Call me a jerk if you want to (you won’t be the first), but I kinda like it when bad things happen to bad people. I especially appreciate it when greedy plutocrats who run over the weakest of us to in order to make themselves even richer and more powerful get handed their lunch.
I agreed with nearly everything you said.
But Harold did get a bum rap for losing to William. Before fighting the Normans Harold's army did defeat another invasion to the north, then he marched his army south. He might have won that battle too, had he not taken an arrow to the eye. (iirc)
There are basically three kinds of perception and they lend themselves to three major political camps.
First, there are those who believe in authority, particularly muscular father figures. These natural-born authoritarians tend to identify with tradition. They are the Conservatives. They believe what they are told... as per 911.
Second, there are those who moderately rebel against the patriarchal one size fits all narrative. They allow themselves only so much "air space" apart from Official Stories. They are reformers, and would qualify as Liberals. These individuals still essentially uphold the official (911) story, but argue that it could have been prevented with the "right" leadership.
Third are those who challenge the paradigm itself. They are neither locked into tradition, nor naturally obedient towards, or respectful of authority figures and what they espouse. Natural rebels, inventors, inventors, rabble-rousers, and radicals, these individual know when they're being lied to. They have no organized political party since such an entity would not be allowed within a closed system.
Most of C.D's writers fall into the 2nd camp--particularly with respect to critiques on what really occurred on 911. David Michael Green TOTALLY disappoints with this ode to "Door Number Two."
Trump is seemingly the world's first billionaire court jester--he gets to speak the truth while playing the fool. True, his faults are legion, but I'm enjoying the entitled Jeb! getting Donalded! Perpetual war, perpetual campaigning: potato, potaato. When Ted Cruz seems to "win" the debate (I didn't watch), it is really time for a doubling down on the D's to keep 1600 Pennsylvania. I wonder what odds Sheldon Adelson is giving. May we live in interesting times.
A good dose of Donald Trump may be just what US citizens need to mobilize en masse. Trump is the embodiment of neoliberal/neoconservative policies in all their crassness, cruelty, and avarice. He represents the policies enacted by legislatures comprised of the candidates US citizens put in office. Many folks may be horrified by Trump's candidacy, and rightfully so, but a Trump presidency could force us to face what our nation has become: a place where fear, hate, and greed consistently cause us to vote against our own best interests; where human rights, environmental stewardship and economic equality take a back seat to corporate profits and the potential to earn them; and where success is measured by the quality and content of your wallet instead of the quality and content of your life. Yep, a Trump presidency would certainly shake things up.
I hope the American public wakes up before then.
So would you vote for Hillary if she is the nominee after a campaign smear that disables Bernie?
I sure am glad that the Democrats are here to save us all from the evil Republicans.
I love reading Prof. Green but he's thanking the wrong person here. Had Bernie not been in the race, the word oligarchy would never have been uttered, the various issues from free college tuition to global warming would never be discussed and we would be watching the "Race for the Inheritance" between you know who and the other one.
Bernie opened the door and that includes for Trump as well. Trump was pushed by the mainstream media as the Republican Bernie Sanders who was drawing crowds but as still flaky. While the media tried its best to ignore Bernie, it did its best to give Trump a lot of flash and exposure. The unspoken understanding was that it diverted attention from how uninteresting the other candidates actually were and most importantly is created an illusion of wild card popularity similar to what Sanders was getting but without all that help the little guy nonsense. Trump used his money and Sanders wouldn't take the big boys money and everything balanced out until Trump's big mouth shot himself in the foot. Trump would fade and Sanders' surging popularity would be blunted and the Race for the Inheritance between Hillary and Bush would continue on as expected.
The problem is that Trump feeds on media attention and is pretty good at ignoring his gaffs and enjoying his barbs against his rivals. Trump would have fired his opponents as apprentices was the take after the second debate.
But the status quo machine is starting to turn the gears so who knows. Trump has one liability as well. His would be the royal Presidency and the oval office a throne room. You get the real sense that Trump has little patience for not getting his way. Democracy is nice (he seems to be saying) and all that but don't let it interfere.
So it's "No Thanks" to Trump but the tone of this whole very unique race ... this contest between oligarchy and democracy is due solely to Bernie Sanders.
The only thing missing is for Bernie to ride into town wearing a white hat... but apparently he figures it'd muss his hair.
