

He was.

And he made an impact in the Nation of Islam, enough so that he was probably under more FBI surveillance than MLK ever was. I watched the Netflix series on Malcolm X's assassination and I am even more convinced that his talent was wasted by that event. The FBI feared a charismatic black leader, which is a reason I think that even was allowed to happen. It was also why Fred Hampton met the same fate.

I'm not going to address the FBI and other "Law Enforcement" surveillance of either of these men, but it was extensive. But the threat they both posed as charismatic black leaders is dangerous, but the real threat was that they both were moving toward a rainbow coalition. The fact that oppressed people can be any race, creed, or colour.

Malcolm Little became El Hajj Malik El Shabazz because he made the Hajj, or pilgrimage to Mecca. That trip opened his eyes to see that Muslims can be any race. Which was a dangerous event for the Nation of Islam. 

Think if both of these men, Malcolm X and Fred Hampton, had gone on to unify people to work together on the problems of society. They were formidable leaders who would have made Berniemania look like nothing. 

Sadly, both of them were cut down way too early.

More reasons you need to be concerned about monopolies and oligarchs

 Yet another interesting interview by Russell Brand on why you should be worried about the current situation:

Wanting strong data protection laws isn't "privilige": it's sanity.

The billionaires made money on your information. And it all gets scarier.

Why Sanders is the only hope for the Democrats.

“Just as he did in Burlington, Sanders is putting his faith not in some mythical negotiating power as Trump did, or in some fantasy of coming to the table in good faith negotiations with Mitch McConnell as Biden and Obama and Buttigieg do, or even in his ability to jiujitsu the levers of government through superior bureaucratic knowledge as Warren does. He believes, just as he did in Burlington, that the only way to break the back of Congressional gridlock and inertia and neoliberal entrenchment is by putting your faith in the people. In serving as organizer in chief.”

Krystal Ball describes how he can fix things here.

But you don't need a Crystal, or Krystal, ball to see that the Democrats need new blood and real issues to run on in order to win.

Trump being bad won't win elections. Especially not if the alternative is just as bad.

Seriously, both parties are 60-80% the same. I would say 100% the same given how inept they are and how much they wasted time on inane bullshit the past few years.

Bernie and the Demexit

I actively supported Bernie Sanders in 2016 and am passively supporting him in 2020. Passively because I think Bernie's time was 2016 when he had the votes. Bernie was drafted to give people a choice from Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Election. Sanders was popular then, but I think the coalition that would have made him the candidate in 2016 isn't present in this election.

The Demexit was where Sanders supporters left the Democratic Party. I made the Demexit early on: after when AP called the California Primary for Clinton. The 2016 Philadelphia Democratic National Convention firmed up my resolve that my being a Democrat was pointless: even if that meant that was the only way I could vote in a primary.

But the Primaries are acts of attrition to make sure that the candidate with the largest bankroll can make it to the end. Clinton had the big money while Sanders had the popular support in 2016. The fact that the Dems chose the most unpopular candidate was a sickener to me.

But Clinton wouldn't have won the 2016 primary if she had any competition, which is why the DNC rigged the game for her. But Hillary Clinton literally couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery and didn't count on the Electoral College making her plan backfire.

You would think the Democrats would have learned their lesson in 2000, but Russiagate was an example of Democratic ignorance.

Hillary Clinton is a symptom, not the disease. It took Sanders' run to make me see how much the Democratic Party is obsolete.

Anyway, The Green Party was far more appealing to me in how it explicitly addressed election reform and the environment. Hillary Clinton was openly hostile to environmentalists (this too). While some candidates make lip service about the environment, you have establishment democrats doing a Hillary.

So, while the Duopoly Parties like to talk about "Big Tents", you can't have a party with no real agenda. Parties that can include George Wallace and George McGovern aren't going to work. Especially if they are going to run unpopular candidates.

See also:
Democratic Autopsy: the Party in Crisis
The AP's call for Hillary Clinton ruined California's election party--and here’s why that matters
Elizabeth Warren agrees Democratic race 'rigged' for Clinton
Elizabeth Warren and Donna Brazile agree the 2016 primary was Rigged
Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC
Was the Democratic primary rigged?
Dear Democratic party: it's time to stop rigging the primaries

Close election, or bad campaign?

