Former republican makes a shocking confession

 Back to what I have been saying about Bernie Sanders and his politics being popular if it was given a chance.

 

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:

 

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 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.

No means No

The reality is that I said "No" three times:

1. The 2008 Primary
2. the 2016 Primary
3. And the 2016 General Election

The likelihood of my voting for Hillary Clinton was next to non-existent.[1]

And the Russians had fuck all to do with it.

Unless, of course, Russians run the democratic party, which in retrospect seems to be the case since they pretty much trashed the 2016 election.

Especially since Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, yet LOST IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

The problem is that the duopoly wants to pretend that a vote for a third party is anything but a vote for that party. 2016 was liberating for me since I saw that my vote didn't count.

It doesn't count in primary elections and it also doesn't count in the general election.

Having a "right to vote" is meaningless if the voting is not done in a truly free and fair election with a secret ballot and parties that actually represent the people.

So, please, stop saying that third party voters are spoilers.

Unless we are spoiling the illusion for the duopoly.

Footnote:

[1] I might vote for Hillary Clinton if Ranked Choice Voting were in place, but she would be somewhere after a write in vote for all my dogs and maybe one of the legitimate candidates.

Do as I say, not as I do...

It's Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber with the duopoly. I am tired of the lack of serious discourse in US politics. Unfortunately, this nonsense doesn't get mentioned in other countries, which is too bad. 

Russell Brand is the court jester who tells the truth through jest. 

 

"No means no."

Still more Russell Brand on US politics.

 Do this with a "French accent" and it's pretty much what I would say:[1]

"I don't know how people can get so whipped up by either side of the political debate when clearly both sides are engaging in nefarious activity and espionage and it's just accepted as a normal part of political life. For me, it's not about a a personal lack of trust in Hillary Clinton, or the evident dislike many people feel for Hillary Clinton. This is more about a total lack of trust in these political institutions and agencies. And a legitimate reason to feel cynical and sceptical about politics. For me, this is not interesting because he's like "what politicians aren't reliable". This is simply "see, what are you so excited about".

Another thing he mentions is that since both parties are culpable, they really can't criticise the other one. The ability to criticise comes from a true moral superiority because your side isn't engaging in these activities.

Anyway, one of the major problems with the US is that the two parties are pretty much the same: no matter how much you want to believe your side is somehow different. The reason US elections are interminable is that they is big money involved in all this. Foreign elections don't last as long, and have multiple parties, because there isn't the expense which is a major charateristic of US elections.

There is a post brewing on why Bernie Sanders would have been the best choice to have run in 2016, which is pretty much an undeniable fact no matter which side of the political spectrum you are on. The problem is that his popular campaign wasn't given the proper coverage since Hillary Clinton was going to be the nominee in 2016 no matter what.

That was the real reason Trump became president and it had nothing to do with Russian interference.

And in case you needed a laugh:

Footnote:

[1] The "French accent" is more figurative than literal, hence the quotation marks and this explanation.  As P.T. Barnum said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

Russell Brand on Hillary Clinton

 Unlike Doggone, I KNEW that the Russia narrative was Rubbish. Russell Brand makes the truth easy to swallow:

Tulsi Gabbard captured Hillary Clinton best. “You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long…”

"Why are we even invested in this? Because the media continually tells us we are doing something valuable instead of telling us the truth: 'Look, It doesn't matter who you vote for, you're getting the same deal. That's what you're gonna be getting, That's what's on offer. Shut up and like it.'"

Who Rigged the 2016 Elections? Hint: It wasn't the Russians

The reason I know that Russiagate was a crock was that I saw what went on.

And here is the documentation that the DNC rigged the 2016 primary:
https://medium.com/@brandondegraff/the-dnc-rigged-the-2016-primary-for-hillary-clinton-c0752fbf3140

BC Degraff does a fantastic job of documenting what happened to the Sanders campaign in 2016.

What gets me is that this was so blatant, yet MSNBC and Wretched Madcow never addressed this. Instead the media spent a lot of time on the Russian Interference distraction tactic.

Any "Russian interference" was negligible compared to the internal corruption of the system.

Now, why isn't Adam Schiff spending his time on this?

Oh, yeah, the Democratic party was the perpetrator.

