SYNDICATED COLUMN: Welcome to the Machine, President Sanders

Rising in the polls, Bernie Sanders is already posing a credible threat to Hillary in the key primary state of New Hampshire. Having gone in one month from left-wing curiosity to serious contender, his confidence is soaring. He has gone from promoting himself as a mere symbolic tool to push Clinton to the left to predicting that he will win the Democratic nomination for president, and ultimately the presidency itself.

January 20, 2017.

“Welcome to the White House, Mr. President-Elec…I’m sorry—Mr. President. Hard habit to break. This way, sir — this is the Oval Office. If there’s anything you need, just let me know, sir.”

“I can’t believe I’m here.”

“You’ve made history, President Sanders. First socialist president! Very exciting.”

“Thank you, Henry.”

“Might I add also, sir, that was a very inspiring speech.”

“Thank you. So—what’s in store for day one of the Sanders Administration?”

“On your desk is a note from outgoing President Obama, as well as a stack of congratulatory messages from world leaders. You’ll want to get back to Putin, Pope Francis and Hollande right away, what with the situation in the Baltics and all.”

“Any meetings? Briefings?”

“Inauguration Day is traditionally a light schedule, so that you and the First Lady have time to prepare for tonight’s balls. So here’s what we’ve got scheduled for you for today:

“3:00: Meeting with a dozen CEOs of major corporations. You’ll have to reassure them that you’re a reasonable, mainstream Democrat, not the crazy-eyed barracuda-toothed left-winger you campaigned as. Make ‘em comfy, or else the markets’ll tank when they open Monday morning.

“4:00: National security briefing. Baltics, Seychelles, Golan Heights at the top of the agenda. You already met the Joint Chiefs during the Transition, but they’re going to want to hear that you’re not rocking the boat with any major changes in foreign policy. Our allies need to know that U.S. policy is consistent, that we’ll honor our treaty obligations and ongoing security arrangements. Iraq and Afghanistan assume that ‘total withdrawal’ stuff was just campaign rhetoric; you’re going to have to confirm that.

“4:40: Treasury Secretary Krugman wants to bend your ear about that minimum wage increase you promised.”

“What does Yellen think?”

“The Fed won’t sign on to any raise higher than $15 per hour, scaled up no sooner than 2023.”

“But that’s below the inflation rate. People need relief; the economy needs stimulus.”

“That’s true, Mr. President, but the bond market—”

“I know, I know, I read Clinton. He wasn’t president of the United States; he was the president of the bond market. Fine. Reschedule my 4:40 with Paul…add a few supply-siders into the mix. For balance.”

“Yes, sir.”

“Anything else?”

“The daily 5 o’clock in the Situation Room, sir. CIA is 70% sure they have Abu Ghanar in their sites. They’re going to want a UAV termination authorization tonight. We could move that up to 4:40 to let you and the First Lady relax before dinner, or you could meet Mr. and Mrs. Springsteen before their performance.”


“The new #2 of the Islamic State of Iraq, Syria and Jordan (ISISJ).”

“(Sigh) okay. Oh, look at the time.”

            “This way, sir.”

            “Gentlemen! Thank you for coming today. It’s nice to finally meet you. Mr. Schmidt, an honor to meet you. Google is doing great things. Mr. McMillon — I appreciate the recent moves you’ve made to help workers…I won’t hold Wal-Mart’s backing of Senator Clinton against you. Now, if you don’t mind, let’s get right to it. As I said during my campaign, the economy is broken. It’s harder than ever for hard-working people to make ends meet, let alone get ahead. The top 1% are earning 99% of new wealth. Income inequality and long-term unemployment are soaring. It’s not just wrong — it’s bad for the overall economy because it reduces spending and contributes to the imbalance of trade. So it will come as little surprise to you that I’m going to take steps to increase fairness. Yes, Mr. Cook?”

