El Salvador's Nayib Bukele shows why believe Bernie Sanders would have been popular and shaken up US politics if he had a chance

Lina Seiche on El Salvador's Nayib Bukele with a story which sounds a lot like Bernie Sanders.

On thing people neglect to mention is that "Socialist" Bernie represents a historically red state. Bukele's rise reminds me of Sanders since they both started as "leftists" who managed to unify a politically polarised nation. I think Sanders would have done so if he were given a chance.

Unfortunately, Sanders' time was 2016. 

I'm of the opinion that the duopoly won't let anyone vaguely like a Sanders or Bukele get anywhere near the American people. Also, the people who truly influence politics don't want someone like a Bukele in power.

I don't agree with Bukele's positions on a few things, but he proves that a polarised political climate can be changed. 

A repost of Bernie in a deep red state. 

 

Do you really think HIllary or Kamala would have been any better?

 There are a few reasons that I voted Green in 2016 with the major one being there is no way I would vote for Hillary Clinton: even if ranked choice voting as involved. There would have to be a lot of slots for other options before I would vote for her. 

And I have three dogs who I would write in before I would vote for her.

No sexism. Unless the reason you wanted me to vote for her was that she was a woman. Both Kamala and Hillary are pretty bad choices.

I've gotten into them before, but this one needs to be hammered into your head if you think Hillary should have been an option:

 Misogynistic, anti-semites for Jill Stein.

Yeah, right!

Can't forget 'Orrible 'Arris:

 

Trump is not "Putin's Pet"

 I've got to admit that I'm surprised I would agree with Fiona Hill, but

 Trump wants to be Putin's pet, but he's not.

Hillary Clinton labelled ‘psychopath’ after ‘lying’ about her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein

Sure, Sky News Oz is totally off to the right, but it's always fun to watch. Rita Panahi may not be totally correct about lefties, as is the case with most of the rest of the talking heads. I mean Oz has a lot of the policies they criticise as being lefty, with really strong immigration control to boot. 

 Australia's tough on immigration, as is the case with the rest of the commonwealth, is something I agree with. It's dumb for people on the left to want to support open borders for a plethora of reasons. Unless they are doing it to highlight the idiocy of US imperialist, warlike policies, but that action is really lost in translation.

Revenons à nos moutons!

I've made it clear that I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton even if ranked Choice was an option. She would definitely come in behind my write in votes for my dogs and Bozo the clown if there were still choices.

But this video shows that Hillary is up there with 'Orrible 'Arris for bad candidates fielded by an awful party.

No Russians involved! Unless Russians run the DNC.

 

And about that photo of Ghislaine Maxwell at Chelsea's wedding: It's easily searchable at Getty Images. There are at least three copies: https://media.gettyimages.com/id/103183991/photo/chelsea-clinton-marries-marc-mezvinsky-in-rhinebeck-new-york.jpg?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=hwRpJ3P-iRaanxtDIQ_yWaQL3LNMJoz-ddvP7bP1ans=

The Big Beautiful Eff Up.

I don't suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, but I do have to wonder how someone with a CV like his could become US President once, let alone twice. For example, Donald Trump's business ventures filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection six times between 1991 and 2009, primarily involving his casino and hotel operations. These bankruptcies allowed his companies to restructure their debts while continuing to operate.

He made his "fortune" using other people's money.

And pushing the envelope.

In this case he's building a questionable multimillion dollar project on the US White House during the middle of a government shutdown. People are doing without services while he builds something which will not last.

I'm not sure that is a real tribute to US political stability.

The issue that the White House is a historic building factors in as well. I've lived in historic districts pretty much all my adult life. In one house, I was severely limited as to what I could do to the exterior: any changes had to be approved by a committee. I now live in a very modern house, yet it is also historically protected as part of post-War reconstruction! There are some really ugly houses that are practically untouchable due to that protection. Fortunately, mine isn't that protected despite it's "historic significance".

 Some historic listings even limit what one can do to the interior.

Yet, Trump can destroy a significant portion of the US White House with no problem.

Do you wonder why people are questioning this? 

The US isn't fascist, it's an Oligarchy and has been for some time. It's quietly been one. The wealthy have lived in their mansions in peace for some time, although the large mansions are becoming difficult to keep: even for the super wealthy.

The real wake up call was the 2016 election where Bernie Sanders was sidelined for Hillary Clinton, resulting in Trump being President. Amusingly, this happened through the electoral college: an institution meant to prevent such occurrences.

There needs to be a significant change in US politics, but I don't see that happening in an Oligarchy. 

How to break the two-party hold on American politics

The problem with the "no Kings" movement is that they have no idea what they are talking about, which I affirm as someone who has lived in monarchies (UK, Canada, and Belgium). 

The real issue is the duopoly, which is realy only one party pretending to be different. The duopoly is the tool of the oligarchy, which is disgustingly obvious if one wants to admit it.

The US needs new players and parties that actually represent the people.

What if America had More Political Parties? - TLDR News

There are many advantages to ending the duopoly, but I am not sure I would go with the parties and the leaders proposed by this. While I talk about the Westminster system, coalition governments are much better than the gridlock which is endemic to the US system.

What If America Had More Than Two Parties?

One of the main reform which needs to happen before the US can truly see "democracy" (or a republic). I like to quote Julius Nyerere: "The United States is also a one-party state, but with typical American extravagance, they have two of them." On the other hand, there needs to be different parties to avoid the consolidation of power caused by the duopoly.

And the there really isn't a difference between a democracy and a republic:

Well, other than the founders had an unrealistic idea that the Roman republic was somehow stable and democracy was the equivalent of nihilism.

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.

It's Guy Fawkes Day, Vote Like a Radical

 

Am I the only person out there that has noticed that this election is on Guy Fawkes Day?

Or is social media censoring that? What is the use of social media if people cannot share information?

Despite the connection of the gunpowder plot, Guy Fawkes has become a hero of anarchists and those who want to see social change (e.g., Anonymous uses the Guy Fawkes Mask).

James Sharpe, professor of history at the University of York, has described how Guy Fawkes came to be toasted as "the last man to enter Parliament with honest intentions". William Harrison Ainsworth's 1841 historical romance Guy Fawkes; or, The Gunpowder Treason portrays Fawkes in a generally sympathetic light and his novel transformed Fawkes in the public perception into an "acceptable fictional character". Fawkes subsequently appeared as "essentially an action hero" in children's books and penny dreadfuls such as The Boyhood Days of Guy Fawkes; or, The Conspirators of Old London, published around 1905. According to the historian Lewis Call, Fawkes is now "a major icon in modern political culture", whose face has become "a potentially powerful instrument for the articulation of postmodern anarchism" in the late 20th century. Fawkes is regarded by some as a martyr, political rebel or freedom-fighter, especially amongst a minority of Catholics in the United Kingdom.

I have made it clear that the US system of elections is in serious need of reform. 

And I am voting for Jill Stein in the hope that debate will finally come out in the open.

Why you should vote for Jill Stein (even if you disagree with her political views)

 Of course, you could be ecstatic that the us has a non-functional government, is wasting money, and generally there isn't any political debate worth calling a debate.

On the other hand, if you want to see a serious shake up of the system: Jill's your woman. Particularly where election reform is a matter. The Green Party is proposing changes to the electoral system which would lead to real voter choices.

There are changes in the US political system which are long overdue and they won't happen unless there is a seismic change in the political landscape.

Unhappy with the presidential duopoly candidates? There are alternatives. Here's why you should vote third party.

Lesser evil voting hurts the voters. It also doesn't help our political discussion.

This is worth a listen if you don't like US politics and want change.

Revealed: the hacking and disinformation team meddling in elections

OK, maybe you don't give an fcuk about Palestinians, but Israelis live high on the hog with universal health care, nice homes, education, and all sorts of other goodies paid for by the US tax payers.

You don't get the "socialism" and "welfare state", but you pay to support a nation that does not act in the US interest.

Remember the US Liberty.

You know that Russian Interference?

Actually, it's more like they blame Russians for interference even though the 2016 election was thrown by the Electoral College, which comes from the US CONSTITUTION! It's called distraction.

 The Israel lobby actually does what the Russians have been alleged to do. 

And I don't care how pro-Israel you happen to be: that money would be much better spent here.

Democrats don't discriminate on race, religion, sexual whatever, disability, or just ability for that matter.

Former Labour Party leader, Neil Kinnock as Pinocchio with his wife, Glenys as Jiminy Cricket.

OK, I have a different attitude toward plagiarism than a lot of people. On the other hand, Biden chose to use material from Neil Kinnock. It wasn't that he was plagiarising as much as he was being totally insincere. Toss in he could have picked someone better to crib a speech from, as this image from the British satirical series Spitting Image points out.

But the democrats decided to run a three time loser who was beginning to show signs of dementia before the election even began. Then they decided to close ranks to prevent Sanders from getting the nomination.

And don't get me into John Fetterman, who should have withdrawn after his stroke, yet remains in office.

So much for the Dems being "wildly lefty" since what Sanders proposes is pretty much taken for granted outside the US. It's only in the US that people want to work themselves to death because they are heavily in debt. Go figure.

But I digress. 

Toss in that his running mate, Kamala Harris, pulled out of the running because she was a poor candidate. All the opposition has to do is to address her record and she's cooked.

But two really bad candidates managed to win an election based on "Trump bad".

I'm not so sure about Tim Walz, but I have the feeling that the Dems picked another "winning" line up.

Of course, I'm voting Green and hoping the system blows up.

ELECTION RIGGING: US HYPOCRISY IN ACTION.

 Yes, this is the long contemplated post about how hypocritical the US has been about pushing "free and fair elections on a secret ballot", which is a guaranteed right (e.g., The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948). Something that "western democracies" have been preaching to the rest of the world. While the rest of the world realises how rigged the system happens to be. I still want to find the quote from the African leader, probably Julius Nyerere, who said something along the lines of "We have a one party system. Does having two parties make you twice as democratic as we are? Three parties?"