Gee do you think we could do that in a year? I mean if we concentrate on that real hard maybe we could build a third party or something in like...in like ...um ... maybe 40 or 50 years? What a crock!
It is simply a deceit to wait until an election year to tell people not to vote for the two party choices which leaves the choice of who gets elected to those who are smart enough to vote even if they are in small numbers overall.
Every election the phonies get religion and tell people to save themselves by not voting. The end result is a Reagan or Bush/Cheney who causes America (and democracy) great harm.
You could be right that the insertion of Bernie into the race has forced Trump et al to deal with 'real issues' that concern all of us, but lets not forget that while 90% of Americans can identify Trump, 90% of Americans still have no idea of who Bernie Sanders is. I feel the Trump publicity is due to the fact that as usual our MSM is focusing on the extreme right wing snafus to indirectly reinforce HRC. If anyone tunes into late night TV these days, they will notice that either the hosts and pundits only focus on attacks on HRC or else they switch to the latest antics of the Republican fiasco. Bernie Sanders is rarely mentioned, if at all, and of course personal attacks, peripheral issues and celebrity connections drown out any space for actual policy discussions. The narrow framing of just a few presidential hopefuls is by design. In several months from now, when it is time to announce the Republican candidate for the presidency, the MSM will cry that we need HRC to run as she will be the only one capable of beating her opponent. It is a classic pattern that has successfully worked since the inception of the two party system.
This same scenario has just played itself out in Canada albeit there are at least four major federal parties up North. 3 months ago, Canada's primary left wing Party, the NDP, led the polls nationally. But a campaign came out called "Anybody but Harper" (the right wing incumbent), that encouraged every voter who was unhappy with the Conservative government to vote Liberal in the election. Harper has formed the government for quite some time simply because the Left vote has been divided between several other parties. Eventually though the voters switched their allegiance to the Liberal Party (a Centre-right party usually indistinguishable from the Conservatives) and barely pushed out the incumbent by just over a million votes. It was a victory for corporate Canada and the result is that Canadians, when polled on political issues like their American brethren, find themselves very much on the left in all domestic and foreign policies, yet they found themselves choosing the status quo yet again. The Liberals in Canada, like the Democrats in the U.S., have been painted by the media as being 'left wing' even though their record proves otherwise.
The key to the American corporate State is to keep Americans voting within the box (i.e. Dems and Repubs). When a radical does appear, such as Bernie Sanders, the establishment has proven that they can quash any threat within their own party before the primaries are over. If the candidate is outside the box (independent), the media will simply keep the public in the dark over 'option three'. After all, if no one knows a candidate exists, how can they vote for them?
I'm not sure how the DNC will dispose of Bernie in the next few months in the same way that I'm still not sure how the DNC got rid of the popular Henry Wallace after FDR's death, but the backroom deals never stop. In other words, it is a long shot that Bernie is still around in six months from now.
I have always found that a study of American politics, is a study of how to trump democracy.
I think the Republican party qualifies as a delusional or immoral enterprise - take you pick (you can choose both).
I'm in a late primary state so whether or not I get an opportunity to vote for Sanders is still very much up in the air. That said, a long time ago I quit voting the lesser of two evils. If my ballot does not provide me with the opportunity to vote for a candidate from an alternative party, who supports the majority of my positions and appears capable of governing, then I simply do not cast a vote on that ballot line (which is most of the time). Undervotes are the equivalent of "none of the above" and are not only counted, but reported. When the media starts asking why 10, 15, 25% of voters who voted in the presidential election cast no vote for president, then the boat is rocking and can be capsized. In fighting oligarchy, the use of resistance in the ballot box is as important as it is in the streets.
(I don't want to get into a discussion of the merits of voting for third parties even if their candidates are wanting. I know how terribly disadvantaged third parties are by ballot access laws designed to keep Republicans and Democrats in place. I also recognize the fear factor and the power of the lesser evils argument, especially as it impacts voters who should support alternative parties. But that does not let alternative parties off the hook for running candidates, often with great positions, who simply are not qualified. I assert that running poorly qualified candidates is a stumbling block to greater growth, and the main reason I undervote on ballot lines where an alternative candidate exists.)
While it may look like it is all controlled by the oligarchy and to a greater or lesser extent their money does bear fruit but it is really a matter of class politics. Conservatives may vote republican as a matter of reflex even when it is against their interest (as the disappearing middle class has learned to their dismay) but they won't just vote for the richest candidate.