“First, I’d like to offer you my congratulations. Your victory is inspiring. However, I’d like to take this opportunity to urge you to support the proposed Trans-Global Trade Agreement. TGTA is absolutely essential to the continued health of the tech sector. Second…”

(Ted Rall, syndicated writer and the cartoonist for The Los Angeles Times, is the author of the upcoming book “Snowden,” the first biography of NSA whistleblower Edward J. Snowden. It is in graphic novel form. You can subscribe to Ted Rall at Beacon.)



  • Did you say, “First Lady”? There’s a Mrs. Sanders? Why hasn’t she been more prominent?

  • > Treasury Secretary Krugman

    YES!!! Someone in that position who actually understands how the economy works. We’ve tried voodoo economics for forty years as we’ve watched the middle class sink into poverty while the 1% grab bigger & bigger pieces of the pie. Why don’t we give Keynes’ theories a shot?

    > or else the markets’ll tank when they open Monday morning.

    Fail! When O’bummer was elected, the stocks tanked THE NEXT DAY. Before he was sworn in, before he implemented any policies, right then and there Wednesday morning. That was not due to any actions by the president-elect, but rather the temper tantrums of the 1%.

    • The point is, he’d sell us out just the same.

      • I suspect it would be more a case of bipartisan congresscritters ganging up to defeat any hint of a socialist agenda.

        Either way we’re screwed, but it would be entertaining to watch.

      • Sanders has already promised to sell out his supporters by redirecting them to the support of the Democratic Party nominee.

        That is a very conservative promise to maintain a very conservative institution that needs drastic change to make it useful to the people devastated by the Bush-Obama regime.

      • Sanders is a died-in-the-wool Zionland firster, he won’t take a shit without first asking whatever Netanyahu-bot is in power on how he should squeeze (the rest of us goyim). When it comes to ME foreign policy, that Z-slave has already committed his treason.

        BarryS’s a card-carrying member of the tribe, and America still has a few drops of blood left to suck out before the parasites of the AshkeNAZI social disease move on to a fresher meat.



        Swear to YhWh, put BS in the WH, and you’ll have goyim “boots-on-the-ground” in Gaza before the year is out.


      • alex_the_tired
        June 30, 2015 6:22 AM


        On the Congresscritters. Again, I suspect that Sanders, were he to win the election, would have absolutely zero trouble interrupting our television viewing to say, “Hey, everyone who voted for me. I’m here trying to get universal healthcare through and the Senate’s ganging up on me on the orders of Big Pharma and the insurance companies. I need you all to start getting up their noses. Call them. Send them letters. Drop by their offices. Annoy the hell out of them.”

        And he’d need to do it once, maybe twice — flex the Public Muscle — and the critters would come to heel.

      • @Alex

        I went through the same thing with O’bummer, I hoped, I believed, I voted, I got screwed. Didn’t vote for a war criminal for his second term.

        But like you, I think Bernie stands the best chance of walking his talk. Messiah? Oh, heck no, but hardly a capitalist pig, either.

        I would absolutely love to witness the scenario you’ve laid out. In reality – it changes nothing, the people have the same voice today, and the critters will have the same power to override a presidential veto tomorrow.

        BUT calling the bastards out from the bully pulpit MIGHT work. What have we got to lose? Our country? Too late…

      • Give it a fucking rest, Dan. You’ve said your piece, over & over. We know you’re an unrepentant bigot, and we assume you’re an inbred, uneducated, gap-toothed, trailer dweller with a mullet who’s married to his cousin – just like all southerners.

        Hey, didja hear about the pickup truck full of good ol boys that went into the Mississippi River? The guys in the cab got out, but the poor guys in the back couldn’t get the tailgate down so they all drowned.

        Or the southern belle who went to her pappa and said, “I’m sweet on Bobby Joe” and her pappa sez, “I’m sorry honey, but years ago Bobby Joe’s momma and I had a go at it, and you can’t marry Bobby Joe ‘cuz he’s your half brother” – Later she tells her poppa that She’s sweet on Joey Bob, and poppa sez “I”m afraid Joey Bob’s momma and I went to school together, and you can’t marry him ‘cuz he’s your half brother” So she goes crying to her momma who says, “Don’t you worry what that ol’ man says, he’s no kin of your’n”

  • Didn’t you forget the appointment to view the Zapruder film or does that always come before the inaugural address?