OK, I strongly believe that Sanders would have won the 2016 Election had he been allowed to run. He was the people's candidate in that he ran on small donations. He also got people energised.

Whatever the case, that is moot since the Democrats made it clear they preferred to lose with Clinton than Win with Sanders.

I don't need anyone to tell me what I saw was due to Russian Influence: there is more than enough documentation of how the Democrats tried to silence dissent throughout the election.

Anyway, I make it obvious I like to play with the interactive maps at 270towin because one of the underlying assumptions of the "Russian Influence" argument is that the popular vote mattered (it didn't).

Take the actual results of the Electoral votes:

Now superimpose this map of where the results were considered close:

it puts paid to the argument that Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were the three states that somehow "mattered" in the election. It also shows why the pundits were saying that Clinton would win in a landslide in the electoral college (remember, most states are winner take all no matter what the actual result would be).

On the other hand, it show how silly the "Russian Influence" and "Third Party voter" arguments are to the actual results in the Electoral College. Clinton could have won with a couple of the close states.

Yet she didn't.

Also, this shows that the Electoral College leads to a national race and protects smaller states arguments are wrong.

Fair Vote pointed out that two-thirds (273 of 399) of the general-election

campaign events in the 2016 presidential race were in just 6 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and Michigan).


94% of the 2016 events (375 of the 399) were in 12 states (the 11 states identified in early 2016 as "battleground" states by Politico and The Hill plus Arizona). This fact validates the statement by former presidential candidate and Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin on September 2, 2015, that “The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president.

BTW, Clinton could have won the election if she had Electoral College wins in North Carolina and Florida, the two states with the most campaign events.

Any attempts at influencing the elections by a foreign power would be difficult given the distortions of popular vote by the Electoral College.

Anyway, the bottom line is that Clinton was a poor candidate who ran a bad campaign.

You can't blame the Russians for that. Unless you want to tell me that the DNC is somehow part of the Russian Plot.

See also:
Two-thirds of Presidential Campaign Is in Just 6 States
FairVote: The Electoral College
Electoral College Distortions: "Winner" could lose popular vote by a landslide

Netherlandish Proverbs

I love Bernie Sanders: don't get me wrong.

I was one of his early supporters in 2016 since I couldn't see Hillary Clinton run unopposed for President.

I am firmly of the belief he would have won and been a much better president than anyone else if he had a chance to win.

Unfortunately, the "Democratic Party" has been biased against truly progressive candidates: as Henry Wallace and Bernie Sanders have shown. Those are the most obvious examples of the "Democratic Party" not being truly democratic.

Sanders was the people's candidate in that he ran his campaign on small donations. He was like "the people's millionaire" who had one million people send him a dollar each. Yet the "Democratic Party" chose to run Hillary Clinton with the obvious result that she lost.

And she lost in such a way that she should never think of running for office. Also that her supporters should accept that they are pretty much responsible for the Trump presidency. I say this because Clinton could not understand that the electoral college was where the election would really be won.

And while Clinton had one of the largest popular victories ever, that means fuck all.

The system is corrupt in that it is rigged against the popular candidate, whether in the primary process or the actual election being thwarted by the Electoral College.

There is an irony that someone who "won" the nomination (Clinton) did do in a way that a popular candidate (Sanders) would lose. But the system is rigged so that the popular vote is meaningless and her victory is without significance. Even more importantly her campaign was clueless to that aspect of the election.

Where do Netherlandish Proverbs come into all of this? At the bottom of the painting is a man filling in a hole where the calf has drowned ("Als het kalf verdronken is, dempt men de put").  This is the Dutch equivalent of "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted". This saying is quite widespread in the Dutch language. It is used in many occasions where something should have been done before, but nothing has been done.

The "Democratic Party" has already demonstrated that it isn't democratic in any way. Likewise, it will look for every excuse and issue except for what has actually led to this mess. That requires too much self-examination for the establishment parties.

So, while I was hopeful that a Sanders candidacy could have been meaningful in 2016: that election demonstrated that the popular vote is meaningless.  I have happily left the two party system to once again be an independent.

Why progressives and "Democrats" will never mix

I am amazed at the people who tried to persuade me that the "Democratic Party" was somehow a "coalition".

Especially if they made comments like this!

And the Clinton Supporters wonder why they lost the election.

