Home | About | Donate

In Rebuke to Trumpian Division and Authoritarianism, Bernie Sanders Champions 'Unity' and 'Common Humanity' in Visionary Speech


Such a marvelous crystal ball you possess! Knowing the truth in advance! How about getting a line directly to the Pentagon and one each to those whose leadership qualities you admire - and send them the straight scoop of will happen. While you are at it, polish that ball up some more and offer free consultations to the public for the best stocks to buy, the horses to bet on, where the fish are running, when the pandemic is coming and where, etc. Your cynicism is waste, literally, figuratively. It sits. A chip. On your shoulder and probably originates in your personal past and is still avoided by projecting it onto others. And, there are kazillions of unconscious people just like you, who act out the dumb script you imagined.Much more exciting would be your creative thoughts on what you can do to change things. If all you can do is dump, dump, dump your poisonous cynicism around, how different are you then from the people whom you portray as sheep?


And then there is Trump’s cozy relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose intervention in our 2016 presidential election Trump still fails to fully admit. We face an unprecedented situation of an American president who for whatever reason refuses to acknowledge this attack on American democracy. Why is that? I am not sure what the answer is. Either he really doesn’t understand what has happened, or he is under Russian influence because of compromising information they may have on him, or because he is ultimately more sympathetic to Russia’s strongman form of government than he is to American democracy.

Bernie, this is nonsense. Not one shred of evidence has been proferred backing up the fraud that is Russia-gate. Bernie, here is a fine article on the subject, and a good recap of the neocon narrative, since apparently you missed it.


Say, is it selfish to support an economic system as you do that is as undemocratic and inequitable as it is? One that commodifies nature as it does? Where a small percentage of the world consumes most resources and generates most pollutants? You argue against changing that system. Okay, well, we know that market itself ignores massive amounts of environmental information. We know there are limits in regards to throughput and pollution generation too. And we know that there is no way for a chaotic market economy to reach a particular level of consumption or pollution generation without national economic planning. Complex systems theory shows this to be utterly impossible. So, you explain how the capitalist system as we know it could possibly deal with the environmental crisis that it alone has created and is speeding up. Don’t respond by saying the same thing over and over again on population, give me a rough idea about how capitalism could go on and NOT be a driver in the environmental crisis. Don’t need too much detail, give me a rough sketch.

By the way, you think it is responsible to still not understand that the actual dependent variables we are concerned with are the aggregate consumption of resources and the aggregate generation of pollutants? Think it is responsible to focus entirely on an independent variable, population (an important one to be sure, but not the only factor), in all of this? Seems to be that a big responsibility is to not take part in propaganda but to understand the issue and to act accordingly. As I have said to you many times (cannot be denied), the data on resource consumption and pollution generation shows that if the poorest three fifths of the world went away tomorrow, we would still have an environmental crisis (although we might have a few more years to do something). Not true of the richest fifth of the world’s population. You have nothing to say about that or this economic system.


It is astonishing to me that given the dire straits our republic and people are in, the economic debt/interest slavery, environmental degradation and exploitation, and the militaristic conflicts dominating the narrative with jingoistic rot, that when a person attempts to build a political force to address and reverse many of the most dire aspects we are in, that some feel the need to nit-pick and demean his integrity in the most petulant, asinine, and myopic mindless blather!

It seems clear that those who demean Sanders the most do not read his words or just ignore their meaning. Can it really be that detractors have anything in mind to counter the trump regime and those who support his figurehead fake presidency?..or are they provocateurs sowing dissent, confusion, and despair?

There is no magic alternative to at least trying to stop the increasing slide into oblivion and continued economic slavery of the 99%, but the “real left” crowd, or whoever they style themselves, and those apparently dedicated to politics as usual denigrate one of the only voices with a national exposure as somehow the fuckin enemy…I just do not get it!

Talk’s cheap and action is sorely needed, but we have allowed the “system” to get us here and there are few alternatives to get the hell out of the world of shit we have allowed to become the norm. Please explain to an idiot I suppose, how tearing-down a person speaking to the most unifying and immediate issues to a wide audience is a betrayal…there must be some unity or we are all done…please explain how there can be any victory in continued division in some opposition to the mindless blather and destruction from trump and the oligarchy/military war-machine he presides over (sort of).