  • alex_the_tired
    June 29, 2015 7:57 PM

    I dunno, Ted. I don’t think Bernie Sanders is a sell out. He could be; I’ll give you that. But I don’t think he is. I know, absolutely that Hillary is. And I think that Bernie Sanders has a real chance at this thing: I notice the newspaper headlines tend toward a “He’s highly unlikely, but he’s posing a real threat” meme. Translation: they’re scared to death that he’s going to shove Hillary off to the sidelines as irrelevant.

    Bernie Sanders could actually not just shove Hillary off the platform, he could finally be the one that snaps enough people out of their stupor that the public collectively stands up for itself.

    Go through his stances. Go through Hillary’s. Very few of his have conditionals. Here’s his stance on the H1B visas (sez Wikipedia): “Last year, the top 10 employers of H-1B guest workers were all offshore outsourcing companies. These firms are responsible for shipping large numbers of American information technology jobs to India and other countries.”

    Want to know Hillary’s? It’s so convoluted I have to link to the article.

    When I read through Sanders’ material, it all sounds like it’s coming from this small, sane place. The laws apply to everyone, so of course gay people can marry. Universal healthcare? Of course everyone should have access to healthcare. I bet he’s also against puppy-drowning, too.

    I don’t see that in Hillary’s stuff. She reads like a schizoid personality, not like someone who’s operating from any sort of actual central axiom.

    I only hope Bernie Sanders takes his New England democrat/socialist vibe and runs whole hog with it. None of this, “Well, I’d better get some chicken-fried cracker from Texas as a running mate.” I hope he asks Elizabeth Warren to be Veep. Bernie probably won’t make it past the one term. Warren would easily win the next term.

    • @ alex_the_tired –

      You have voiced my stance perfectly!

      Bernie should win the nomination and name Elizabeth Warren as his running-mate.

      When I took one of the online polls, originally I chose Warren as the candidate. I had an opportunity to change to Sanders. Why? Because if it were a Warren-Sanders ticket, he would be too old to succeed her. Give him the Presidency with her as VP and she could easily step in victorious after he serves his term.

    • Alex, how many times will you let yourself be duped? Please don’t fall for this ploy! This Bernie candidacy is nothing more than a political / psychological operation. Get a complete political education. I can recommend reading material. The CIA has done these types of political operations all over the world for many decades and the U.S. ruling class uses the same tactics to dupe and control its domestic population.

      • alex_the_tired
        June 30, 2015 3:34 PM

        I was duped by Obama, the first time. About a year into his presidency, I alienated pretty much all my friends who voted for him because I kept saying (to all their Obama-worship): But Gitmo is still open.

        I’m not following Bernie Sanders like I’m some member of the Manson Family. His stances on most issues align with mine, and he appears to have held these stances for many years. Hillary? Not even not-so-much. Obama? He didn’t really have any time to have any stances, did he?

        But I would be interested in your list of suggested readings. I am always interested in considering other perspectives.

      • prolecenter
        June 30, 2015 6:50 PM


        You seem intelligent and open-minded. Also, in order to stand up to your friends you must also have a great deal of integrity. I don’t say that to patronize you, but rather to congratulate you, for you are a rare breed among Americans.

        I’m curious to know how many of your friends over the years have seen the light and left the Obama camp in disgust?

        Anyway, I do have a few books to recommend if you can find the time to peruse one or more of them. They have to do with the CIA and how they operate as, not just an intelligence service, but rather a political activist organization that gathers intelligence to achieve its primary objective as the mailed fist of the U.S. ruling class. The CIA engages in massive propaganda / psychological warfare operations at home and abroad. They also deal in sabotage, political operations, coups / regime change and paramilitary ops. The CIA is the “deep state” or “shadow government;” it is a tool to manipulate whatever democratic forms may still exist in the U.S. and other countries as well. These books give a history of the CIA’s nefarious activities; what they have done before they will do again as long as it works.