This same reflexive response shows itself in the media's attitude towards the candidates. Why doesn't the media side with the people? The media is a child of corporate control and advertising. Who buys advertising? Who uses that advertising money to pay salaries and stockholders? Without revenue, reporters get fired. In the end, media consolidation winnowed out the I F Stones and the Walter Cronkites and the Molly Ivens and Edward R. Murrows.
The days of conformity are upon us again. Not many are old enough to remember the days before the Beatniks and their younger siblings (by five years or so) the Hippies. Before the 60s were the McCarthyist anti-communist blacklist 50s.
Media consolidation helped bring back that toe the line conformity again but it is the class that is hired that does the work. Reporters and talk show hosts are the media not just the editors or studio heads. The rebels aren't blacklisted but they sure look excluded sometimes don't they? When a news story that raises hackles manages to get covered the very fact that it did becomes a news story in and of itself.
Free speech isn't as free as it used to be because the people who should cover certain stories choose not to themselves. Europeans look at America and wonder if we see what is happening to us. We reject science, we reject our own freedoms and rights.
Call it the Oligarchy's Servant Class - they may not be free but they know they make more money than you do.
For them that is enough.
You must be joking? The least effective resistance is throwing away your vote for a fantasy candidate who had absolutely no chance of winning. All that does is perpetuate the myth that you have an alternative to the two party system. You can't call it voting for an alternative if it isn't even remotely possible except as a technicality that they could win.
Bernie Sanders is the first third party candidate - the first independent - the first real progressive to stand a chance of winning and lefties are winning about how he caucuses with the Dems so they won't vote for a dem. What a joke!
That is why our progressive views are dismissed so easily by the population because we aren't real. We are complainers who can't see the forest for the trees. Someone who represents so many positions that we hold (maybe not all but a huge amount of them) and yet we can't get together and support him.
So don't vote him and thereby you help Hillary win or later maybe even help a republican regain the WH. That is the only thing that will happen when you don't support the most progressive candidate >>> you don't get the most progressive... you get the less progressive one.
Do you think that the right says I will let the lefties win because I don't like everything that the republican candidate stands for? No they say ... no matter who is our candidate they are better than if the Dems win.
Do we say that about the Repubs? No. We tippy-toe about and wax eloquent about how important it is to show what we really want by voting for someone that will guarantee that we will never get it.
Progressives seem unable to really believe that they could or should win ... and republicans agree with them about that while laughing at them.
Feet not on the ground but up in the clouds ...
Head in the ground and ass up in the air... waiting for that real swift kick... it's almost a tradition by now.
I'm amazed by what folks read into the written word, or maybe I'm just really bad at articulating my point. The only candidate I actually mentioned was Trump, and not in a very positive light. How not voting for Bernie or voting for Hillary is extrapolated out of this thread has me buggered, but here goes.
If you choose to vote for the lesser of two evils that's your prerogative, as it is mine to not vote specific ballot lines if no candidate is up to snuff. The difference being that you are actually voting for an evil candidate and I'm voting for none of the above. None of the above is a legitimate choice in an array of false choices, and it is reported that a certain number of people didn't vote that ballot line, while write-ins are not reported at all. A plurality of undervotes has the potential to create a fault line in the status quo, which can be exploited by a people's movement. I fail to understand how not voting for bad candidates is somehow worse than actually voting for bad candidates or writing in the name of a candidate which won't be counted at all.
As my post indicated, I may very well not have a chance to vote for Bernie as I live in a late primary state, and I now practice voting only "for" candidates I support, which are usually alternative candidates and not even then. I understand the strategy behind Bernie running as a Democrat, and time will only tell if he gets the nomination, but association with the Democratic Party doesn't exactly stir hope in this voter as the party machine will go into hyperdrive to nominate Hillary and discredit Sanders in order to serve the same corporate masters the Republicans serve.
I'm assuming I won't be voting for Bernie because his name won't appear on my ballot, having been knocked out by then. If that is the case, in the general election I probably won't vote that ballot line at all. (Stein has a great platform and is by all accounts a wonderful person, but she simply has no governing experience and is less than commanding. Those vultures in DC would pick her carcass clean, IMO.)
I have a very cynical and well-earned position around the capacity of electoral politics to deliver the change I seek, which is why I volunteer hundreds of hours every year to social justice work. A lifetime of losing important policy battles with Democrats and Republicans in power has really pissed me off, and I will not play that stupid game of lesser evils because it's all leading to the same place--a fascist state. At the end of the day, I still have to live with myself. So I do what I can do, and I don't do what "they" want me to do on ever increasing levels.