Kayfabe Impeachment

Remember the time Trump tweeted "Covfefe"? and it created a stir because no one knew what "Covfefe" was? Trump tweeted again at 6:09 am: "Who can figure out the true meaning of "covfefe" ??? Enjoy!" and the original tweet was removed.

 People were confused. Lots of way out guesses.

But some people know about World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (WWE) and that Trump is a WWE Hall of Famer.. Let's add in that not only is Trump an actor, he's a reality show star.

Kayfabe is a term in WWE:

In professional wrestling, kayfabe (also called work or worked) is the portrayal of staged events within the industry as "real" or "true", specifically the portrayal of competition, rivalries, and relationships between participants as being genuine and not of a staged or predetermined nature of any kind. The term kayfabe has evolved to also become a code word of sorts for maintaining this "reality" within the direct or indirect presence of the general public.

"Covfefe" doesn't make sense, but the tweet makes a whole lot more sense if we change the word to what it should have been "kayfabe":

"Despite the constant negative press covfefe"
"Despite the constant negative press faked hatred"

We know that the Dems wanted a pied piper candidate (Wikileaked Podesta e-mail). Why not have Trump be the "jobber" or faked opposition in WWE Terms? The Candidate would be a great reality TV show as CBS CEO Leslie Moonves said about Trump, "It May Not Be Good for America, but It's Damn Good for CBS."

Trump received nearly 6 Billion in free coverage because he was good for ratings. Better yet, not only was he the "jobber", but he could be the "heel" (villain, baddie) to Hillary Clinton's "face" (the good one). Trump acts like a jerk and distracts from Clinton. Did Trump just say "pussy"?

Got it?

Except things didn't work to plan. Hillary Clinton was so bad, which was something mentioned in 2007. But you were a "misogynist" if you said in in the 2016. Clinton was so bad that the result of the 2008 Michigan had Clinton "win" with 51% of the vote, but the runner ups were "Uncommitted" 31% and "undecided" 9% (total 40% for nobody).

The way that translated in 2016 was that she couldn't get enough votes in what she thought were the close states: Michigan being one of those close states.

That meant that Trump would move reality shows from "The Candidate" to "the Presidency of the United States". He would keep the role of the heel and the public could boo him to their hearts content.

They would have "the impeachment" as a spin off where the Democrats could pretend to look into what went wrong in 2016 while really doing fuck all about the problem. But like "The candidate" the Dems didn't plan on public reaction. The Dems had to create a show for the public.

But the problem was that the Dems knew it was a bad idea and would be doomed to failure.

Worse, if the public twigged to what was actually going on in Ukraine they would be even more pissed at the Dems.

Pelosi's failure to pass on the articles of impeachment is an admission the impeachment was kayfabe. A show trial to try and make the public happy. Democrats can watch their people attack Trump. Republicans can watch their people defend Trump. Both Democrats and Republicans could feel good.

Sort of.

Some people got it and didn't feel so good. They couldn't understand why.

It's like covfefe. People were guessing. People were confused until they understand it was Trump breaking kayfabe.

You won't know what to feel until you understand the impeachment was just duopoly kayfabe.

Yes, Impeachment is a Show Trial

Let's start this with a couple of definitions:

show trial /SHō ˈtrī(ə)l/ noun show trial; plural noun: show trials

a judicial trial held in public with the intention of influencing or satisfying public opinion, rather than of ensuring justice.

Now, The impeachment seems to be playing to the base of partisan Democrats since, as the Republicans correctly pointed out, the Democrats made it clear from BEFORE Trump even took office that they would impeach him.

Next characteristic of a show trial:

A show trial is a public trial in which the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt of the defendant.

The fact that the vote pretty much went down party lines is indicative that the outcome was predetermined. My Rep., Madeline Dean, has members of Ukrainian Nationalist Stepan Bandera's family in it. I know at least one contacted her repeatedly to tell her that the impeachment was a bad idea. Not sure whether Rep. Dean's vote was due to willfull ignorance or just towing party line.

Ukraine is a cesspit of scandal and corruption and to have brought charges against Trump based on events happening there was a serious error of judgement.

It was already ordained that the House would impeach and this would die a death in the Senate. Mitch McConnell said as much. Now, Pelosi is holding off on sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

A public trial with the intent of satisfying public opinion with a predetermined outcome is the perfect description for what just happened. I dare anyone to argue that wasn't what happened.