        One book is even by a liberal, not a radical or socialist of any kind, but an honest scholar who investigated the long history of the CIA and found much to bemoan there. The other two are accounts written by perhaps the original whistleblower, the Snowden of the 70’s, former CIA officer Philip Agee. Agee’s conscience finally got the better of him and he has given one of the most detailed accounts to date of exactly what the CIA does in countries that do not kowtow to Washington.

        Here is the Amazon link to Philip Agee’s “Inside the Company: CIA Diary”:

        The other books you can search for yourself. They are:

        Philip Agee, “Dirty Work: The CIA in Western Europe”

        John Prados, “Safe for Democracy: The Secret Wars of the CIA”

      • alex_the_tired
        July 1, 2015 1:03 PM

        Thanks for the list. It might take a while, but I’m always up for more reading.

        You ask a pretty interesting question about whether any of my friends came around to my way of Obama-thinking.

        Not really. Most of them, I’ve noticed, simply don’t talk about Obama anymore. It’s not that they don’t talk about Obama to me and only me; they don’t bring him up.

        During the last presidential election, a bunch of us were sitting around the TV and during a lull one of my friends observed something to the effect of, “Do you remember what you said about 5 or 10 years ago about the police state and Gitmo and all that?”

        None of my opinions on that subject have changed, so I didn’t have to do a Hillary and try to remember what my stance was.

        And my friend said to me (I paraphrase): “When you started up with that, I thought you’d lost your mind. But you were absolutely right.”

      • FlemingBalzac
        July 6, 2015 10:57 AM

        In Soviet Union, tinfoil hat wears YOU!

      • Huh?
        “Soviet Union”?

  • Well, if you want an actual Marxist’s position, here goes. Bernie isn’t a “socialist,” he’s a democratic socialist. Sort of like Sweden in the good old days. Much better than here of course, but different. That said, I don’t think Bernie would deliberately, or even consciously, sell out. I get the impression he’s a nice guy, and a guy who is dedicated to his principles. My dad knew him in Brooklyn in the 50’s. But we live in a monstrous capitalist state, and there is no way the bourgeoisie is going to let him do anything even remotely “socialist.” Never happen. There would be a coup first. I’m reminded of the arguments I used to get into when shrub was president about fascism – how while I had no doubt if they needed fascism they would use it, but they had no need then. If Bernie was president they might need it. So I’m with Ted, nothing would get done, maybe because Bernie would sell out, maybe, just maybe, because they would kill him, one can hope…

    • This is a pathology, the idea that Bernie (or Obama, or Hillary) really deep down has truly populist values and is just trying to work within the system to do the best he can for the people. This pathological idea comes from massive brainwashing and abuse, as well as the feeling of utter powerlessness that Americans feel at the subconscious level if nowhere else. Most Americans of all political stripes, meaning basically two, correctly understand that they are being screwed over and that they essentially have little or no control over their lives; the problem is that both of these groups of Americans blame the wrong thing or only have a very superficial understanding of the political situation.

      I have seen NO evidence that Bernie “means well” in the sense of having truly populist, progressive values that he wants to enact into policy. The burden of proof is on Bernie to prove his progressive credentials, but he has fallen way, way short.

      • alex_the_tired
        June 30, 2015 3:28 PM

        Even in Obama’s heyday, he struck me as a slickster. He was just TOO right. And Bill Clinton and Hillary as well. With all three there was a feeling of, “Uh-oh, I’m about to get hit up for a donation or to buy something for a fundraiser.”

        I just do not get that from Sanders (or Warren).

  • By “hope” I mean simply that it would be nice to have someone in politics in this country who actually has principles, which Bernie might. I have no wish for anyone to hurt him. And whether he truly has principle I’m not sure, he did stick by them, more or less, as mayor of Burlington. Senator, not quite so much.

    • Bernie does have principles, but they are slightly reformist at best. When it’s all said and done he is basically a Democrat and therefore a supporter of capitalism and imperialism. Bernie has principles, but his principles and values are not what you seem to think they are.