I'm fascinated by the whole Bernie campaign, wish him well, and have donated to his campaign. But I'm not emotionally investing in this candidate until I know I will be able to cast a vote for him, and I'm only considering voting Democratic because Sanders is in the race. I have zero, zilch, nada enthusiasm for the Democratic Party otherwise. Should Sanders lose the nomination, I really hopes he reneges on his promise and goes independent. He would win my undying support for hitting ten on the chutzpah meter!
There is great freedom in voting your principles, voting for your best interests, and just plain old voting for instead of against. And if more people did it, instead of being subsumed by fear, we wouldn't be in this mess. Undervoting is a form of resistance. It isn't throwing your vote away. Neither is voting for who or what you believe in.
Donald is not the worst of them on the stage, by any means.
Not that I would ever vote for him.
I hope you get the chance to vote for Bernie and am happy to read ideas from another mind who tries to understand oligarchy. Destruction of Greek democracy and the recent Portuguese vote declared invalid for national security reasons are glaring signposts.
It is wise to have a plan B in case Bernie is shoved aside or falters. Between Hillary and Bushleeg, I will write in None of the Above and you propose leaving it blank to accomplish the same thing. If the majority who don't vote join the electoral revolution, which is not just Bernie's, a plan B is needed so enthusiasm is not dampened.
Information age autonomous democracy does not require a nation. Democracy is the only known way to focus distributed human intelligence. Please correct me if I am wrong. Is there another way to save a nation from the same military overspending that has destroyed every empire ever to exist on Earth? A disaster looms. Perhaps a highly efficient information age democracy can create a few hundred more years for social maturity to grow.
If Plan B is required. And if the majority who don't vote go for it. We the people will know we won.
Then what? What if the Supreme Court sadly voids Bernie's victory? National security reasons firmly based on International Law as codified by the Portugal Doctrine.
What if war mongers try to force president Bernie Sanders to borrow bomb money and tax the poor?
We need a people's plan B that goes viral.
In this age of sound bites and catchy phrases, it is easy to frame a subject with words that sound logical enough until reality makes you realize the deceptive illusion that can be produced by words.
On CD the "voting for the lesser of two evils" has become a standard line and now is never questioned as to its validity. Yet no one stops to say permitting the greater evil to succeed is probably worse.
The problem is the nit picking disunity that is characteristic among the left and the uncritical acceptance among conservatives of whomever wins the republican nomination. Heck a jackrabbit could win the nomination and the right would vote for him and never think twice about it.
Whereas among the left a known independent progressive who has been applauded for his positions over the years instantly loses support from some of the left because he doesn't take some extreme and likely unelectable position.
Bernie caucused with the dems so that makes Bernie a dem? Wellstone was a dem too. People choose to work within the system for change and we'd better take advantage of that because otherwise we end up with only those people who know how to USE the system instead.
Only the left does this faux purity bulls*t! Democracy is NOT only voting for the person you like. Get real. Seriously, get real. What are the chances that any person can appear to be perfect to tens of millions of people?
Democracy (in the USA) has always been that you pick the candidate that is the better one from the two choices that are available not pretend that throwing away your vote or not voting is something special.
Voting for the best one instead of the worst one is making your vote count. It has always been that way.
Well said! I couldn't agree more with your principled statement.
The mani risk here is that a ... "I'm not voting' ... stance by many Democrats could elevate Donald Trump or Ben Carson (far less revolting individual) as President. This would entrench majority rule by a Republican House of Representatives, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President dominated by the psychotic, brain-dead, hate-filled, money-driven, anti-government Tea Party cult. Then one can really say good-bye to our excuse-for-a-democracy and could better forthwith migrate to Canada.
Lobo, I very sadly agree with you. I'm done with "lesser of two evils." Evil is still evil. I'm backing Bernie, although I have some strong reservations. I'm regretfully concluding that a collapse of empire and our cynical false democracy is what has to happen....revolution (NSA, ya got that?).... Yes, I believe revolution is the only hope.....and not much, at that. Too bad some good people will get hurt or killed...... Someone dear to me said decades ago, "Revolution ain't purty." Otherwise, we will have the same sh*t only in different colors, smells, buckets.......you get what I mean. Ad nauseum.