But please don't blame the left. I know this lefty would have preferred that the Democrats have been productive with their time and work on election reform. But I know that it was easier to find blame in others and do the neo-McCartyite totalitarian thing.

Because any serious investigation into what went wrong in 2016 would find plenty of dirt on the Dems.

Impeachment WTF?

I don’t want impeachment “to be a way of life in our country.” 

The Democrats impeachment thing is totally pathetic. The impeachment is a prime example of Trump Derangement Syndrome. The Dems SHOULD have spent the past few years looking into what really went wrong in 2016. Instead, they have spent the time on total bullshit.

Worse, they announced they would impeach Trump early on. So, points for the Republicans who are pointing out that the impeachment is a joke.

The really pathetic thing about the Impeachment hearings is listening to the Democrats trying to justify giving military aid to Ukraine as being in the US national interest.

Um, Ukraine is rife with neo-Nazis and this money is going to them. I want to know how giving money that ends up in the hands of Right Sector and the Azov Brigade is in the US interests?

Worse, picking a scandal that takes place in Ukraine is a total recipe for disaster. The Republicans could be having a field day with this one if they did their research. Yet only one Republican mentioned this during the "debate" or whatever the dog and pony show I just witnessed was called.

After all, this all started under Obama and features Biden. This is a scandal worse than anything that Trump has done if they want to do their research.

And the Dems are handing it to them on a platter.

There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.
--Jerry Nadler, on why he opposed impeaching Bill Clinton

One writer said that:

the Democrats’ impeachment bid as a dead man’s hand, Aces & Eights. But the actual cards on the table are even worse—more like two-seven, unsuited.

But make the analogy even more accurate by saying the Republican are sitting there with a royal flush while the Dems are bluffing. I'm not sure how the Democrats could be so blinded by TDS to miss that they are running straight into the Grand Canyon without a parachute.

These people are so blinded by partisanism that they aren't listening to themselves let alone other people.

Seriously, watching the impeachment debates is like watching a really bad movie where you know how it's going to end. You watch it anyway to see how much worse it can get.

My Questions from watching this are:

Democrats: How does giving money that ends up in the hands of neo-Nazi Groups like Right Sector and the Azov brigade in the US national interests? Very important since those people train US right wing crazies.

Republicans: how can you say that Trump was "democratically elected" when Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a margin of 2.1%? It was the anti-Democratic electoral college that put Trump in Place. 

 Seriously, this mess could have been avoided if there had been a serious examination of what went wrong in 2016. But that would look bad for both parties. Although I think the Dems would come out of it looking much worse than the Republicans.

I have to wonder what more could go wrong here. The ending is obvious, this is a partisan exercise where Trump will be acquitted in the Senate.

You have to wonder why the Democrats are bothering with all this. Since the real time to remove Trump is coming in less than a year. Is it because the Democrats have nothing to offer?

The Impeachment of Hillary Clinton.

I love alternative reality scenarios and this one is easy to do.

Here is the alternative reality where Hillary Clinton becomes president because she won the popular vote with a margin of 2.1% (or nearly 3 million votes). Forget the Electoral College result because Katherine the Great didn't persuade the founding fathers to put that in the Constitution.

The Republicans control the house 241-192 and Senate by 52-48.
https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results
 
Are you telling me that Hillary Clinton WOULDN'T be under investigation for anything and everything? The Clinton Foundation is still under scrutiny in our current reality (and "no" it hasn't gotten a clean bill of health, but Trump is really great for distracting people).

I'm sure there would have been loads of things the Republicans could go after Hillary for, but since I mentioned the Clinton Foundation, let's go with that. Especially since you can see a clip of the December 2018 hearings here.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4767670/user-clip-clinton-foundation-charity-fraud


“Some interviewees reported conflicts of those raising funds or donors, some of whom may have an expectation of quid pro quo benefits in return for gifts,” the lawyers warned.

I wouldn't be so smug about impeachment if I were a Democrat since the shoe very easily could have been on the other foot.

And I would put money that Clinton would have been impeached and removed since the Republicans had control of both houses after the 2016 election.

There wouldn't have been a problem had the Dems run Bernie.