      • As I said, I DON’T think he has socialist principles. I do think he largely does actually want to help poor and powerless people, even if he is wrong about the right way to do that. He is, essentially a left wing Democrat from 40 years ago. Which makes him still a capitalist, and on the wrong side. But a much nicer version of the wrong side, not that I would vote for him

  • As someone else already pointed out I believe, Bernie has already sold out. Listen to him carefully when he speaks. You may have to read between the lines a bit, but what you mainly have to do first is have a thorough political education, which 99% of Americans do not. Bernie talks about rescuing the “middle class;” he is very careful not to ever refer to the “working class,” which is I figure, about 80% of the U.S. population. The middle class makes up most of the rest of the top 20% of income earners. Those affluent middle class citizens (some might refer to them as the “upper middle class”) will get some goodies from Sanders with the approval of the 1% capitalist ruling class in order to shore up the economy and save the system – and to continue with divide and rule tactics which continue to work out well for them.

    • What an entirely specious argument.

      I do recognize the terminology you’re using, but the “middle class” as used in modern American political discourse is entirely income based. i.e. those people who fall between “rich” and “impoverished.” When Bernie talks about “middle class” he simply using the terminology more familiar to those he wishes to reach.

      Here’s a quote, ““The simple truth is that in America people working full time should not be living in poverty. Since 1968, the real value of the federal minimum wage has fallen by close to thirty percent”

      Who does minimum wage effect? Certainly not “affluent middle class citizens”. Who comprises the ‘working class’ if not “people working full time” ?

      What you call “reading between the lines” I call “putting words in his mouth” I’ve never heard him dismiss the existence of unicorns, but I don’t assume he believes in them. If I wanted to prove he believed in unicorns, I would have to find some quotes of his to back up my assertions.

      Can you supply quotes to back up yours?

      It’s easy to make predictions concerning any candidate’s future, I could predict that he would cure cancer and fly to the moon. If I wanted to argue that he would, I might cite cases where he’s cured other diseases or flown to other heavenly bodies. That would certainly bolster my arguments, but it still wouldn’t prove what he’ll do tomorrow.

      Can you cite specific, documented, cases of him siding with the 1%?

      • prolecenter
        July 1, 2015 9:55 AM


        First of all, thanks for looking up those poll numbers for Hillary and Bernie. However, I would expect those numbers to of course change quite a bit as we get closer to the election, and I’ll wager that the actual results of the election will show that some of those Democrats who said they would not consider voting for Hillary will have changed their minds after being scared senseless over what the Republicans might do if they win the presidency.

        Regarding Bernie, one would expect a genuine socialist to use correct Marxist terminology so that even if he has no chance of winning the presidency, he could at least begin to educate the masses and not further deceive them and co-opt them into the Democratic Party machinery.

        I don’t have the time or inclination to waste pulling up specific quotes, but everyone knows, and can look it up for themselves, that Bernie has consistently and repeatedly defended the military, U.S. Imperialism and the U.S. vassal state of Israel. Those positions are in keeping with the policies of the 1%. However, as a Left Liberal, I do believe that Bernie does care about the interests (if only to save the system) of the middle class which term I use in the Marxist sense and that is actually how he and the U.S. elites understand the term as well. Bernie would, in the unlikely event of winning the presidency, attempt to help the middle class / upper middle class with lower taxes, tax credits or whatever; and he would even throw some more crumbs to the poor and working class (which unfortunately are bought cheap since they have been stripped of their dignity) in order to stem the tide of discontent. Of course, the ultra-right wing of the establishment, in their short-sighted stupidity, would likely try to block even these meager efforts.

      • Bernie actually identifies a “Democratic Socialist” rather than a strict socialist. Unfortunately “Working class” and similar “Marxist Terminology” has been tainted by years of capitalist propaganda, he would be working against himself while simultaneously failing to communicate his points.

        The Arab American Institute gives him an overall positive rating on Israel-Palestine.

        If you don’t have time to look up facts and figures, then how do you form your opinions? Without citing your sources, your arguments are all straw men. I’m certainly not going to prove your points for you.

      • alex_the_tired
        July 1, 2015 11:21 AM

        Ooh. A question of Marxism doctrine. In Marx’s time, the whole “worker controls the means of production” was central to his thesis because it was where worker-power originated from.

        But that has shifted. How would Marx “wake up” the worker in the 21st century? What is the worker’s power-origination point now?

      • prolecenter
        July 1, 2015 11:47 AM


        I’ve heard and read and followed Bernie over the years; not so much recently, though. I just meant that I don’t feel like looking all that stuff up AGAIN right this moment – or ever again actually.

        Also, I think I’ve dominated this particular comment forum enough. People have to do some of their own research; that’s the only way they’ll really figure things out.

        I’ve said my piece for now.

      • @prolecenter

        okay, then file this thought away for next time.

        You’re obviously trying to bring people around to your viewpoint. Your audience here is smarter and better informed than the average American voter (with notable exceptions). Most are actually capable of changing their opinions based on new information.

        But simply stating your opinion does not constitute new information. Your only hope is to provide facts and figures; quotes and voting records, etc.

      • @ CrazyH –

        1) “Without citing your sources, your arguments are all straw men. I’m certainly not going to prove your points for you.”


        2) “But simply stating your opinion does not constitute new information. Your only hope is to provide facts and figures; quotes and voting records, etc.”

        [Ditto my above comment.]

      • My humble thanks.

      • prolecenter
        July 1, 2015 9:53 PM


        Okay, so you want to break balls and waste my time. Alright, this is the very last thing I will say on this particular thread.

        The greatest evidence against Sanders is that he is a career American politician and he could NEVER have lasted this long if he hadn’t made some accommodation with the U.S. capitalist imperialist system. You really have no idea how this system works. It is a totalitarian system; it is entirely under the firm control of a small elite of capitalist oligarchs who use sophisticated brainwashing and psychological / psywar techniques to dupe, manipulate and control the population of the U.S. and is also frightfully effective at spreading its bullshit propaganda around the world. They also control the electoral process through the electoral college, and fraud through voting machines that have been admitted by many to be easily hacked.

        As I thought we had established, you and I have very different worldviews, ideologies and goals. You are apparently a bourgeois left liberal who poses as a utopian socialist or some kind of ultra-left anarchist; but you are still a patriotic American, which is weird but apparently par for the course. I, on the other hand, am a Marxist-Leninist, a real Socialist, or Communist if you prefer.

        My primary objective is to put an end to U.S. Imperialism, which is, as Lenin said, the final stage of capitalism. Real Socialism cannot even begin to take hold throughout the world until the U.S. Empire is put in its grave once and for all.

        You think the sick and twisted evil U.S. Empire can be reformed and saved. And I know that it CANNOT be. The elites have ensured that this entirely pathological society must be destroyed through mostly external forces along with internal contradictions that will help move that process along.

        The U.S. is an entirely pathological society. Again, you think it can be reformed, but that train has long since left the station. The last best chance for a true revolution in the U.S. was in the late 60’s and early 70’s.

        Bernie, like FDR, poses as a progressive in order to save the system. Bernie is a capitalist imperialist supporter. Go to his website (I won’t provide the link) and click on “Legislation” on the menu. Then click on “War and Peace” and see Bernie’s imperialist apologetics when he speaks about Israel’s “disproportionate” response against Gaza when he should be condemning Israel as a fascist vassal state of the U.S. Empire. Sanders also says that the U.S. entered the Afghanistan war “with significant clarity of purpose and moral authority” (again from his website).

        Hasn’t it been well established that the Afghanistan War was all about securing pipelines from the oil and gas-rich Caspian region for American corporations?!

        Bernie caucuses with the Democrats. That makes him a capitalist imperialist stooge and a CUNT!!

      • @prole – attempting to teach you to make your point in a civilized and logical manner is hardly “breaking your balls”

        Your latest post is a combination of straw men and ad hominem attacks, loosely held together by a hysterical rant. IOW virtually identical to every other post you’ve ever made on this site.

        I’ve stated my views many times on this and other websites over the course of years. I’d post links, but y’know, I can’t be bothered to waste my time.

        BTW “Marxist-Leninist” was a term invented by Stalin in a pathetic attempt to explain why the revolution failed produce Marx’s classless society.

  • Also, for those who missed it before, here is a Black Agenda Report article that pretty much explains what Bernie is doing and which masters he really serves:

    • alex_the_tired
      June 30, 2015 3:50 PM

      Although I can buy into the premise, there are some holes. Mainly, the notion that a significant portion of the electorate is going to go, “Oh, if not Sanders then Clinton.” Hillary, for a lot of people, is simply not palatable.

      Secondly, if not Sanders to rally around, who WOULD these people who he is sheepdogging be rallying around instead? Is that’s what’s holding the Greens back? That each election cycle the Dems sheepdog away their voters and SOMEHOW those voters never go to the more leftist group but rather fall back into the same centrist trick?

      I accept that people can be pretty stupid, but THAT stupid? I need a little more hard data on this. For instance: what is the percentage of Democratic voters who would not vote for Hillary, period?

      • prolecenter
        June 30, 2015 6:14 PM

        Many, if not most, of Bernie’s followers will probably end up voting for Hillary when she eventually takes the nomination. Some will become demoralized and burnt out and either not vote or more likely cast a protest vote, or else vote Green, or throw up their hands and otherwise give up and become apolitical . . . until the next presidential election rolls around. But I suspect that most of Bernie’s fans will hold their noses and vote for the “lesser evil” Hillary against those nasty Republicans.

        I think Bernie’s main function is to keep an independent Left movement from developing, whether it be the Green Party or some further left populist movement / organization from forming. In fact, a lot of Greens will end up supporting Bernie as a more “practical” candidate. Yes, this sheepdogging does keep people away from voting Green or for a real Socialist Party. It gives people false hope and they do continue to fall for it because either they are that stupid or brainwashed, desperate or otherwise suffering from massive abuse, alienation and powerlessness. It’s some quirk of psychology and the ruling class has figured out how to manipulate us perfectly.

        And please, by all means see if you can find some poll numbers on people who would not vote for Hillary under any circumstances if that question has been asked at all, which I doubt.

        I’d love to be proven wrong, but like BAG said, I’ve seen this movie before. I would urge you to listen very carefully to what Bernie says in his campaign speeches, and also what he does NOT say.

      • @prole

        > what is the percentage of Democratic voters who would not vote for Hillary, period?

        Ten Percent, Sanders: eighteen percent.

        Gotta wonder what Bernie’s percentage would be if TPTB hadn’t spent the last sixty years demonizing Communism & Socialism.

  • DanD,

    You need to get up out of here with that recycled Mein Kampf crap. This is the same right-wing garbage that was spewed by Hitler and even others before him about an “International Jewish Conspiracy” to take over the world. Talking about “goyim” “ashkenazi” and “social disease.” You are the social disease spreading Nazi propaganda thinly disguised as populism.

    • So, there was no international Jewish conspiracy against National Socialist Germany? History establishes something different:
      What ended up happening is that fascist Hitler went ape-shit on the European Jewish population that he determined had declared war on HIS Germany.

      And of course, you p(role)c(enter), can’t find any political difference between anti-Zionist Jews and the world’s Zionist affliction (which also includes more Gentile Christianites than Jews)? Guess what? 99% of the Earth’s rabid Zionist Jews ARE of the Ashkenazi (or Caucasian) brand.

      Meantime, what are you going to do if I don’t “get out of here” with my historically more accurate viewpoint? Yeah, that’s what I thought … you can’t do shit. But that’s the problem with Zio-schills such as yourself, the true facts don’t let you argue affectively, so you simply ad-hominem personal insults like a punk-bitch.

      Enjoy masterbating yourself with your Zionist-friendly propaganda about that war-criminal, shitty-little-country ~


    • Get real. If you know anything about DC or foreign policy, you know that national US pols are not elected unless they are completely subservient to the Zionists, i.e. the fascist terrorist state of Israel.

      • prolecenter
        July 1, 2015 9:32 AM

        Israel is the 51st state; the tail does not wag the dog. Without U.S. funding and armaments Israel would collapse in a matter of weeks. It is, as former U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig said, America’s largest unsinkable aircraft carrier.

        DanD’s bullcrap comes straight out of Mein Kampf. You can check it out for yourself; there are free pdf versions online.

        I’ve said for years that Leftists who want a complete political education absolutely MUST spend some time at least scanning through Mein Kampf in order to thoroughly understand our ultimate enemy. In order to understand what you are and what you are for you must also fully understand what you are not and what you are against.

      • Agreed, opposition research is vital. It is on the reading list. I might move it up.

  • alex_the_tired
    July 2, 2015 6:05 AM

    One final thought from me on socialism.
    “Real Socialism cannot even begin to take hold throughout the world until the U.S. Empire is put in its grave once and for all.”

    ALL empires fail. ALL.

    The Roman Empire is a good example. In fact, it’s almost a perfect fit. The Roman empire peaked in AD 180 with Commodus after forming in 31 BC with the rise of Augustus. It dragged on for a while, but the glory days were behind it. About 210 years. (Either from 1776 or 1789, we’ve passed the 210 mark.) But adding 210 to our start date puts us either smack in the middle of Reagan (and if any single president did more to destroy this country, I’d like to know) or literally a fraction of a hair away from 9/11 and all the subsequent empire-in-free-fall reactions to that.

    Sizewise, the Roman empire peaked in AD 117 (I had to check wikipedia for that), so that took a mere 150 years. The U.S. took about that long from formation in 1776 (or 1789) to acquire most of its present size. And unless the mapmakers are all wrong, there’s no more land left to grab. So, again, a really neat fit.

    The empire is already in collapse. No empire continues without infrastructure, physical and bureaucratic, to support it. The military costs always wipe out the economy. A standing army is cripplingly expensive. And we’re running out of things to steal from others to support it. I suspect the collapse will take a long time, and I also suspect that the collapse will be diffused because there will be locations that will retain almost all of the extant culture and technology. And their socialist-leaning policies will return to America because there simply won’t be another choice. The American Empire arose in a world in which all of Europe had been torn to bits. We were the only major power that hadn’t been ground down, and we had a tech base.

    Next time, it will be different. The sociopaths and the warmongers will be identified early in childhood and carefully monitored. We’ll all have healthcare.

    I can hope.

    • My 02 on Socialism is that it’s doomed to fail ‘cuz humans.

      The Russian Revolution is a great example. At least some of the leaders were true believers, Trotsky for instance. Lenin was a thug, but might still have had good intentions.

      The workers rose up, shrugged off the ruling class and installed a revolutionary committee to shepherd the transition to glorious communism. All according to the plan laid out by Marx. So far, so good.

      But a funny thing happen on the way to a stateless society. Over the years, Stalin grabbed more & more power for himself and eventually emerged as a brutal dictator. That most assuredly wasn’t in Marx’s plan.

      And therein lies the problem. Socialism is a dictatorship by definition, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Doesn’t matter whether the original band of revolutionaries all have good intentions, Eventually, some greedy, self-centered human is going to come along and muck things up.

      In the 74 years from 1917 to 1991, the USSR never transitioned to Communism. It’s arguable that they never even achieved a true socialist state, more like state capitalism.

      What happens if we decide we don’t want communism but instead want a true socialist state? A country of 300 million people isn’t going to run itself. You still need a steering committee to decide what’s produced, where it’s produced, and who gets the end products. So, okay, we find a bunch of altruists and hand the reins over to them. Let’s even assume they’re absolutely incorruptible.

      Now fast forward thirty years. Most of the original committee has died or retired and the new guys come in. Are all those new guys incorruptible altruists? They’ve got a lot of power in their hands, somebody’s going to try to cut a deal, “give my district the new widget plant and I’ll see that you get your very own girl scout troop” – and the downward spiral begins.

      We had a democratic republic, with checks and balances to ensure that it would never turn into a tyranny. What happened, where’d it go? Same difference, those in power decided they liked the side benefits more than they liked the idea of server the public interest.

      Today, the majority of our national lawmakers are millionaires even though the ostensibly make less than 200K a year.