Just tear down and point to a few “missing” words of conflict, or what?

" Our job is to build on our common humanity and do everything that we can to oppose all of the forces, whether unaccountable government power or unaccountable corporate power, who try to divide us up and set us against each other. - Bernie Sanders


Good luck getting through, discover. I gave up years ago trying. As long as procreation is considered “a right” or based on ego and the consequences of the exponential increases are not looked at, the addition of more and more consumers of fading resources will continue.

Paul Erlich has been trying to enlighten people for decades. Hopefully, he has reached some open-minded people but, I fear, unless legislation FORCES an end to procreation, the future is set. We will have wars over disappearing resources.


The sad part is that SO MANY children are awaiting adoption. Why are they waiting? Because they are not BABIES so there can be no “bragging rights” about “look what I did!” Disgusting, shameful, and incredibly dangerous to the future of the planet!


GEEZUS! You and your defense of the damnocrats is despicable and becoming a venereal disease of your brain! SEEK HELP!!!


He doesn’t understand the issue and doesn’t acknowledge the data on how inequitable resource consumption and pollution generation is, nor does he really acknowledge the implications. discover, in fact, doesn’t realize that when we talk about aggregate resource consumption and pollution generation (which is what we are concerned with in regards to the environmental crisis), that population isn’t the only factor. Per capital consumption is another factor (which is highly inequitable), as is improvements in efficiency. In fact, if you look at most environmental agreements, the inequality in these things is central. Why, for example, was Kyoto rejected by politicians in the US? Because it allowed poorer countries to pollute more for a period of time and it asked more of rich countries. Well, why? Because we, the rich countries, have spit most of the fucking carbon into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, and our direct and indirect consumption habits are much more carbon intensive. That is where discover is ideologically. discover might get the general importance of addressing the environmental crisis, but most everything else is absurdly off, and the implications of what discover says are right wing.


I agree, I appreciate different perspectives, but not ad hominems or bogus facts. It just exposes people like LRX and others of their political, close-minded bias.


“Bernie would not have beaten Trump either, unfortunately.”

At what point did you lose your mind, Yunzer. I used to agree with most of what you wrote over the years but you have seemingly eaten too much of something from the propaganda dispenser.


Whatever. Overpopulation is the elephant in that polluted room.


Russia! Russia! Russia! Russia! Russia! Russia! Russia! Russia! Russia! Russia!

Do you work for MSNBC or are you just independently propagandizing?!


Then Bernie… why did you promote HRC?


No, it isn’t. The top 20% of the world’s population consumes over 80% of all resources. The top 15% generates over 80% of carbon. If you got rid of most humanity, the poorest people in the world, we would still have an environmental crisis. Focusing on population while not focusing on the consumption of the rich countries and rich individuals is absurd and extremely right wing. We should try to support the slowing of population growth in humane ways, but not addressing the consumption of rich countries, rich individuals and the capitalist system itself is nonsensical. This is a structural, systematic issue. As I said, the market ignores massive amounts of information. There are limits to throughput and pollution generation and we cannot really deal with this without national economic planning. So, thinking that this all goes away by Haitian peasants having less children is fucking nuts.


Remember how convincingly that McGovern beat Nixon?


Overpopulation and consumption go hand-in-hand. If you are willing to look, you can see that ALL problems in the human species, currently, can be traced back to overpopulation. I did not, nor do not, purport to separate the wealthy from the poor. It is a human condition covering all walks of life.


You really need to get out of your enclave and talk to ordinary USAns…

Winning a race starts with an understanding of how far behind one is starting.


Were the Beatles still gigging then Yunzer? I think punk was still three or four or so years from emerging. Hip hop wasn’t on the scene yet. Eight tracks were still used, weren’t they? We were still in Vietnam. The Khmer Rouge didn’t yet take power. Gosh, how relevant to the US in 2018.


LOL! Brilliant thing to say, when you don’t know anything about me. Not too impressed with your observational powers though. After all, instead of dealing with the country you live in, data and what not, you constantly reference the 1972 election. How can you tell me to “get out of my enclave” then reference an election that happened half a century ago as a means of making arguments on political issues now?


the USA voting populace has only moved much further to the RIGHT since McGovern ran!