Anyway, there is a long history of disdain for real progressivism in the "Democratic Party". Its treatment of Henry Wallace being one of many instances of which the Sanders Campaign was one the latest example (along with ambivalence toward Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez). Sure, the "Democratic Party" are hoping that an embrace of "A Green New Deal" in name might attract people.

Toss in the progressives lite candidates that are being mentioned in the press: many of which don't stand the scrutiny of being truly progressive. This is made worse since the environment is the most important issue now facing the US world.

There is a laundry list I had with Clinton, but her inability to give a solid stance on the environment and climate change was a real biggie for me. The difference from Trump, a climate change denier, and Clinton, someone likely to do fuck all, was non-existent in that regard.

So, I will take the advice of the "Democrat" who doesn't want my vote and move to a party more in line with my political beliefs.

Just don't try and blame me for your mistakes.

See also:
Bernie is not even a Democrat, so why is he ripping our party apart?
The real secret to Bernie Sanders’ success
2020 Is Already Shaping Up to Be Another Festival of Stupid
Opinion | The Democratic Party left me — and I'm not alone
NYT: Don’t Be Progressive, Be a ‘Liberal’
Yes, let's wipe out Trump. But take neoliberal Democrats with him, too
Henry Wallace, America’s Forgotten Visionary
Untold History: The Rise and Fall of a Progressive Vice-President of the USA
On climate change, the difference between Trump and Clinton is really quite simple
The Democratic Party Has a Climate Change Problem

What exactly IS a wasted vote

If someone loses with nearly 3 million more popular votes than her opponent, would one more vote really have made a difference?

Despite what the mass, mainstream media would like to have people believe: my decision to vote for Jill Stein was not totally based on Hillary Clinton being the "Democratic party" nominee.

First off, Bernie Sanders' running in the primary showed that process to be a sham. Not that I couldn't have guessed since the primaries were pretty much settled by the time I could vote in them. My critique of that system would be another post in and of itself.

There are other issues in the system of US elections which show it is neither a democracy or a republic. And threatening to overthrow the government shows one doesn't believe in either system. Again, a whole different post.

Now I see people like Chuck Schumer and Joe Liberman applauding Trump's decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem: Can I support the Democratic party if it wants to prop up the REAL rogue Middle Eastern State?

I support the Palestinian right of return, which is sanctioned by international law. Yet, the two US parties have failed to do anything about this issue.

Voting for Clinton based solely on the fact that she was a woman and not Trump would have been a protest vote. Instead, I saw the possibility of Clinton having a landslide victory against Trump as a reason to vote for a party I truly supported.

And she won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, which is not an insignificant number. The fact that was the case, but is buried behind "Russian interference" in the US election makes me sad. That is the only drawback to having voted the way I did.

The two party system has a lock on the US political climate to the point that those of us with alternative opinions are shut out of the debate.

No, my one vote was not wasted, but I believe it would have really been wasted had I voted for one of the duopoly candidates.


See Also

• Why the fuck do we have the electoral college anyway? Let’s discuss this shit show
• The Electoral College is Profoundly Undemocratic By Design 
• Trump owes his victory to America’s unique Electoral College system
• How the Electoral College Rigged the Election for Donald Trump
• The Electoral College effect — in 3 cool charts
• America's Unique and Controversial Electoral College  
• 9 Things You May Not Know About the Electoral College
• Hillary Clinton’s Popular-Vote Victory Is Unprecedented—and Still Growing
• Why Electoral College wins are bigger than popular vote ones
• Hillary Clinton's Lead Is Greater Than Multiple Former Presidents'
• Hillary Clinton's popular vote margin is meaningless in every way (except pithy tweets)

Let's play silly buggers.

The Russian influence thing is getting a lot out of hand. I say this because someone tried to say Hillary Clinton has never been under investigation, but Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein are currently.

You kind of wonder what rock this person has been hiding under since Clinton has been under quite a lot of investigation.  The only reason that the insider trading thing didn't result in charges during Whitewater was that the statute of limitations had long passed.  But that is one of many issues that I hope went away: although someone mentioned She might run again in 2020.

PLEASE DON'T!!!

Anyway, the mood of the day is to not try to address the flaws in the US system of elections: in particular the electoral college.

This needs to be hammered into some people's heads before someone truly fucked up wins:

The Fact is Hillary Clinton won the popular vote with 65,853,516 (48.5% votes) to Trump's 62,984,825 (46.4% votes), but lost in the electoral college by receiving 232 (43.1%) of the electoral votes to Trump's 306 (56.8%) votes.