I was just thinking about the people who like to believe their vote somehow counts in the corrupt US System.

So, let's start with the elephant in the room:

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

I've mentioned this one ad nauseum, but the basic gist is that the popular vote is pretty much irrelevant in electing the president. Most people don't give a shit about this unless it's their candidate who got screwed over. So, I am hoping that Jill Stein can win the electoral vote since she's on enough states' ballots to pull it off. So, a third party upstart winning the Presidential election with around 24% of the vote in a handfull of states might shake things up.

So, if you don't like the system and the duopoly candidates, Jill Stein is your candidate. Her winning the election will stir things up more than Donald Trump beating Hilary Clinton in the electoral college.

Take the test here if you don't think the Electoral College is something that needs to go:

https://www.270towin.com/quiz/

If that doesn't get you to vote for Jill Stein, I don't know what will. After all, what would shake up the US Political landscape more than having a third party upstart win the election...

This isn't in any real order than what is coming to mind, so:

THE PRIMARY SYSTEM

Every wonder why this process drags on so long: especially with modern communications technology? That's because the system is rigged so that candidates that don't have a lot of funding can beat out other candidates. And even someone like Bernie Sanders can get shut out of the nomination because the Political Parties are not governmental institutions, but private entities who make their own rules.

That should be pretty obvious if you have been paying attention for the past 3 presidential elections.

Unless you really believe that Hilary Clinton, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris are the best candidates the US could come up with...

Which brings us to the other elephant in the room:

 BIG MONEY IN POLITICS

That kind of goes with the previous aspect to this, but it goes well beyond it as well. The two parties go for who the big donors want, not the people. The "Democratic" party is really obvious about this. The big donors pick and the party tries to whip up enthusiasm for Joe Biden or Kamala Harris. Any candidate who talks about the issues doesn't make it too far in the process. Even someone as tepid as Bernie Sanders, who had popular support, will be pushed out for someone the big donors don't find threatening.

As I like to point out, which you will learn if you take the 270towin quiz, Vermont is a historically red state. And Sanders (along with Leahy) have represented the state.

You get the point.

Sure ranked choice voting is one way to fight this, but I would vote Jill Stein and then write in my dogs if we had that option in this election.

Ok, I could go into way more detail, but I am very frustrated by people who think voting for the duopoly is going to change anything.

Owen Jones on why Joe Biden Is a terrible choice.

I don't totally agree with him, but he has quite a few good points.



The only real choice if you don't like the duopoly candidates is Jill Stein. She is on enough ballots to get the 270 votes needed to win the electoral college.

And stop blaming the Russians, unless the DNC is run by Russians.

Congressman Makes HUGE Admission About Bernie's 2020 Primaries

OK, we now have it out in the open what we guessed happened all along: Sanders was going to win the nomination. So, the Democrats circle their wagons and run two of the worst possible candidates. Of course, they "won" the nomination if you really want to believe that. But doesn't it stink that the DNC that year was VIRTUAL??? I mean an unpopular candidate somehow manages to beat a popular one.

REALLY?

No, vote blue no matter who and get someone who belongs in a memory care unit, not the white house. It's time to look to another party that really represents the people.

As I said, I Demexited in 2016 because the Democrats became too obvious that they don't want to represent me.

And, elections are rigged in the US. The primaries being a really glarring example of it. The US needs to stop funding private elections with public money.

Let me repeat, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS NOT A PARTY OF THE LEFT!!!!!!

How Do You Do, Fellow Progressives?

That should be obvious by now, but they prefer to run candidates of questionable ability: even if that means losing to Trump.

It's been nearly two weeks and Dementia Joe is still the Democratic candidate for president: despite it being REALLY obvious that he isn't fit for the job.

He wasn't in 2020. In fact, both Biden and Harris were weak candidates who somehow managed to defeat a popular candidate from the "left".

Bernie Sanders.

The thing is that Bernie Sanders represents a solidly Red state, with the possible exception of Burlington. In fact, a Sanders candidacy would have shaken the US political landscape quite drastically. But he was suppressed for good reason if you want to keep the joke that is the US political system.

And despite what Fox News and their ilk will tell you, the Democrats are not a party of the left. Otherwise, they would have run Sanders. But the Democrats have a long history of making sure candidates like Sanders don't win (look up Henry Wallace).

There's a reason that "Hot button" issues are the ones being discussed rather than the real issues facing the United States country. This means that pretty much anyone who sides with the Democratic party doesn't have a lot of support from me.

And they are not what I consider to be true progressives.

Because voting "blue no matter who" is what led to this mess.

George Monbiot EXPOSES Keir Starmer’s Hollow Victory

OK, this is concerns British politics, but it relates to the rise of the "right". Especially since he talks about "Killer Clowns", which is embodied in the United States by someone like Donald Trump (ici par Marine LePen).

The problem was that the Dems could have run Bernie Sanders who is lefty, yet represents a solidly red state, who would have brought a kind of left wing politics. But Bernie is hardly left outside of the United States.


The real takeaway is that the same lesson can be learned in the United States.

And some Jonathan Pie, who I pretty much forgot about post-Brexit.