Kyiv Post has an article on how the Ukrainians see the latest attempt by the "Democrats" to try to harm Donald Trump. Another one that will backfire bigly.

What are Giuliani and Trump alleging?
Specifically, Giuliani alleges that: 1) Biden pressured Ukraine to fire its prosecutor general in order to hamper an investigation into Burisma Holdings, the oil and gas company where his son Hunter worked, and 2) that Ukrainian officials conspired to help Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election.

The problem with the impeachment nonsense is that the Democrats need to come up with something that won't backfire on them. This one will as the last one did since the underlying claims relate to Democratic corruption.

As the dude said, "let the person without sin cast the first stone".

But this shit beats having to address the US's problems.

Read the article here: https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/trump-whistleblower-scandal-explained-from-ukraine.html

What really bothers me about Russiagate and the Mueller report

The fact that Trump looked as if he didn't want to be President. That was a common theme from journalists and other outsiders who spent time with his campaign.

Toss in the wikileaked document from the Podesta e-mails where the Clinton campaign talks about a "Pied-Piper Candidate" and specifically mentions Donald Trump.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

I find it interesting that the predicted popular vote in this forecast by Nate Silver is fairly close to how the actual popular vote turned out. Sure, that's purely conjecture.

On the other hand, Clinton was so sure she would win the election that she didn't have a concession speech written!

We know that the Democratic primary process was rigged between Wikileaks and the Class Action lawsuit against the DNC. Hell, it's pretty much common knowledge that Clinton was supposed to have been the Democratic "nominee" since 2015 and that Sanders was an inconvenience to the process.

The problem is that you've got to wonder when a campaign is based upon "It's her turn" from a person with a serious sense of entitlement. Toss in that person is running a vanity campaign.

And the Candidate in question is one of the most unpopular candidates ever (see 2008 Michigan Primary results).

I mean who is the more likely candidate to try and rig the election:
1) the person who appears not to give a fuck?
or
2) The person who feels so entitled to the position that she shuts out any competition?

Of course Trump was exonerated he had no intent to win the election.

It's easy to divert attention away by screaming "the Russians meddled in the election".  On the other hand, it's a lot more questionable when the evidence points to someone thinking they can rig the election to win.

So, I think that's the real line of inquiry if people want to keep trying to figure out what went wrong: look at the person who had a desire and a motive to cheat.



See also:

• BuzzFeed’s Controversial Cohen Story Raises Question: Did Trump Want to Be President?
• The Dismissed DNC Fraud Lawsuit Explained
• Vote-Rigging Suit Against DNC Dropped, Mostly Because the DNC Can’t Rig Much of Anything
• Hillary Clinton says she didn't prepare concession speech because she was convinced she would win

THEY JUST WON'T SHUT UP!!!!

Some people need to get the concept of "rights" and "due process".

One of which is the concept of innocent until proven guilty, which some people are happy to go by when it's their candidate, but won't let go of when it's Donald Trump.

Don't get me wrong. I am no fan of Donald Trump.

I am also no fan of the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton wasn't popular and any rigging was to try and find someone more unpopular than she was.

The shit will really go down once people start reading the Wikileaked Democratic Party e-mails because the Russians ain't got nothing on the Democratic Party and the Media for pushing Donald Trump.

Which was a strategy that backfired spectacularly!

Not to mention that the Democrats looks set for a replay.

There is a big difference between this and Watergate. The Republicans were the ones responsible for Watergate. 2016 was a joint effort, which was probably more from the Democrats and Media.  But don't expect to get any mea culpas from the likes of Rachel Maddow John Oliver, et al. 

Naw, they are going to keep beating a dead horse and working to get Trump reelected.

Any luck, there will be a move for impeachment which will blow up in the Dems' faces.

At this point, I am getting even sicker of the Democratic Party than I was after the Philadelphia DNC for their failure to live up to their name.

Like it or not, the Mueller Report said there was no collusion. It's time to drop the matter and move on.

Or maybe the Republicans should start looking into the Democratic Party's shenanigans.

Maybe the Mueller report WASN'T a witch hunt: or be careful what you wish for!

While the Democratic Partisans are upset about obstruction and incorrectly accusing Trump of treason, they seem to be neglecting that one of the casualties of the Mueller Investigation is Gregory Craig, who was a former Clinton and Obama attorney. Craig was charged with violations of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA).

DoJ's focus on FARA came about as an off shoot of the Mueller investigation.

Paul Manafort was convicted under this act for his work done for Ukraine's former President. Craig and Manafort worked together to help the Ukrainians, but failed to bother to register under FARA. Their client was Viktor Pinchuk, a wealthy Ukrainian steel-pipe maker. The Clintons and Pinchuk are linked via the Clinton Foundation.

There have long been allegations about the Clinton Foundation being a way to launder funds, if not straight out buy favours from the Clintons. The FBI has been said to have investigated the foundation for alleged “pay-to-play” politics while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state.

While the Mueller Investigation might not have been totally bipartisan, I can't help but wonder if it also investigated the Clintons and the Clinton foundation after hearing about the Craig indictment.

Wouldn't it be funny if the redactions about on going criminal investigations related to the Clintons and their campaign? That would really be egg on the face of the Democrats for fucking up the 2016 Election.

Anyway, the Dems should be careful what they wish for, they might get it.

And it might not turn out the way they want it!

See also:

• With Craig Indictment, Mueller Probe Sends Ripples Through the Swamp
• Gregory Craig, Ex-Obama Aide, Is Indicted on Charges of Lying to Justice Dept.
• Mueller's report looks bad for Obama
• Is the FBI’s latest probe of the Clinton Foundation a ‘witch hunt’ – or something more?
• Victor Pinchuk, the Clintons & Endless Connections
• Foundation Ties Bedevil Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign

Noam Chomsky on Russiagate

Russian interference was minimal if it even existed. No one is talking about Israel's interference in US elections.

"There's no interference in elections that begins to compare to campaign funding."

More election rigging

Now if you were an environmentalist group and going to endorse a candidate, which one of these would you choose?

The person with the 100% (or 92%): Bernie Sanders?

Or the person with the 82%: Hillary Clinton?

Bernie Sanders was the highest rated candidate on the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) scorecard and the Climate Hawks Vote PAC in 2016.

Clinton had the weakest environmental record of the Democratic candidates using the LCV's standard.

Yet, the LCV chose Clinton.

What the fuck?

LCV's Action Fund took an unprecedented step of endorsing Hillary Clinton for president after only one debate between the Democratic candidates and months before the first vote in the Democratic primaries was cast. That was a big mistake. It was far too early in this primary for the nation’s most powerful environmental political organization to make an endorsement.

Yet they did. And they chose a candidate who was poor by their own standards!
Clinton promoted the internationalization of fracking and oversaw the State Department’s initial support for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline during her tenure as Secretary of State. The one major climate accomplishment she touts, the Copenhagen Accord, is considered by climate activists to be a huge failure. Clinton is the only candidate with deep ties to the financiers and lobbyists of the fossil-fuel industry, on Wall Street and beyond.

Clinton supported the continued exploitation of our nation’s public carbon reserves, while Sanders had introduced legislation that would put an end to fossil-fuel leases on public lands. Sanders and Martin O’Malley actively supported the climate divestment movement, while Clinton ,  whose campaign and super PAC accept funding from fracking investors and fossil-fuel industry lobbyists did not taken a position.

This was Clinton's reaction when asked about her connection to the fossil fuel industry by a Greenpeace Volunteer.

Clinton never did the actions necessary to gain the support of the environmentalist movement (other than those establishment groups who are hopeful that change can come through the duopoly regime). On the other hand, climate change had short shrift if it received any attention at all during the campaign.

There are a lot of issues going on here from having a candidate chosen long before the primary process begins, failure to have a serious debate on the issue, and just plain off earning the vote.

The environment is just one of many issues where Clinton just wasn't trustworthy. And she didn't help the situation by antagonising environmental activists. She failed to give straight answers on the issue. I would toss in that she failed to address The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) issue in a meaningful manner.

But this is one of many issues where Clinton demonstrated she wasn't trustworthy.

I really have to question who rigged the election when a group such as LCV essentially declared that there’s no need for any further discussion of the environment or climate by the Democratic candidates before the primary process really began. And they decided that in favour of a candidate who was poor by their own standard.

See also:

• Why the League of Conservation Voters was wrong to endorse Hillary Clinton
• 'What a Crock': Clinton Breaks DAPL Silence With Statement That Says 'Literally Nothing'