Anyway, the above photo is of Emir Kusterica, a Serbian filmmaker, actor and musician, with Vladimir Putin. You also see the back of Jill Stein's head. The picture has been cropped so that Mike Flynn is not seen at the same table. Kusterica is sitting next to Putin: as opposed to Stein who is a few seats away.

Kusterica starred in the Widow of St. Pierre, along with Juliette Binoche and Daniel Auteuil, FRENCH PEOPLE!!!!

I won't hold Time of the Gypsies against Kusterica.

Let's go full McCarthyism and blame me for not being very patriotic (nationalism isn't my strong suit) and liking French movies. The Widow of St. Pierre is up there on my list of fav films and can be taken as anti-capital punishment (the widow in question is slang for the guillotine).

We can get into the Serb-Russian connection as well. The people at the table could just as well be discussing punk rock. For all we know, Putin could be saying how brilliant he thought Time of the Gypsies was.

Who is who at the table.

 On the other hand, isn't the electoral college supposed to prevent foreign interference in this process (not to mention preventing someone who is dangerous from being president)?

Seriously, Kusterica should be called in for questioning if mere association is enough to charge someone with guilt.

Somehow that seems to me to be a violation of the First Amendment and the right of peaceable assembly.

Anyway, blame is the game of the day in US politics. So don't expect too much for serious matters to be addressed.

See also:

• From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer 
• It's time for a special counsel on Hillary Clinton's Russia scandal
• Guess Who Came to Dinner With Flynn and Putin
• Jill Stein Denounces Probe over 'Collusion with Russians'

John Anderson Tribute

John Anderson, the independent candidate for President In 1980, died  last week at the age of 95. I wanted to note his passing since I supported him early on, but ended up voting my fear and going with Jimmy Carter.

Carter lost and we had Reagan.

I found it interesting that Reuters quoted his daughter, Diane Anderson as saying her father "really believed the two-party system was broken in 1980. Everything he wanted to prevent unfortunately came to pass."
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/05/568489924/john-anderson-independent-for-president-in-1980-dies-at-95

Marsha Sutton, in a San Diego Tribune Commentary pointed out the similarities to Bernie Sanders:

We understood we were working for a noble cause that exceeded our individual interests. We believed in the magical possibility of breaking from the traditional two-party system in favor of a moderate who spoke the truth with integrity and conviction.

My favorite button features a caricature of Anderson showing only his white hair and the outline of his glasses. The similarity to buttons sported by Bernie Sanders supporters in 2016 is obvious.

Perhaps there is more than a caricature that makes the two similar. It’s not their politics certainly, but the comparison lies in each man’s honest desire to change the established political culture.

A lot of people who denigrated the Sanders campaign neglected that there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the two party system. So, when a candidate who is seen as having integrity comes around he tends to get a lot of attention.

Unfortunately, Anderson was coming from the Republican Party which went on to become fringier and fringier.  Some people like to think that Trump signifies the death of that party while neglecting that there is a website called democraticautopsy.org.

While I like Bernie, his politics, and his attempt to revive the Democratic Party (or expose it for the fraud it is): I don't see myself voting for him or a democratic party line.

I just hope other people wake up to the fact that the US political system has been ill for an incredibly long time.

As we approach the Super Tuesday Caucuses....

It is Hillary's election to lose; if she doesn't muck it up, it looks as if -- 8 months and a few days from the general election -- and if things do not change radically from the present, that it is going to be a new President Clinton in the White House come January 2017.

Of the two, I would posit Trump finally making a mistake big enough to stick to him even more so than Hillary, although it would not surprise me to see her make gaffes in the coming months, as well as to see her facing vicious oppo attacks.

Via aol.news and the poll crunching from Realpolitik, combining the most pertinent and recent polls - Hillary to win the general election in November by 14%, followed by Bernie Sanders to win over Trump by 5.9%.

Not only does Trump do poorly matched up against either Bernie or Hillary, but Ted Cruz does even worse, and Marco Rubio even worse than Cruz.

THIS is what winning looks like, when one of the two major parties insists on being the stupid party.  That Trump is even a potential right wing candidate has made the US of A a laughingstock on the world stage -- and rightly as well as right-wingedly so.
: