President Sanders will fry those neocon "Chicken Hawks" - Wall St & Corporate Corruption.. [Archive]

View Full Version : President Sanders will fry those neocon "Chicken Hawks" - Wall St & Corporate Corruption..

Cidersomerset

28th March 2016, 22:09

( I'm not posting this thread to influence any US citizen on how to vote , just
commenting on a vid I posted earlier, and I have not focused on him and it does
effect the world who ends up in the White House. I have posted vids and sound
bites & articles on some of the other main candidates and I think this is my first
one on Bernie...LOL and it a semi serious thread as I do not know all the in and
outs of his history etc )

Bernie Sanders - Funny Moments

33c5huJ6uvI

Published on 2 Feb 2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Sanders will fry those neo - con " Chicken Hawkes " Wall St & Corporate Corruption..

Bernie Sanders is a threat to the neo-con , elite world agenda planned in the early
1990's after the cold war and being played out since 9/11. Who ever gets in will
be tied to corporate interests and other commitments , and may not be able to
change the federal government corrupt nature. But he will have a go !!

We have not focused much on Bernie and it does effect the world who gets into the
Whitehouse . especially on foreign affairs and NATO and the 'five Eyes ' intelligence
and other security and surveillance agencies.

Bernie reminds me of Ron Paul and although he is Jewish , he does not seem Zionist
to me. Of course there is no way of knowing who owns who ? in politics and family
ties etc. The headlines have been about the two 'Corporate sponsored ' & 'selfe
funded' potential autocratic Presidential candidates , so I thought it time to
get 'Berni Inn '..LOL

====================================================

I posted this on another thread and was the inspiration for this thread....

The first part of this interview shows Bernie Sanders sees thru the BS of the
hypocrisy in the Middle East and Cuba . This is the best foreign policy interview
from a Presidential candidate since Ron Paul. ( Not that I have heard them all).
Actually the whole response is pretty good imo.

Bernie Sanders: Israel Has Done Some Bad Things,
Killing Civilians, Blowing Up Hospitals & Schools

By David on 28 March 2016 GMT

Bernie Sanders CNN The Final Five Interview | Democratic Presidential Candidates Interviews

LKIushgxn3A

Published on 21 Mar 2016
Live: CNN The Final Five Democratic presidential candidates interviews Bernie Sanders

====================================================

Bernie Sanders | The Young Turks Interview (FULL)

ggFitmOTSok

Published on 23 Mar 2016
Cenk Uygur interviews Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders. Tell
us what you think in the comment section below.

====================================================

Ron Paul Hits Gingrich With Chickenhawk Label At Debate

_spjW3YH4Nk

Bernie voted against the 'Chicken Hawks ' in 2002....
http://ih1.redbubble.net/image.138364354.1345/sticker,375x360.u4.png
http://liberalslikechrist.org/+Artwork/Military_liberalism/chickenhawks.jpg

OMG

28th March 2016, 22:32

Bernie Sanders USA President...ROFL...that's a good one!

Best laugh all day!
:)

Cidersomerset

29th March 2016, 00:20

rtBVuye4fZQ

Shannon

29th March 2016, 01:41

Anyone else notice the orbs caught on pictures are in a few of the stills in the first video and some are on the video itself. Or maybe it's just dust. Lol. Just thought I'd mention it :)

Love Bernie ...

Wind

29th March 2016, 02:28

They just can't allow a man like Sanders to lead USA, because he's too sane.

Cidersomerset

29th March 2016, 12:44

The Daily Show - Democalypse 2016 - Bernie Sanders Kicks Off His Campaign

HnaqrepHrtc

Published on 29 May 2015
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders makes for an unconventional
presidential contender, but only in comparison to other candidates.

* Watch the latest full episode of The Daily Show on
CC.com and the CC app: http://on.cc.com/1zI8VsE

risveglio

29th March 2016, 12:48

Sanders is far from sane.

Cidersomerset

29th March 2016, 12:56

Sanders is far from sane.

Is any politician ...LOL ? Something happens
to them after they are elected or pre selected
and chosen from the Bilderberg crowd.....

I doubt if he went to Bilderberg ? But if he
did get past the front door of the White
House , I'm sure he will get his little
JFK pep talk.......

The Daily Show - The Legend of Bernie Sanders
hou1T5ldIh8

Published on 13 Jan 2016

Bernie Sanders closes in on Hillary Clinton in the presidential polls,
so Trevor examines the Vermont senator's brand of democratic socialism.

Watch full episodes of The Daily Show now -- no login required: http://www.cc.com/shows/the-daily-sho...

====================================================

This clip just followed on the U'tube link and is quite telling....

The Daily Show - Jon Stewart Returns to Shame Congress

-L11Bxolo44

Ted

29th March 2016, 13:55

How many presidents have actually kept even a small percentage of their campaign promises? I don't even bother listening anymore.

Cidersomerset

29th March 2016, 16:18

How many presidents have actually kept even a small percentage
of their campaign promises? I don't even bother listening anymore.

Uhm ! There must be a formula ??

https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/science-government-two_wrongs_don_t_make_a_right-politicians-equation-scientific_equation-mbcn1638_low.jpg

Cidersomerset

29th March 2016, 21:25

Fox News' Anti-Bernie Sanders Segment Goes HORRIBLY Wrong (Hilarity Ensues)

X5chvH69P1M

Published on 10 Mar 2016

Fox Business News brought out a guest to bash Bernie Sanders for being a socialist.
Little did they know, it was about to go HORRIBLY wrong for them. Instead of bashing
Bernie Sanders, he explained what socialism is, and actually ENDORSED Bernie Sanders.

AriG

30th March 2016, 18:58

AriG

30th March 2016, 19:10

Something just occurred to me. The only Presidential candidate for which I have ever voted who actually won was Obama. Looking back at my "casts": Mondale, Dukakis, Perot (2xs), Gore, Kerry and of course Barry. What does this make me? LOL. And I will go again, in November, knowing that what I choose is overshadowed by the will of Superdelgates and PACs. Certainly better than not voting. That is senseless. That's what they want. They don't want you to vote.

risveglio

11th April 2016, 17:28

Its all Bull$hit. All of it. But if I had to utilize my intestinal intelligence? Bernie is a good guy who sincerely wants to re-vamp the system. I like him. He seems sincere and he stays on message - the 1% ruling the rest of us. What's left to say?

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Sanders is far from sane.

What does David Icke say about living in an upside down world? If he is far from sane by accepted standards, then he has my vote! (now whether it is actually counted or not is an entirely different question altogether)

Sanders isn't sane by any standard. 100 years of socialism being tried over and over again with its only accomplishment being mass murder is not a sane alternative. Socialist are either lazy, evil or stupid. They are either naive to history or choose to ignore it. The list of socialism failures is long and painful. USSR, China, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, Greece, Spain, Australia, to some extent France. Most of the US problems are from bad Socialist policies. If 100 years is not enough proof, look at the Pilgrims of the new world to see more failed Socialism. Please, lets put this beast to rest already!

onawah

12th April 2016, 21:18

Hundreds Protesting Political System Arrested On Capitol's Steps

Trump may be responsible for getting people passionate enough to speak out, but so is Bernie, and I think the controllers are actually a lot more nervous about Bernie's supporters. This is the kind of grass roots movement that could actually make a dent, imho, and go further, as well.

April 11, 20167:26 PM ET
Heard on Morning Edition
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/11/473874785/hundreds-protest-gerrymandering-campaign-finance-laws-on-capitols-steps

Police needed most of Monday afternoon to arrest all of the sit-down protesters outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington at a demonstration in favor of changing the rules on political money, voting rights and redistricting.

More than 600 turned out for the protest, and more than 400 were arrested in closethe sit-in at the Capitol steps, U.S. Capitol Police reported. The nonviolent protest was led by Democracy Spring, a coalition of more than 100 progressive groups.

The protest was cheery and peaceful. Police blockaded the marble staircase with a chain and a cordon of officers. Demonstrators sat in front of the chain and on the plaza, talking, chanting, singing and taking pictures as police led them away one by one. Police, badly underestimating the potential crowd, initially brought a single bus to Capitol Plaza to haul the protesters away.

In a rally preceding the protest, organizer Kai Newkirk of the group 99Rise told the crowd that "we send a message — to everyone in our country who needs a government that represents us all — that this House is your House too, and now is the time to stand up and to take it back."

The coalition wants a "Congress of Conscience" to pass legislation limiting undisclosed and big-donor money, giving more clout to small donors; to restore powers in the Voting Rights Act; and to put an end to gerrymandered districts that insulate incumbent lawmakers from election challenges.

Newkirk has been campaigning to limit political money since 2014, when he interrupted a Supreme Court hearing to object to rulings that lifted restrictions on big donors.

Democracy Spring plans four more daily protests this week. April 16-18 it will be joined by another large coalition, Democracy Awakening, for a teach-in, speeches and another sit-down demonstration.

I got the following in an email today from Democracy Awakening, one of several non-profits who are amping up their activism and aligning with Sanders in the process. (I'm not dunning for them, but it's a good example of what's happening. I hope to see more of it, enough hopefully to really make things start rolling in the right direction.

A broad and powerful movement is erupting in the nation’s capital.

Yesterday, hundreds of patriotic Americans participating in Democracy Spring got arrested as part of a week and a half of actions to save our democracy.

Between mass civil disobedience actions, a mass Rally for Democracy and educational teach-ins, democracy is awakening in Washington, D.C., right now, and you’re going to want to be a part of it.

Solidify your plans to attend Democracy Awakening, a mass mobilization from April 16 to 18 in our nation’s capital.

Be sure to join us for the family-friendly rally and march at the U.S. Capitol on Sunday, April 17.

A few words on why this is so important.

In the six years since Citizens United was handed down, the fledgling movement to get Big Money out of politics has made great strides.

Sixteen states and more than 700 cities and towns have passed resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. Millions have called on executive agencies to at least promote disclosure of campaign contributors. We’ve won important victories in cities and states for election funding systems that rely on small donor and public matching money – not contributions from the super-rich and giant corporations.

And, we’ve even managed to win majority support in a Senate vote for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s horrendous Citizens United decision.

But all we have done is still not enough. We have to go bigger and bolder.

That’s where the Democracy Awakening mobilization comes in.

Every politician knows where the American people stand on money-in-politics issues. They know that stunning majorities of Republicans, Democrats and Independents oppose Citizens United and are outraged by Big Money dominance of elections. They know that we think the system is rigged. They know We the People are demanding far-reaching reform.

But too many of the politicians and pundits believe that support for real reform is shallow.

They know what the American people think, but they don’t believe we care enough. And so they think they can get away with doing nothing, or with empty gestures.

With the Democracy Awakening mobilization, we’re going to shatter this illusion.

We’re going to turn people out on the streets, in numbers never seen before to get Big Money out of politics, and we’re going to disrupt business as usual.

And, in joining together the demand to protect voting rights with the call to get Big Money out of politics, we’re going to build a broad and powerful democracy movement the likes of which our country hasn’t seen in the last half century.

Democracy Awakening is the start of something big and important, not the end.

We need you there. We need your friends there. We need your colleagues there.

Join us and together, let’s make history.

Onwards,

Robert Weissman, President of Public Citizen

Carmen

14th April 2016, 02:18

For the first time I'm excited about the American Presidential Election. The reason is Bernie Sanders! Americans have the opportunity to elect an honest, intelligent man of integrity! Like it or not not, the rest of the world is affected by who is elected as the American President! By and large American Foreign Policy just 'sucks'. The American Government, in its arrogance, in the past few years, thinking they know what is best for the rest of the world have caused huge damage and huge destabilisation whenever and wherever they have forcibly imposed their will.

God, if Bernie Sanders was standing in New Zealand I'd vote for him.

Carmen

14th April 2016, 02:34

Jeez! I thought you lot would. Be excited about Bernie Sanders running for President. Is this why Americans have such low voter turnout? It's a fate a compli, and votes don't count. Or is it because they just can't be bothered with all the waiting in lines and all the fish hooks to actually registering to vote.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

I also really like Elizabeth Warren! Man, she can 'kick arse'.

Carmen

14th April 2016, 03:21

The mainstream media in America are looking decidedly pathetic!! There is a huge Bernie rally in New York now and the media are NOT reporting it!! How ignorant can they get!! The estimate is 30,000 people!😳😄Some say 45.000!!. No other candidates are getting anywhere near that number!

Carmen

14th April 2016, 03:34

No replies?! Are you all asleep? Physically? Or mentally?

¤=[Post Update]=¤

God I wish 9eagle9 was still here!she had some 'get up and go '!

Wide-Eyed

14th April 2016, 03:42

Sanders is far from sane.

No really? Read up F&^% wads http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-13/president-killary

Carmen

14th April 2016, 04:01

Sanders is far from sane.

Whoa!! Compared to who?? Donald Trump?! Now he is a big worry for the world at large. Anyone else in America spouting the same nonsense, would be committed!! And then we have Ted Cruz! On woman's issues, he's the American equivalent of the taliban!

¤=[Post Update]=¤

But hey!! Someone replied!

Carmen

14th April 2016, 04:08

Thanks for posting this thread cider. I've been looking and looking for a thread on Bernie Sanders, and, nothing!!😳😟 Silch!!!😠. So I had to find a new password when I finally saw this thread!!😬 This is the most exciting American election I've ever taken notice of. I reckon it's a pivotal time forAmerica! Do or Die!! And America is such a major force in the world that whoever is elected affects the whole world!!😳😳😳

Carmen

14th April 2016, 04:15

Wide-Eyed

14th April 2016, 04:27

I had a farm field day on my place and mentioned the American. Election in my address. That's how important it is, I reckon! We seem to follow along in whatever direction USA is going! It's pathetic! And that damn PPT trade agreement needs to be stopped in its tracks?.👹 We do not want the world to be ruled any more by corporations. It's time to pull the carpet out from under those buggers!! And only people power, lots and lots of people power, individuals, who stand up and say NO, can do that😘

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Come on! Come on! Say. Something! Let's have a discussion here!

Ah I said HEY CARMEN! What about miss Anna Lee! You go! I'm buying let's get off our collective duffs and ACTIVATE! CALL ME I HAVE CA$H for plans. First genius that can put my $$ to best use wins, PA time for action. I have more money than brains please relieve me of my exce$$

Carmen

14th April 2016, 04:33

Talking about the Republican Party. I think it's not good that they have put up such poor candidates! Of the ones that I have listened to, none of them are statesmen or leaders to look up to! A very weak opposition party is not good for any country! And what do I know about American Politics - Buggerall!!😟 But I bet I know as much or more than many American voters, or non-voters!! Your education system is delivering about the same as it is in New Zealand, - an underclass of really dumb people whose general knowledge is non-existent. But they. Are easily led by lies and bull****. Maybe that is deliberate!😙

Carmen

14th April 2016, 04:47

Immm! That's interesting. My posts aren't going through! What's going on?

¤=[Post Update]=¤

That one did not sure what I was doing incorrectly!

Carmen

14th April 2016, 04:51

This election needs people power, and lots of it!

Thanks wide-eyed, I don't think lots of money is the answer so much as people getting off their butts and voting.

Bernie Sanders raised $43 million just in small donations. Average donation being$35. Now that's people power!😄

TeXaR

14th April 2016, 08:30

Sanders isn't sane by any standard. 100 years of socialism being tried over and over again with its only accomplishment being mass murder is not a sane alternative. Socialist are either lazy, evil or stupid. They are either naive to history or choose to ignore it. The list of socialism failures is long and painful. USSR, China, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, Greece, Spain, Australia, to some extent France. Most of the US problems are from bad Socialist policies. If 100 years is not enough proof, look at the Pilgrims of the new world to see more failed Socialism. Please, lets put this beast to rest already!

??????

Perhaps you should have a good listen to this........ if you dare :silent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysZC0JOYYWw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMUuw_K-ky0

risveglio

14th April 2016, 17:13

I'll listen to this whole thing but this guy is professor so of course he is a Socialist. You can talk about Socialism. People talk about Socialism all the time. Its only the Socialist that don't get it. Socialism is tried over and over and over and over and over. The results, more government power. The poor get poorer, the middle-class get poorer, the rich get poorer and the ruling class gets richer.

How he thinks you can't talk about Socialism and he is a professor is hilarious. From junior year in public schools we are drilled about how Socialism is a good thing, about all the wonderful functions of government are a form of Socialism. We are told that Marx was not that bad even though it is almost proven he was a Satanist and not an Athiest. For 8 years if you get a bachelor degree you are drilled about how wonderful things would be if we just got rid of the Capitalism that doesn't exist and just change to Socialism.

At the 7 minute mark the guy proves that he is either sinister, brainwashed or just stupid. He claims that we have Capitalism. WE DO NOT HAVE CAPITALISM in THE USA. Sorry, what you have seen in the last 7 years, 17 years, 27 years is not Capitalism. Our problems have gotten worse by removing some "Capitalism" with a little "Socialism". The more Socialism we get, the more problems we get.

Do I need to continue to listen to this dribble? If I do, will you bother reading a book from a free market capitalist?

This guy is a perfect example why your average degree in the US is practically useless. He attempts to claim the French Revolution was a "Capitalist" Revolution and that early 19th century was Capitalist and his class warfare warrior audience eats it up. I guess The Reign of Terror was a Capitalist idea. Ugh, I am losing IQ points for every minute of this dribble.

Maybe you should listen to this book ... if you dare. You can find the play list here. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNzu8bIwdN5GjRwvxu17CJF9zuvMO_C-d

Oh look, Schiff already taught Wolff a lesson on Capitalism. Though, in this version, Wolff thinks that Capitalism was a good thing, at least in the US for 100 years.
WFgqYz21wZk

Ill use this to spare me from listening to part 2 of his idiotic speech.

Carmen

14th April 2016, 18:24

risveglio

14th April 2016, 18:32

Hang on a minute! New Zealand is a socialist country, has been for years, and we do just fine! It's when our government gets too far into the capitalistic side of the the spectrum that people suffer. It's when money becomes the 'be all' and 'end all' that people suffer, the environment suffers!

I'm confused. Is it a socialist country or a capitalist country? If the government is going to far into the capitalistic side, then its obviously not capitalism. Capitalism is the free exchange of goods and services without government intervention.

Though I see a common denominator. Government and Democracy is a problem in your country too, cool!

Funny that the anarcho-communist in New Zealand are called Libertarian Communists. Just shows how hard it is to discuss social policies across countries because of the stupid labels.

Maybe it is the label but I am not really sure New Zealand is a socialist country at least it appears to be less Socialist than the United States. New Zealand ranks #3 on the Economic index with a 95% rating in property rights, socialist hate property rights

The US ranks 11th with an 80% rating in property rights. New Zealand beats the US in almost every economic freedom category.

Carmen

14th April 2016, 19:20

risveglio

14th April 2016, 19:28

We are a blend of both socialism and capitalism. For instance, health care is free, although waiting lists now are very long! Accidents are paid for by the government paid for by our taxes. We also have a goods and services tax of 15%. Surely you are talking about communism, not socialism, where the state owns the land?! We do own our land as do all citizens in socialist countries.

We do too. Good thing you won't spend trillions on war to "protect" the world or you will probably see record unemployment. See, here we use to have a free market in healthcare. There were problems but it is much better than it is now. What happened was we went to the government with a paper cut and they cut off our arm and gave us cancer. It's ok though because they are going to fix it.

My understanding is that socialism prefers collective ownership of property and isn't really a defender of property rights, at least not any of the socialist writers I have read. Maybe it is also a label thing. A liberal in the US used to be a lot closer to a libertarian (US definition) than to a social-democrat.

Carmen

14th April 2016, 19:31

pyrangello

14th April 2016, 19:49

I think a Trump/Sanders ticket for the USA election. Talk about reaching across the parties for a full balanced approach from both sides. As for this election cycle I have had quite enough of the separation of the American people based on labels, its time we come together and work together and not be paid to keep us apart. Just consider the possibilities and the meltdown on both establishments if this happened.

risveglio

14th April 2016, 19:57

Our social welfare system started in the small place where I live. It was in the 30s and the government was building the first of a series of hydro electric dams on the large river that runs through the area. The conditions for the workers building the Waitaki Dam was appalling! Many families living in tents in sub zero temperatures. Well three wise men of the time, the local doctor, Presbyterian minister and , I think, a teacher. (I'll have to research the exact story) decided to do something about the plight of working people. So, one of them stood for parliament, got in, and social welfare in New Zealand was born.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

We have also a cooperative model in New Zealand in Dairy farming. The farmers themselves own the factories, although, unfortunately that is changing as the capitalists muscle in on the profits of a very successful system, to the detriment of it.

Seems a little fishy. If it is so profitable why would the farmers sell to the "capitalists"? Sounds like what happens here, need someone to blame for our problems. It can't be the government, no no. It has to be the church. No, then it has to be those greedy capitalists. I do like the way New Zealand treats their cows though so I hope the "capitalists" have the same quality or they will lose a lot of US buyers which isn't very capitalistic.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

I think a Trump/Sanders ticket for the USA election. Talk about reaching across the parties for a full balanced approach from both sides. As for this election cycle I have had quite enough of the separation of the American people based on labels, its time we come together and work together and not be paid to keep us apart. Just consider the possibilities and the meltdown on both establishments if this happened.

Sounds like a nightmare. If both parties are completely insane, isn't it better off to just discard both parties instead of mixing them? Khan and Leopold are both monsters but if we put them together, things will be awesome!

vx5n21zHPm8

Carmen

14th April 2016, 20:45

As far as the dairying in New Zealand, it's nothing to do with 'blame! ' The dairy industry was kinda tight! The farmers owned the shares in the factories. You could not sell your milk without being a shareholder. So the farmers had total control of their own industry. They employed the very best young marketers to sell the product. They were careful in going into other countries and usually formed partnerships with local companies. The New Zealand govt for whatever reason deemed the system non competitive because it was tightly controlled. I think the Business Round TAble in New Zealand were pushing for change! Anyway now farmers can sell their shares separately and not to farmers. It the thin edge of the wedge.! They are also talking about water rights being separated which would be disasterous! To me it's all part of a much larger plan to make farmers into peasants. Farming in New Zealand has always been very successful and financially lucrative. Not like it is in many other countries. We also had gravity fed irrigation systems that didn't need electricity to function. The govt got rid of those and now irrigation is dependant on electricity. This also meant a huge felling of trees on farms and that was dreadful to see.

In the old dairy system we had share millers. Young people who started off with say, a few cows. They didn't own the land but worked it, gradually building up to a full herd of cows and eventually farm ownership. There would be a dozen or so young farmers who worked for us and went on to own and run their own operation. It was hard work but very much a win/win situation.

Forgive me, this is a very basic explanation of dairy farming in New Zealand.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

But anyway, back to Bernie. He had a very successful rally in New York by the sounds of things!

Carmen

14th April 2016, 22:27

Wow! Bernie Sanders' New York rally is the biggest in American history!😀

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Sorry, someone else will have to post pictures! I suck at it!!😬

ozmirage

15th April 2016, 03:18

Americans surrendered their freedom, ages ago.
Why complain now?
Your ancestors embraced the policy of government taking from one to give to another.
How did you think they would enforce that?
Wheedle, "Pretty please with sugar on top?"
. . .
If you think you're "owed" Socialist InSecurity entitlements, you've been punked.
In fact, that's how millions are tricked into defending their own enslavement to the socialist State and its "benevolent" totalitarian policies.
. . .
How else could a socialist like Comrade Sanders get wild acclaim?
Democrazies always fall when enough voters vote themselves a living at the expense of [fill in the blank].

Carmen

15th April 2016, 04:24

What a strange comment!! 'vote themselves a living at the expense of -----???

Okay! Okay! I give up!,😧😧 what the hell do you mean? Doesn't everyone want 'a living'?

ozmirage

15th April 2016, 04:41

What a strange comment!! 'vote themselves a living at the expense of -----???

Okay! Okay! I give up!,😧😧 what the hell do you mean? Doesn't everyone want 'a living'?
60% of American families are wholly dependent upon government for salaries, pensions, and / or entitlements, there is zero chance that any elected official will REDUCE those payments without committing political suicide.

ozmirage

15th April 2016, 04:48

The Sixty Percent who insure the destruction of America - - -
http://www.tbo.com/list/news-opinion-commentary/american-civilization-could-be-next-to-collapse-341113

Index of dependence on government - - -
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/11/the-2013-index-of-dependence-on-government

Carmen

15th April 2016, 05:33

risveglio

15th April 2016, 12:55

This is funny. Sanders supporters are going to hate President Sanders when he asks them to "pay their fair share".
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/4/14/11421744/bernie-sanders-tax-revolution

Carmen

15th April 2016, 18:55

Maybe diplomacy will replace some of the war machine and the billions spent on war can be channeled into the economy? Maybe the fat cats of the 1% can pay their fair share?

onawah

15th April 2016, 23:12

Estimated 27,000 rallied for Bernie Sanders in NYC yesterday
https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/ujl1glxws2l4kAhxYvTTj91OGc-3uUsPpZLs-H0NW3Di4dhBmewLw056STfe7Nw4iyIitzhGvpegKk6krJ_6uD2Dsisdqz9kDvicVPK8bDfSfR_vt595eNz3vGyZr_ovjq0cd9PEK dFx4ItyLZ0gpp96rmg0JxM3U-o=s0-d-e1-ft#https://s.bsd.net/bernie16/main/page/-/Email%20Images/Bernie-rally-washington-square-park-160413.jpg

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/13/politics/bernie-sanders-washington-square-park-rally/index.html

New York (CNN)Bernie Sanders touted his support for striking telecom workers at a star-studded rally in New York City's Washington Square Park on Wednesday night, less than a week out from New York state's primary vote.

Nearly 40,000 Verizon employees, members of the Communications Workers of America union, walked off the job Wednesday as part of one of the biggest strikes in recent U.S. history. The CWA is among Sanders' largest backers among organized labor groups.
"Tonight, I want to take my hat off to the CWA," he told supporters in the park. "They are standing up to a greedy corporation that wants to cut their health care benefits, send decent paying jobs abroad and then provide $20 million a year to their CEO."
A law enforcement official estimated the crowd size at 15,000, though the campaign cited a a higher number of attendees -- 27,000, according to a press release.
Earlier in the day, that CEO, Lowell McAdam, attacked Sanders in a long Linked-In post, calling the Vermont senator's "uninformed views" about his company "contemptible."
Sanders found a more welcoming audience below 8th Street in Manhattan, near New York University, where he was introduced by director Spike Lee and, before him, actress Rosario Dawson -- both New York natives.
Dawson took on Sanders' Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, early in her remarks, saying, "too many people have died because of the policies of some of the people who are running."
"Do we reward that with the White House?" she asked to applause.

shaberon

16th April 2016, 00:27

So, apart from pensions and welfare, is it the beaurocrats and the military that make up the sixty per cent? I don't know how your country sustains itself with its level of military spending plus there must be a ****load of money going into the 'black' budget!

It's sustained by illusion!

Our "officially recognized" debt is over $ 17 trillion. From the federal taxes we pay, the largest line item is service, that is paying interest on the debt. Since ithe principal is not being paid down, the interest just gets larger. You can take some time and fiddle around with the math of it, but no political party has the ability to "fix" it because...they are not able to even reduce the rate that it accelerates beyond what can be paid.

You can operate in bankruptcy as long as the creditors are satisfied by what you can pay.

This is why they are going to be very angry with me because I have a monstrous bill that I apparently owe them for the privilege of working last year. Chances are I can never catch up with the payment, and they will gouge it out of me by legal force.

Cidersomerset

16th April 2016, 14:25

MSNBC Morning Host Admits The 'Whole Voting System Is Rigged' After Bernie Get's Cheated

By David on 16 April 2016 GMT

https://www.davidicke.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Untitled-5-8.jpg

19WhIG5Emmo

Published on 12 Apr 2016

"Help us Bernie, you're our only hope" Star Wars parody shirt - http://amzn.to/1Ys8j40

"Air Bernie" Air Jordan Parody shirt: http://amzn.to/22sddPn

Have to hand it to https://twitter.com/Morning_Joe?ref_s... for doing something that barely
any anchors will dare to do in 2016. Feel free to tweet him your support. Whether you are
a Bernie supporter or not, this is the system you are forced to live under.

Carmen

16th April 2016, 16:28

Ah! Bernie Sanders is leading nationally over Hilary Clinton in the latest Reuters poll!

onawah

16th April 2016, 20:03

(I think the header is overly optimistic, but some good points are made in this article) :

Half-truth Hillary finally exposed: This was the debate where Bernie Sanders changed the Democratic Party for good
On Syria, the minimum wage, fracking and more, this debate proved Sanders is the future and Clinton the past
FRIDAY, APR 15, 2016

by ANIS SHIVANI
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/15/half_truth_hillary_finally_exposed_this_was_the_debate_where_bernie_sanders_changed_the_democratic_p arty_for_good/
http://media.salon.com/2016/04/AP999639861906-620x412.jpg

What always disappointed me the most about President Obama was how he never even tried to change the language of politics that had been established in the eight years of the Bush presidency.

From immigration (on which he never articulated a different rhetoric than the punitive law-and-order one put into effect by his predecessor) to civil liberties to war crimes to inequality to health care to race relations to trade, he has kept to the establishment line on all substantive policy issues.

And that’s where Bernie Sanders has succeeded so brilliantly. Sanders has managed to draw level with Hillary Clinton in the national polls, and seriously threatens to upset the carefully balanced apple cart if he can pull out a win in New York. As a result, he has pushed the establishment to acknowledge, at least rhetorically, the grievances of the powerless. That is no mean accomplishment, and he and his supporters should feel proud for having come this far.

I do not of course mean this in the dismissive way deployed by Clinton and the rest of the “establishment” (the term Sanders repeatedly uses to describe her and which irks her so much), to pat Sanders and his followers on the back, as if to say, Job well done, now go home and let the adults take over, you’ve had your chance at saying what you needed to say but now we need to get on with the job we were doing before. Indeed, toward the end of the debate tonight, as Clinton became increasingly nervous—her shrill bluster and bravado seemed to have collapsed by the end, as Sanders only seemed to gain in confidence and grit—that is precisely the rhetorical tactic Clinton used against him.

No, it’s not going to work now, things have changed, we have moved past the likes of Debbie Wasserman Schultz pushing the debates to ungodly weekend hours, pretending that there was never a split among liberals as severe as that among conservatives.

This debate was a sign of the distance Sanders has traveled in confidence and maturity, the way he handled all of her maddening lies—particularly about misusing his congressional voting record in the absurd way of political commercials—by insisting on the facts. The facts are all we need, but we have not been hearing them on such a visible platform in a long time, President Obama also being firmly in the mode of equivocating establishment-speak, which fuzzes up clear-cut issues of unequal treatment and distracts attention to pragmatism and “competence” (of course the neoliberal banker in a politician’s suit is the only one who’s competent).

It was a joy to witness the establishment standing denuded tonight. There were actually two other dignitaries—Bill Clinton and Barack Obama—who stood behind Hillary Clinton, on this night when the hypocrisies of the powerful stood exposed on the national stage. Using the kind of hardcore logic and rationality that went out of style after Walter Mondale’s unsuccessful deployment of the same against warm fuzzy Ronald Reagan, but which made a brief appearance when Joe Biden went head to head against Paul Ryan, Sanders didn’t let Clinton get away with her prevarication on a single point. And of course she equivocated and feinted right and left and diverted attention and raised false alarms in response to every single question.

Again and again, Clinton attempted to subdue every sharp query that came her way by speaking in praise of the incremental measures she intends to take toward what she has now taken to calling her own “bold” ideas, such as raising the minimum wage in steps by way of getting to the progressive goal of $15 an hour. She mocked the idea of free college by offering her father’s homely wisdom that one should “read the fine print” when something is offered for free. But Sanders never let her get away, and neither did the moderators, to their credit. In contrast to previous debates, certainly in recent election cycles, the debate remained firmly grounded in facts rather than distractions, fears, and absurd hypotheticals, which by itself is a notable shift in consciousness.

As the debate wore on, the contradictions in Clinton’s attempt to square the circle became more and more evident. Sanders had worn her down so greatly, with the gentlemanly demeanor she so clearly despises, that he had to do less and less work to expose her lies. He would simply shake his head, roll his eyes in disbelief, while Clinton seemed to dig ever deeper holes for herself.

In the name of incrementalist competence, she refused to answer whether she would support a tax on Wall Street speculative transactions (a pretty orthodox economic idea that has been around for a long time), couldn’t excuse her way out of support for fracking technology all over the world, refused to grant that Israel had used “disproportionate response” in response to any attacks, and couldn’t find a way to escape from her advocacy of escalated military responses in Libya and Syria.

She often fell back on 9/11 and her “response” to it, as a savior of New York. The adults are here to protect us, what does a wide-eyed socialist like Sanders, beholden to European values, even know about managing the economy? Dodd-Frank, that parody of a neoliberal law to save us from the next financial collapse, was Clinton’s only resort as the manager who pursues goals strictly through established law. Meanwhile, her absurd charges that Sanders is somehow a supporter of assault weapons or a lover of swaps and derivatives or a threat to Israel fell completely flat.

This has been the diversionary recourse for conservative Democrats for a long time now, but it is not going to work this time, regardless of the outcome of the Democratic nomination and the general election. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle. Sanders’s campaign—unlike, say, Jerry Brown’s humanist unorthodoxy in 1992—has gone on too long and scored too many points that have hurt the establishment deeply and irrevocably. This is what I gathered from this debate, where the energy—despite Clinton’s claims to New York as home turf—was ecstatically on Sanders’s side, particularly in his rousing closing statement.

Sanders has stayed on message, a simple one, the only one that matters, of economic inequality and specific unequivocal ways to address that. Like her predecessors, Clinton has sought to keep the debate focused on the culture wars; she did it again in her closing statement tonight, almost seeming to glide by economic inequality and instead talking about cultural “barriers” to opportunity, the distracting dance that neoliberals like to do at every opportunity. She would never have brought up a single substantive issue during this campaign, following the release of her vacuous self-affirmative opening campaign commercial, had Sanders not forced the issue. She is trying her damnedest to speak the progressive lingo for now, until Sanders is put away by the superdelegates or other shenanigans of machine politics at which both Clintons excel, but it doesn’t suit her and tonight it was glaringly obvious.

Neoliberalism, from this point on, will not have the cover it did before the Sanders campaign. Future progressive movements will have a firmer foothold to stand on. The fantasy that only neoliberal stalwarts have the competence to handle money and defense has been shattered. Just think, late last year, the question was how—and if—Sanders could get minorities to come over to his side. We are now talking about palpable shifts on every possible measure, and perhaps even the possibility of making his case at the convention. Even if he should fall short of that, the key idea progressives should take from his winning campaign is that the first and most important thing to do is to change the terms of discourse, because to speak in the other side’s language is to concede defeat.

It is not a coincidence that it often tends to be people of much earlier generations—like Ralph Nader and now Sanders—who bring out the youthfulness in the young. The facts, spoken by the mature and wise, have a way of rousing the listless. The facts, about our distorted policies, are back on the table. In response to why Sanders, at the Apollo theater, called out Bill Clinton for defending his wife against the use of the term “superpredators” in the 1990s, Sanders simply said, “Because it was a racist term, and everybody knew it was a racist term.” That is the kind of clear shift in discourse we’ve needed all along.

And this from Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/release-of-clintons-wall-street-speeches_b_9698632.html
Release of Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches Could End Her Candidacy for President
by Seth Abramson
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/4222256/images/n-HILLARY-CLINTON-628x314.jpg

The reason you and I will never see the transcripts of Hillary Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street fat-cats — and the reason she’s established a nonsensical condition for their release, that being an agreement by members of another party, involved in a separate primary, to do the same — is that if she were ever to release those transcripts, it could end her candidacy for president.

Please don’t take my word for it, though.

Nor even that of the many neutral observers in the media who are deeply troubled by Clinton’s lack of transparency as to these well-compensated closed-door events — a lack of transparency that has actually been a hallmark of her career in politics.

Nor do we even need to take Clinton’s word for it — as we could certainly argue that her insistence that none of these transcripts ever be seen by the public is itself a confession that her words would cause significant trauma to her presidential bid.

In fact, it appears they’d cause enough trauma that Clinton would rather publicly stonewall — to the point of being conspicuously, uncomfortably evasive — in public debate after public debate, to endure damning editorial after damning editorial, and to leave thousands and thousands of voters further doubting her honesty and integrity, all to ensure that no one outside Goldman Sachs, and certainly no voter who wasn’t privy to those closed-door speeches, ever hears a word of what she said in them.

Nor should we do here what Senator Sanders kindly declined to do at the Democratic debate last night, which is mention any of the proof — voluminous as it is, as Sanders conceded in a post-debate interview that cited Elizabeth Warren’s criticisms of Clinton — that during the housing crisis Clinton acted precisely like a politician who’d been bought off by Wall Street.

As Politico has noted, “During 2007 and 2008, when the housing market collapsed and while [Clinton] was also running for president, the Democrats controlled the Senate. Of the 140 bills Clinton introduced during that period, five [3.5%] were related to housing finance or foreclosures, according to congressional records, including one aimed at making it easier for homeowners facing foreclosure to get their loans modified. Only one of the five secured any co-sponsors — New York Senator Charles Schumer signed onto a bill that would have helped veterans refinance their mortgages.”

Two years. One legitimate bill. And even then, only one co-sponsor — a same-state Senator.

When a Congressional bill gets no co-sponsors, either it’s an unserious bill or it’s a bill whose sponsor did nothing to push it. Neither possibility is in Clinton’s favor.

But enough of that.

The real experts on this topic are the friends and acquaintances of Hillary’s who, for whatever reason, have chosen to be candid about what they believe is in those speeches. And it’s only that candor that helps explain the longest-running mystery of the Democratic primary — a mystery that’s been ongoing for over seventy days — which is this: why would anyone pay $225,000 for an hour-long speech by a private citizen who (at the time) claimed to have no interest in returning to politics?

Mr. Sanders has implied that there are only two possible answers: (a) the money wasn’t for the speeches themselves, but for the influence major institutional players on Wall Street thought that money could buy them if and when Clinton ran for President; or (b) the speeches laid out a defense of Wall Street greed so passionate and total that hearing it uttered by a person of power and influence was worth every penny.

Per Clinton surrogates and attendees at these speeches, the answer appears to be both (a) and (b).

Here’s a compilation of what those close to Clinton and/or the institutions that paid her obscene sums to chat with them are saying about those never-to-be-released speeches:

1. Former Nebraska Governor and Senator Bob Kerrey (Clinton surrogate)

“Making the transcripts of the Goldman speeches public would have been devastating....[and] when the GOP gets done telling the Clinton Global Initiative fund-raising and expense story, Bernie supporters will wonder why he didn’t do the same....[As for] the email story, it’s not about emails. It is about [Hillary] wanting to avoid the reach of citizens using the Freedom of Information Act to find out what their government is doing, and then not telling the truth about why she did.”

[link]

2. Goldman Sachs Employee #1 (present at one of the speeches)

“[The speech] was pretty glowing about [Goldman Sachs]. It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a ‘rah-rah’ speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.”

[link]

3. Goldman Sachs Employee #2 (present at one of the speeches)

“In this environment, [what she said to us at Goldman Sachs] could be made to look really bad.”

[link]

4. Goldman Sachs Executive or Client #1 (present at one of the speeches)

“Mrs. Clinton didn’t single out bankers or any other group for causing the 2008 financial crisis. Instead, she effectively said, ‘We’re all in this together, we’ve got to find our way out of it together.’”

[link]

5. Paraphrase of Several Attendees’ Accounts From The Wall Street Journal

“She didn’t often talk about the financial crisis, but when she did, she almost always struck an amicable tone. In some cases, she thanked the audience for what they had done for the country. One attendee said the warmth with which Mrs. Clinton greeted guests bordered on ‘gushy.’ She spoke sympathetically about the financial industry.”

[link]

6. Goldman Sachs Employee #3 (present at one of the speeches)

“It was like, ‘Here’s someone who doesn’t want to vilify us but wants to get business back in the game. Like, maybe here’s someone who can lead us out of the wilderness.’”

[link]

7. Paraphrase of Several Attendees’ Accounts From Politico

“Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, ‘We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.’”

[link]

Did we, though, “All get into the mess together”?

Would middle-class voters considering voting for Hillary Clinton in New York on Tuesday take kindly to the idea that the Great Recession was equally their own and Goldman Sachs’ fault? How would that play in the Bronx?

Lest anyone suspect that Clinton doesn’t release the transcripts because she’s not permitted to do so under a non-disclosure agreement, think again: Buzzfeed has confirmed that Clinton owns the rights to the transcripts, and notes, moreover, that according to industry insiders even if there were speeches to which Clinton did not hold the rights, no institution on Wall Street would allow themselves to be caught trying to block their release.

And Politico and The Wall Street Journal have reported exactly the same information about Clinton’s ability to release these speech transcripts unilaterally.

The problem with the quotes above is not merely their content — which suggests a presidential candidate not only “gushingly” fond of Wall Street speculators but unwilling to admonish them even to the smallest degree — but also that they reveal Clinton to have been dishonest about that content with American voters.

Last night in Brooklyn Mrs. Clinton said, “I did stand up to the banks. I did make it clear that their behavior would not be excused.”

Yet not a single attendee at any of Mrs. Clinton’s quarter-of-a-million-dollar speeches can recall her doing anything of the sort.

Release of the transcripts would therefore, it appears, have three immediate — and possibly fatal — consequences for Clinton’s presidential campaign:

It would reveal that Clinton lied about the content of the speeches at a time when she suspected she would never have to release them, nor that their content would ever be known to voters.
It would reveal that the massive campaign and super-PAC contributions Clinton has received from Wall Street did indeed, as Sanders has alleged, influence her ability to get tough on Wall Street malfeasance either in Congress or behind closed doors.
It would reveal that Clinton’s policy positions on — for instance — breaking up “too-big-to-fail” banks are almost certainly insincere, as they have been trotted out merely for the purposes of a presidential campaign.
In a nation whose economy nearly collapsed just a few years ago because of precisely the people and institutions Clinton is now “gushy” toward, it’s not hard to imagine the three revelations above being enough to cost Clinton the primary in New York and thereafter, at a minimum, the votes in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and California.

Coupled with the many states remaining that Senator Sanders is expected to win, this could leave Clinton in a situation in which she loses 22 of the final 25 states — enough of a collapse for unpledged super-delegates to abandon her in large numbers at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

Certainly, it’s hard to understand how any super-delegate could cast a ballot for Clinton in Philadelphia without knowing, first, what the candidate actually believes about protecting America from another greed-driven Great Recession — or worse.

.

Last but not least, Noam Chomsky on the Sanders campaign:
(He makes a lot of sense, but it remains to be seen what the younger generations will do as the controllers agenda becomes more and more transparent.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBZLnfKSa_k#t=1442
(this won't embed, for some reason)

Carmen

16th April 2016, 22:15

Have you noticed that 'stuff' cannot be 'hidden' any longer! Whether it's child abuse, slavery, tax havens. You name it, everything is becoming 'out in the open'!! It's as if the monstrous system of surveillance round the world had boomeranged on the elite. They can't hide any longer either. People are demanding 'openness, honesty, sincerity, in their leaders. And the emerging psychic, intuitive abilities means people can discern duplicity strait away. Peoples faces, their attitudes, can be seen clearly! It's as though we are our own 'lie detectors'. Hence the success of Bernie Sanders. He is straight forward and honest!

I think it's really sad that many Americans appear to have 'given up' on changing anything of the political system and don't bother to vote. Ordinary people, on mass, have great power! It's what the elite fear, hence their 'divide and conquer' tactics. Get involved! You can't moan if you've done nothing to change anything!

onawah

17th April 2016, 02:44

I don't think we can realistically expect things to change overnight or with one big "Event".
But brick by brick the structure can be dismantled and something built that makes sense and serves humanity.
It takes humility and a willingness to take the necessary steps, however plodding they may seem.

onawah

18th April 2016, 23:09

Most arrests at the U.S. Capitol for a sustained nonviolent direct action, with 1.4k arrests.
Democracy Awakening and Democracy Spring just broke the record
https://www.facebook.com/957368101008769/photos/a.959772710768308.1073741828.957368101008769/1020448908034021/?type=3&theater
Lots of left wing groups involved in this, lots of young people participating.
I think they still don't know what they are up against, but the signs are encouraging.

Chuck_M

18th April 2016, 23:33

I am very enthusiastic about Bernie's candidacy, for all the reasons Carmen has mentioned. I haven't felt this level of enthusiasm in the country since the days of JFK, RFK, MLK, and the idealism of the sixties. (Obama spoke glowingly of "change" during his campaign, but anyone who was informed knew that he was owned by the establishment.)
My only question is why the elite have allowed Bernie to get this far. They seem to be so effective in discrediting anyone they don't like, framing them, undermining their health, and controlling their image in the media that it is hard to believe anyone could achieve Bernie's success without the tacit agreement of the shadow government. Do they plan to let him get elected and then assassinate him in order to provoke riots, followed by a swing to the right? Who knows...?
But above and beyond this level of Machiavellian politics I believe that there is a more significant struggle throughout the world, as well as within each person, between the consciousness of service-to-self versus service-to-others. To the extent that Bernie represents and galvanizes a force toward waging peace instead of war, and reining in the banksters and their agenda, his campaign may represent a sea change in consciousness that transforms the nature of the game in a radical way, in a way that the elite may not have foreseen.
I wanted to reassure Carmen that Bernie does have strong supporters on this forum, and that I intend to vote for him in the California primary. As an American citizen, I am sensitive to the fact that the world is counting on us to do something about our rogue government, which has pursued empire at least since the Kennedy assassination and especially since engineering the 9/11 false-flag operation. Unbelievable though it seems, the Bernie "revolution" may just begin to turn it around.

Carmen

19th April 2016, 02:05

Wow! Thanks. Go Chuckm. I think you are correct about the level of excitement. Those young supporters and the older ones are really working hard to support Bernie and encourage voters! Bernie keeps up one hellava pace for someone who's 74. The Internet and social media are great for keeping the whole world informed when you know where to look.

TeXaR

19th April 2016, 08:24

I think it's really sad that many Americans appear to have 'given up' on changing anything of the political system and don't bother to vote. Ordinary people, on mass, have great power! It's what the elite fear, hence their 'divide and conquer' tactics. Get involved! You can't moan if you've done nothing to change anything!

Yes, it's sad. Many don't realize that the whole world is watching.
U.S. foreign policy and leadership has affected and will affect all of us, not alone Europe, where I live, but the Middle East, Africa, Southeast Asia, China, Russia and Crimea.

I am very enthusiastic about Bernie's candidacy, for all the reasons Carmen has mentioned. I haven't felt this level of enthusiasm in the country since the days of JFK, RFK, MLK, and the idealism of the sixties. (Obama spoke glowingly of "change" during his campaign, but anyone who was informed knew that he was owned by the establishment.)
My only question is why the elite have allowed Bernie to get this far. They seem to be so effective in discrediting anyone they don't like, framing them, undermining their health, and controlling their image in the media that it is hard to believe anyone could achieve Bernie's success without the tacit agreement of the shadow government. Do they plan to let him get elected and then assassinate him in order to provoke riots, followed by a swing to the right? Who knows...?
But above and beyond this level of Machiavellian politics I believe that there is a more significant struggle throughout the world, as well as within each person, between the consciousness of service-to-self versus service-to-others. To the extent that Bernie represents and galvanizes a force toward waging peace instead of war, and reining in the banksters and their agenda, his campaign may represent a sea change in consciousness that transforms the nature of the game in a radical way, in a way that the elite may not have foreseen.
I wanted to reassure Carmen that Bernie does have strong supporters on this forum, and that I intend to vote for him in the California primary
. As an American citizen, I am sensitive to the fact that the world is counting on us to do something about our rogue government, which has pursued empire at least since the Kennedy assassination and especially since engineering the 9/11 false-flag operation. Unbelievable though it seems, the Bernie "revolution" may just begin to turn it around.

Chuck_M, you have my respect. :thank_you2:

onawah

21st April 2016, 03:07

From yesterday, Robert Reich Bernie's chances.

Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor gives us words we can use everyday! Reich is currently Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley. What can you say to Bernie skeptics in New York?
( Sorry, I don't know how to embed this)

https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/videos/1200635136615747/

TeXaR

21st April 2016, 08:11

Here you are. onawah :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfIhonVoFSg

onawah

22nd April 2016, 04:53

Top NY Election Official Ousted for Purging Over 125,000 Brooklyn Voters
Amanda Girard | April 22, 2016
http://usuncut.com/politics/brooklyn-voter-purge-official-fired/

he New York City Board of Elections is preparing to fire Diane Haslett-Rudiano, the chief clerk of elections in Brooklyn, after suspending her without pay following the New York primary’s chaotic voting process and massive voter purge.

Haslett-Rudiano was ousted by the City Board of Elections on Thursday night, “without pay, effective immediately, pending an internal investigation into the administration of the voter rolls in the Borough of Brooklyn,” according to a statement from the Board of Elections.

Sources with the New York Daily News also said that she was being “forced out.” Though an official termination has not been announced yet, one is expected this coming Tuesday.

Diane Haslett-Rudiano, chief clerk of elections in Brooklyn, who was just suspended from the New York City Board of Elections.

Haslett-Rudiano reportedly skipped a step in normal procedure to prevent the removal of eligible voters when conducting a periodical purge of voters who had either died or moved away. This error resulted in the removal of nearly 8 percent of Brooklyn’s registered voters.

Clinton won Kings County, which houses Brooklyn, by 57,909 votes on Tuesday night.

Haslett-Rudiano’s dismissal comes on the heels of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s announcement of an official investigation into how New York City officials mishandled the election. “If necessary, we will initiate additional inquiries in additional areas of the State where voting irregularities appeared unusually high,” Schneiderman said in a statement issued the day after the primary.

Numerous complaints of voter suppression and election fraud came out of Brooklyn, where over 125,000 voters were removed from the rolls over a 5-month period between October 2015 and April 2016, causing public outcry in the days leading up to the primary. In addition to AG Schneiderman’s investigation, New York City comptroller Scott Stringer ordered a full audit of the City Board of Elections’ entire processes before polls had even closed.

“Why is it alleged that 125,000 people have been removed from the voter rolls? Why did 60,000 people receive notices to vote that didn’t have the primary date? Why were people told they were in the wrong polling place time and time again?” Stringer asked in an interview with CBS 2.

“The next president of the United States could very easily be decided tonight and yet the incompetence of the Board of Elections puts a cloud over these results,” Stringer added.

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-0/s480x480/13076688_270590513275325_2375136957499748115_n.jpg?oh=c3954347a58974fc847d6dd16616277e&oe=57A5F8DA

onawah

22nd April 2016, 22:47

Brooklyn Election Clerk Received 6.6 million from the daughter of a Clinton delegate in 2014.
The same clerk who was just fired (see post immediately above)
http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-city-eyesore-sells-for-millions-1409934333
Coincidence? Follow the money...
https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-EK567_0905ho_P_20140905121839.jpg

Upper West Side Eyesore Sells for Millions
Owner of Once Elegant Brownstone, Beseeched to Fix Up the Place, Paid $5,000 in 1976
ADRIENNE GRUNWALD FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
By JOSH BARBANEL
Sept. 5, 2014 12:25 p.m. ET

For decades along West 76th Street, neighbors watched with mounting alarm as a vacated brownstone, traces of its 19th-century glory still etched into in its facade, fell into deeper and deeper disrepair.

The front stoop's brownstone banisters crumbled, floors collapsed and stonework cracked

Now the Upper West Side property has been sold by $6.6 million to a developer who plans to restore it as a single-family mansion, brokers say.

City records show that the seller, Diane Haslett Rudiano, paid $5,000 for the home in 1976 in a government-supervised estate sale. The sale follows years of complaints by neighbors, preservationists and elected officials.

Ms. Rudiano said she didn't sell the house for many years because she had an emotional attachment to it. She said her late husband, Jean, had "a lot of plans of trying to do something with the house" and dreamed of living there and renting out part of the space.

"It is a very emotional thing for me," said Ms. Rudiano, the chief clerk of the Board of Elections in Brooklyn. "Life doesn't always turn out the way you wish. I am satisfied that the buyer is going to do a very fine job of renovation."

Mike Sieger, a broker at Fenwick Keats Real Estate who handled the sale, said Ms. Rudiano sold the property in a private transaction without listing it after he approached her with a recent offer.

He said he had been trying to reach out to Ms. Rudiano year after year ever since he became a broker 20 years ago.

"Everybody has been trying to get this lady to sell because the building is falling apart," he said. "I was successful in getting her to say yes."

The four-story house at 118 West 76th St. is at an end of a row of five Renaissance Revival row houses built in 1890 between Columbus and Amsterdam Avenues. The homes are now part of the Upper West Side / Central Park West Historic District.

A rear view of the structure ENLARGE
A rear view of the structure RACHEL LEVY/LANDMARK WEST!
The house has a large bay window on the second floor and a curved window and entry way on the ground floor. A sculpted head looks out over a doorway under the front stoop.

By the early 1940s, the house was converted to a rooming house. City records show it was vacant by February 1978.

The the building had tens of thousands of dollars of unpaid violations, including two for failure to maintain a building in a landmark district, one for failure to properly seal the building, and another for an unsafe building. Over the years, neighbors complained about graffiti, garbage, and rats. The house is adjacent to a synagogue and a preschool.

Judith Samuels, a teacher who has lived in a brownstone next door since 1984, said the rodent problem was once so bad that she put up a "rat crossing" sign.

She said she had to spend $3,000 to repair a wall damaged by water seeping into her third floor apartment from snow accumulated in the vacant building through an open skylight. She said she was excited by prospect of seeing the building restored. "It is such a beautiful building," she said.

Judith Bronfman, who has lived across the street since the 1960s, said neighbors had long been pressing Ms. Rudiano to either fix up or sell the building. "It simply deteriorated ever since, it has become an eyesore," she said.

Gale Brewer, the Manhattan Borough President who previously represented the neighborhood in the council, was among those who complained. In the end, but Ms. Rudiano, it was Ms. Brewer who persuaded her to sell.

After speaking with Ms. Brewer, she said she decided that "it would be a better thing for my husband's memory to give it to somebody who could enjoy it," she said.

The buyer of the property was an investment group, Holliswood 76 LLC, headed by Dana Lowey Luttway, a developer and daughter of U.S. Rep. Nita Lowey (D, N.Y.).

Ms. Luttway said that while the home's exterior "was a disaster," its shell was structurally sound. "We have plans drawn up and are ready to go," she said. "We want to make it a gorgeous new addition to the neighborhood.

onawah

24th April 2016, 16:16

Passion and humor from young voters for Sanders

Published on Apr 23, 2016
The 2016 New York presidential primary highlights yet again the reckless incompetence, if not outright corruption, of the nomination process in favor of corporate establishment candidates. BUT it actually goes wayyyy deeper than that. Lee Camp explains this and more on Redacted Tonight.
4RRShMyi_HA

onawah

25th April 2016, 02:59

Here’s what Bernie Sanders’ bird of ‘world peace’ really was
MARCH 29, 2016
http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article68682992.html
http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/shdi9i/picture68682987/ALTERNATES/FREE_960/DEM%202016%20Sanders
I don't know why I've been so slow on the uptake to investigate what kind of bird it was and what it symbolizes in Native American lore, because I am a real believer in animal medicine, but maybe I was unconsciously saving it for a moment when I needed cheering up. (In any case, it worked!)

Never let it be said that Bernie Sanders isn’t quick on his feet.

When a bird landed on his lectern in Portland on Friday, he ad libbed.

“I think there’s some symbolism here,” he told the roaring crowd. “I know it may not look like it, but that bird is really a dove asking us for world peace.”

In case you missed the moment, watch it here.

But the bird wasn’t a dove. At first, people that it was a sparrow that had found its way to the Moda Center stage.

But Audubon Society of Portland officials later identified it as a female house finch, a colorful little bird with a cheerful, twittering song commonly found from coast-to-coast.

According to the SunSigns blog, finches as bird totems are reminders of joy, high energy and positivity.

In other words, it is the proverbial bird of happiness.

Their twisting, turning, ebullient flight patterns — never a straight point-A-to-point-B path — are seen as reminders that the steps along the journey are to be enjoyed as much as the destination.

In some Native American cultures the finch is seen as an omen of joy.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article68682992.html#storylink=cpy

Cidersomerset

27th April 2016, 06:28

Bernie Sanders rejects more military aid for Israel

By David on 27 April 2016 GMT

https://www.davidicke.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/73912247-eb1c-4b42-b3b9-cedb0faadd81.jpg

‘US Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has refused to sign a letter urging
President Barack Obama to quickly reach an agreement on a new military aid package for
Israel worth more than the current $3 billion per year.

Eighty-three of the 100 senators signed the letter, led by Republican Lindsey Graham and
Democrat Chris Coons. Senator Ted Cruz, a 2016 presidential candidate, was one of the 51
Republican signatories.

The letter was signed by 51 Republican and 32 Democratic senators. However, Sanders, an
Independent senator from Vermont, was among the 17 senators who didn’t sign the letter.’

Read more: Bernie Sanders rejects more military aid for Israel

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/04/26/462707/Sanders-Israel-aid-letter/

====================================================
====================================================

This article could go on many threads.....

How Bribes to Politicians From Arms Dealers Keep Wars Going

And How the Wars Keep the Politicians Going

https://www.davidicke.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2-15-700x466.jpg

http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/04/25/bribes-politicians-arms-dealers-keep-wars-going/

Cidersomerset

28th April 2016, 09:14

Some articles from Davids headline page that could go on
all the US political threads......

We have known since 1947 the US has backed Israel and
the Jewish lobby has got stronger and stronger over the
decades. Until now its a pivotal part of international policy.

Will a president be able to do anything about it as JFK tried
with Dimona . I doubt it ? If Sanders or Trump get to sit
in the oval office , I'm sure there will be a national security
briefing telling them certain areas that are to delicate to
mess with.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

US pledges largest ever military aid package to Israel

By David on 28 April 2016 GMT

https://www.davidicke.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Untitled-7-9.jpg

‘The United States government has responded to Senate pressure by pledging that it
is going to offer its “largest ever” military aid package to Israel.

“We are prepared to sign an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) with Israel that
would constitute the largest single pledge of military assistance to any country in US
history,” Reuters quoted a White House official as saying on Tuesday.

The statement came in response to a bipartisan letter by 83 US senators to President
Barack Obama, urging him to address Israeli demands for more military assistance.’

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/04/27/462851/Israel-Senate-Military-aid-Obama/

====================================================
====================================================

Trump: Israel right or wrong. Clinton: Israel right or wrong

By David on 28 April 2016 GMT

https://www.davidicke.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Untitled-32.jpg

‘Trump says:

“Israel, our great friend and the one true Democracy in the Middle East, has been
snubbed and criticized by an Administration that lacks moral clarity.

http://aanirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/trumps-foreign-policy-trump-and-child.html

===================================================
===================================================

The top two US allies that have been working together for decades covertly
and both probably had a hand and an interest in 9/11 to bring the American
people on board with the Neo - con / Zionist plan for a devastating event like
a new Pearl harbour to forward the Saudi /Israel Middle East agenda and also
bring in the 'new world order' all the western leaders talked about after the
fall of the Soviet Union. Its part of the same agenda 'Problem Reaction Solution'
David and others have been pointing out since the early 1990's. But the
corporate owned media has been 'spinning' it in their masters favour....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saudi to open Israel embassy if peace plan accepted: General

By David on 28 April 2016 GMT

https://www.davidicke.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Untitled-301-2.jpg

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/04/27/462800/Israel-Palestine-peace-Saudi-Arabia-Netanyahu/

Cidersomerset

28th April 2016, 16:27

Who ever wins the election the Neo -Cons and their democrat equivalents
are still in positions of influence in US foreign policy.....

The Richie Allen Show on Davidicke.com: Ray Mcgovern - 'The Neo-Cons
Are Still Around & Are Pushing Us To The Brink Of Conflict With Russia

lm8CE9cthW0

Published on 28 Apr 2016

Please Support The Show – http://richieallen.co.uk/

===================================================
===================================================

Nuland Tells Cyprus to Cut Russian Ties - Pressures Anastasiades to Accept NATO
Plan for Turkish Troops in Cyprus

By David on 28 April 2016 GMT Illuminati Criminals, Political Manipulation War and Terror

https://www.davidicke.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Untitled-59-1.jpg

‘The US is intensifying the pressure on Cyprus to accept a secret NATO plan to keep
Turkish forces on the island.

Victoria Nuland, the State Department official in charge of regime change in Russia
and Ukraine, met for talks last week with the President of Cyprus, Nicos
Anastasiades, and with Turkish Cypriot figures. The State Department and US
Embassy in Nicosia have kept silent on what was said. A well-informed Cypriot
source reports Nuland “was in Cyprus to pre-empt any likelihood of future
deepening in relations with Russia. Anastasiades may not want to, but he may have
no other option.” A second Cypriot political source said: “[Nuland] will try to
blackmail him. I’m not sure how he will react.”’

Read more: Nuland Tells Cyprus to Cut Russian Ties – Pressures Anastasiades to
Accept NATO Plan for Turkish Troops in Cyprus

http://johnhelmer.net/?p=15541

Cidersomerset

30th April 2016, 07:59

The commentator in the vid below explains the situation quite well the delegate
system is not 'rigged' just unfair as the rules were known before all candidates
entered the race. It is to complicated and a new system may be needed ?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Poll: Over 50% of Americans say presidential primaries 'rigged'

Y1RHLK08UgI

Published on 28 Apr 2016

A nationwide poll in the US suggests that over half of Americans believe the system
used for picking presidential nominees is rigged against certain candidates.
The Reuters-Ipsos poll also shows more than two-thirds of the respondents want
the process changed. The results are in line with complaints by Republican
candidate Donald Trump and Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders. They say the
system favors candidates with strong ties to parties. The criticism has triggered a
debate in the US on the fairness of the primary elections process.

Joaquin Flores
Center for Syncretic Studies

====================================================

Poll: Over 50% of Americans say presidential primaries 'rigged'

By David on 30 April 2016 GMT

https://www.davidicke.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/get-attachment-348-1.jpg

Poll: Over 50% of Americans say presidential primaries “rigged”

j8jpqiaT2fQ

Published on 29 Apr 2016

A nationwide poll in the US suggests that over half of Americans believe the system
used for picking presidential nominees is rigged against certain candidates. The
Reuters-Ipsos poll also shows more than two-thirds of the respondents want the
process changed. The results are in line with complaints by Republican candidate
Donald Trump and Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders. They say the system
favors candidates with strong ties to parties. The criticism has triggered a debate
in the US on the fairness of the primary elections process.

Watch Live: http://www.presstv.ir/live.html

====================================================

Exploring Types of Primaries

7Dbgo3kST-E

Published on 28 Apr 2016

For Politicat, Michelle Baik teams up with Graphics Designer Margaret Corn to
explore four different types of primaries.

onawah

1st May 2016, 00:00

This is What Will Happen at the Democratic Convention
How Bernie Sanders Can Become the Democratic Nominee
by John Laurits | April 28, 2016
https://medium.com/@GRForSanders/this-is-what-will-happen-at-the-democratic-convention-fe7328739c4#.rmpurmth9

Math was never my strong suit and I haven't checked these numbers, but I think there's probably something to this.

Can Sanders do it? Or is Clinton truly inevitable?
Bernie Sanders has vowed to fight relentlessly for the 2016 Democratic Party’s nomination up to the convention and, despite the apparent consensus of the media’s talking heads that the campaign is a lost cause, he has held fast to his claim that there is a “narrow path to victory.” I am reminded of Galadriel’s ominous words of advice, in the Fellowship of the Ring: The quest stands upon the edge of a knife — stray but a little, and it will fail… ÷
It has even become something of a weekly occurrence for Hillary Clinton and her Wallstreet-backed campaign to imply, insinuate, or flat-out demand that Sanders withdraw his bid for the nomination — they are growing increasingly indignant about the fact that Sanders is trying to win. Which brings us to the heart of the issue — can Bernie Sanders–can we–win the delegates needed for the nomination?
The answer to this question is as simple as it is misleading — No. No, my friends, we cannot. And yet–! And yet, neither can Hillary Clinton — and I am going to show you what the media is willfully hiding from you. I am going to show you why, using the one thing that even the media can’t hide: Math.

Part One: Why Clinton Will Not Secure the Nomination, According to Math
According to the Green Papers, Clinton stands (today, April 28th) with 1,664 pledged delegates, while Sanders has gathered 1,371. The amount of delegates needed to secure the nomination is 2,383 and, if you’ll pardon me for my use of arithmetic, I will now demonstrate why that number is hopelessly out of reach for the Clinton campaign.†
Hillary needs 719 more delegates to reach 2,383 because:
2,383–1,664 = 719
Now, the pledged delegates that are available to grab in the remaining states all-together amount to 1,016 and in order to attain that blessed number, Clinton will have to win an average of 70.7% of the remaining states. This is because:
719 ÷ 1,016 = 0.707677 or approximately 71%
You might be thinking that 71% is not such an unattainable number for Hillary and her powerful Wallstreet backers — you might be thinking that but you’d be betting against longer odds than would be wise. You see, of the 1,016 delegates remaining, 475 of those delegates are to be won in California, alone — California, which has a semi-open primary. California, where Clinton is polling at a mere 49%. California, where Clinton’s support has been declining as the Sanders Campaign gains visibility and momentum. California — the ace that Sanders, as much as the media, have concealed up his sleeve.

Bernie Sanders in Eugene, Oregon, on Thursday, April 28th, 2016 (Photo: The Oregonian)
It is no secret that Sanders, a previously invisible independent senator from the tiny state of Vermont, consistently climbs in the polls as he begins to campaign in the weeks before each state has had its primary. You don’t have to take my word for it — check the poll-histories for yourself or read this.
Because Bernie Sanders performs at his absolute best in open primaries and because he consistently rises in the polls, while Clinton consistently falls, it is extremely unlikely that Clinton will perform better than 49 points, let alone win the contest. Let’s do some more math:
Of the 475 delegates available in California on June 7th, lets say Hillary takes 49% of those (even though she will almost certainly take less). That would give her 232.75 delegates, which we’ll round up to an even 234.
475 x 0.49 = 232.75
Next, let’s add that to her current total of 1,664, bringing her up to 1,897. Now, she needs an additional 486 delegates to reach the magic number of 2,383, right? Let’s find out how many delegates Clinton would have to win in the remaining states (besides California, of course).
Of the 541 delegates left, once the 475 CA delegates have been subtracted from the 1,016 delegate total, Clinton is going to have to win almost 90% of the remaining non-California delegates! This is because, when you divide the number of delegates that Clinton needs after California by the number of delegates remaining after California, you get 0.898 or 89%, rounded down:
486 ÷ 541 = 0.898 or 89.8%
Now, how likely does that sound? It’s not likely in Oregon, a fairly progressive state that shares its general attitudes with Washington, a state that Sanders won with about 70% of the vote. It’s not likely in West Virginia, either, where Sanders is currently leading in the polls. Nor is it likely in Indiana where Sanders and Clinton are almost neck-and-neck, which votes on May 3rd. That nomination is feeling a lot further away now, isn’t it?
Okay, okay — maybe you’re thinking, “John, I think you’re being unfair, Clinton could certainly win California.” To which I would reply: I admire your optimism, my friend — and since you’re so optimistic, let’s run those numbers again — but this time, let’s assume that Clinton, for whatever reason, defies the consistent trends that have prevailed over the entire primary season. Let’s say, she jumps up 11% now, winning the California primary with 60% of the vote. So:
475 x 0.6 = 285
Now, add the 285 delegates to Clinton’s current total:
285 + 1,664 = 1,949
But:
2,383–1,949 = 434
So, Clinton will still need to scrape up 434 delegates somewhere other than California, some how. Which means — Hold on, first we have to figure out how much of the remaining delegates she’ll have to win:
434 ÷ 541 = .802218 or 80%
Wow! Even if Clinton actually wins California with 60% to Sanders with 40%, she will still have to secure about 80% of the remaining vote! Again, this certainly doesn’t seem likely in Oregon, West Virginia, or Indiana, which means the actual percentage would climb each time she failed to take 80% of a state! Now, are you starting to see why I am saying that Clinton will not be securing the nomination before the convention?

Part Two: Why Sanders Will Win, According to Math
If you’ve found yourself thinking, “Well, Sanders won’t secure the nomination, either!” You are almost 100% right! Well, 99.6% right, anyway. Because, if we take Sanders’ current delegate total of 1,371, subtract that from the magic 2,383, then divide that by the remaining available delegates, we get 0.996, see:
2,383–1,371 = 1,012
1,012 ÷ 1,016 = 0.996 or 99.6%
Therefore, Sanders would have to secure a whopping 99.6% victory in all remaining states to secure the nomination! I think this may be one of the few things that both Berners and Clintonistas could agree on: that that is impossible. But to those of you that are thinking, “John! This is terrible” or “Haha! Take that, Sanders!” I would reply: You are both wrong. Mostly. Let me explain:
First off, let’s acknowledge that the math seems to prohibit both candidates from securing the nomination before the convention — so what does this mean? This means that, since Sanders will not give up before the convention, there will almost certainly be a “contested convention.”
“Um… But John…” you may be saying, “Won’t Hillary still be miles ahead of Sanders in votes at the convention?”
To which I would reply: I’m glad you asked, my paid Hillary-supporter friend! Allow me to demonstrate how that will also not be the case, no matter what the media would have you believe. Follow me!
Since neither of them will be securing the 2,383 needed for the nomination, let’s take a look at another number that has been hiding in plain sight for far too long. I’d like you to meet the number, 4,051. That’s the number of total pledged delegates that are available from all 50 states, plus DC, US territories, and the Democrats abroad. As it should be obvious, a majority of these delegates would be 2,026 because:
4,051 ÷ 2 = 2,025.5
At the convention, this number is going to matter more than the unattainable 2,383 delegates that no one will have. That being the case, let’s take a look at what Bernie Sanders would have to do to get there. If Sanders won 60% of the remaining contests (and remember how 475 of 1,016 are in California, where Sanders will do well), then the numbers at the convention would look like this:
1,016 x .60 = 609.6
Round that to 610 and add it to Sanders current total of 1,371, then divide that by the total delegate count, 4,051:
610 + 1,371 = 1,981
1,981 ÷ 4,051 = .489 or 48.9%
So, in the scenario where Sanders takes about 60% of the remaining vote, we’re essentially looking at a 49 to 51% vote total at the convention — not so bad, eh? And that’s easily within Sanders’ reach, if we do well in California (which we almost certainly will). Let’s look at what happens if he takes 70% (just like he did last time we went to the West/Left Coast):
1,016 x .70 = 711.2, round it down to 711, then:
711 + 1,371 = 2,082
2,082 ÷ 4,051 = 0.513 or 51.3%
If Sanders took 70%, the convention would look like 51.3 to 48.7%, in favor of Sanders! But 70%, while possible, is a bit of a stretch — the new magic number, for Sanders anyway, is actually 64.4% of the remaining states, which would mean winning 655 of the 1,016 remaining delegates, pushing his total up to 2,026, the bare majority of delegates, leaving Clinton one delegate behind at 2,025.
Now, does Sanders winning 64.4% sound too far-fetched? Not particularly, especially when we consider his advantages on the Left Coast, in California’s 475 delegate semi-open primary. An uphill climb, though? Certainly. Remember, though: it is all but certain that Clinton will not secure the nomination, while Sanders supporters are going to be pouring into Philadelphia for the convention by the tens of thousands. Even if Bernie fell short by a few points, we’re still essentially looking at a tie. And that’s when all hell is going to break loose.
Things are going to become very interesting if we have a near-tie at the convention to be decided by the super-delegates.
At The National Convention

“If you want the candidate who will be the strongest nominee, you’re looking at that candidate right now. The reason I am the strongest candidate is that our campaign is appealing not just to Democrats but to independents all over this country and even some Republicans.” — Bernie
Things are going to become very interesting when they look back at the many states that are still crying out for a re-vote, states fraught with “voting irregularities,” polling station closures, and voter roll purges — all states which Clinton won and all states which so far have not received justice.
Things are going to become very interesting when the DNC and the super-delegates realize that Sanders, unlike the Wallstreet-backed Clinton-Machine, will bring in not only millions of independent voters that were unable to vote in the primaries, but even defecting Republican votes, sealing the GOP’s utter defeat in November.
Things are going to become very interesting when, while they are thinking about all of these things, they are doing so to the earth-shaking, thunderous chants of “Sanders! Sanders!” from his tens of thousands of supporters outside, who have time-and-again proven their ability to rally by the tens of thousands — do you think that we won’t do the same at the convention?
And finally, things are going to become very, very interesting when the super-delegates and the DNC are forced to choose, publicly, whether to hand the nomination to Clinton and watch the millions of independents walk away, along with millions of former-democrat Sanders-supporters, basically handing the general election to the neo-fascists Trump or Cruz — or, to hand it to Sanders, a leader who will have the support, not only of the entire Democratic Party, but of millions of Independents, Green Party voters, and — yes, indeed — even Republicans defecting from the extremist GOP. That will be the most interesting part, I think. I’ll see you all in Philadelphia.
In Solidarity,

†I have not counted the so-called “super-delegates” because they do not vote until the convention, which you might not know because of the media’s disgustingly corrupt attempt to warp the public’s perception of the election.
*All numbers pulled from the Green Papers, on 4/28/2016, at: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D-PU.phtml

onawah

1st May 2016, 20:54

Now Noam Chomsky is more optimistic about Sanders' chances
http://usuncut.com/news/chomsky-bernie-sanders-radical/
Chomsky: Bernie Sanders’ Movement Is a “Force That Could Change The Country”Tom Cahill | April 27, 2016

Noam Chomsky, one of the most celebrated political thinkers of the left, has confirmed Bernie Sanders’ talking point that his policy ideas aren’t radical — in fact, a wide majority of Americans support them.
Noam Chomsky, one of the most celebrated political thinkers of the left, has confirmed Bernie Sanders’ talking point that his policy ideas aren’t radical — in fact, a wide majority of Americans support them.

The MIT professor and author made candid observations about Sanders’ platform at a public event Tuesday night, saying the criticism of even his grandest policy ideas as “radical” ignored historical context. Chomsky said Sen. Sanders was a “mainstream New Deal Democrat,” comparing him to former President Dwight Eisenhower, who said anyone who rejected FDR’s New Deal didn’t belong in the American political system.

“His proposal for a national healthcare system, meaning the kind of system that just about every other developed country has, at half the per capita cost of the United States and comparable or better outcomes, that’s considered very radical,” Chomsky said. “But it’s been the position of the majority of the American population for a long time.”

By dismissing Sanders’ New Deal liberalism as pie-in-the-sky, Chomsky argues that Sen. Sanders’ detractors are ignoring history. For example, Ronald Reagan, a Republican icon, signed a bill into law passed by a Democratic House and a Republican-controlled Senate that forced hospitals to provide emergency medical care to anyone at any time, even if that person was an undocumented immigrant:

In 1986, Congress passed the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which contained the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. The law requires hospitals to treat patients in need of emergency care regardless of their ability to pay, citizenship or even legal status. It applies to any hospital that takes Medicare funds, which is virtually every hospital in the country.

Despite Chomsky’s assertion earlier in the nominating contest that “I frankly think that in our system of mainly bought elections, [Sanders] doesn’t have much of a chance,” the professor emeritus seemed more optimistic about Sanders and his agenda yesterday. He stated that Sanders had “mobilized a large number of young people who are saying, ‘Look, we’re not going to consent anymore.’ If that turns into a continuing, organized, mobilized force, that could change the country—maybe not for this election, but in the longer term.”

onawah

3rd June 2016, 00:18

This is interesting, coming from the Wall Street Journal: "Clinton Might Not Be the Nominee"
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-might-not-be-the-nominee-1464733898

A Sanders win in California would turbocharge the mounting Democratic unease about her viability.
By DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN
May 31, 2016
There is now more than a theoretical chance that Hillary Clinton may not be the Democratic nominee for president.

How could that happen, given that her nomination has been considered a sure thing by virtually everyone in the media and in the party itself? Consider the possibilities.

The inevitability behind Mrs. Clinton’s nomination will be in large measure eviscerated if she loses the June 7 California primary to Bernie Sanders. That could well happen. recent PPIC poll shows Mrs. Clinton with a 2% lead over Mr. Sanders, and a Fox News survey found the same result. Even a narrow win would give him 250 pledged delegates or more—a significant boost. California is clearly trending to Mr. Sanders, and the experience in recent open primaries has been that the Vermont senator tends to underperform in pre-election surveys and over-perform on primary and caucus days, thanks to the participation of new registrants and young voters.

To this end, data from mid-May show that there were nearly 1.5 million newly registered voters in California since Jan. 1. That includes a 218% increase in Democratic voter registrations compared with the same period in 2012, a strongly encouraging sign for Mr. Sanders.

A Sanders win in California would powerfully underscore Mrs. Clinton’s weakness as a candidate in the general election. Democratic superdelegates—chosen by the party establishment and overwhelmingly backing Mrs. Clinton, 543-44—would seriously question whether they should continue to stand behind her candidacy.

There is every reason to believe that at the convention Mr. Sanders will offer a rules change requiring superdelegates to vote for the candidate who won their state’s primary or caucus. A vote on that proposed change would almost certainly occur—and it would function as a referendum on the Clinton candidacy. If Mr. Sanders wins California, Montana and North Dakota on Tuesday and stays competitive in New Jersey, he could well be within 200 pledged delegates of Mrs. Clinton, making a vote in favor of the rules change on superdelegates more likely.

Another problem: In recent weeks the perception that Mrs. Clinton would be the strongest candidate against Donald Trump has evaporated. The Real Clear Politics polling average has Mrs. Clinton in a statistical tie with Mr. Trump, and recent surveys from ABC News/Washington Post and Fox News show her two and three points behind him, respectively.

Then there is that other crack in the argument for Mrs. Clinton’s inevitability: Bernie Sanders consistently runs stronger than she does against Mr. Trump nationally, beating him by about 10 points in a number of recent surveys.

The worries about Mr. Sanders’s strength have stirred the beginnings of a capitulation to him—by the Clinton camp, in league with the Democratic National Committee—at the convention. To placate him, they have already granted Mr. Sanders greater influence over the party platform. Two divisive figures, Cornel West and Rep. Keith Ellison, have been added to the platform committee, ensuring that the party will be pulled further left. In addition to putting Mr. Sanders’s socialist nostrums on display, the platform negotiations are likely to spur an ugly fight over the U.S. relationship with Israel.

Mrs. Clinton also faces growing legal problems. The State Department inspector general’s recent report on Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state made it abundantly clear that she broke rules and has been far from forthright in her public statements. The damning findings buttressed concerns within the party that Mrs. Clinton and her aides may not get through the government’s investigation without a finding of culpability somewhere.

With Mrs. Clinton reportedly soon to be interviewed by the FBI, suggesting that the investigation is winding up, a definitive ruling by the attorney general could be issued before the July 25 Democratic convention in Philadelphia. Given the inspector general’s report, a clean bill of health from the Justice Department is unlikely.

Finally, with Mrs. Clinton’s negative rating nearly as high as Donald Trump’s, and with voters not trusting her by a ratio of 4 to 1, Democrats face an unnerving possibility. Only a month or two ago, they were relishing the prospect of a chaotic Republican convention, with a floor fight and antiestablishment rebellion in the air. Now the messy, disastrous convention could be their own.

There are increasing rumblings within the party about how a new candidate could emerge at the convention. John Kerry, the 2004 nominee, is one possibility. But the most likely scenario is that Vice President Joe Biden—who has said that he regrets “every day” his decision not to run—enters the race.

Mr. Biden would be cast as the white knight rescuing the party, and the nation, from a possible Trump presidency. To win over Sanders supporters, he would likely choose as his running mate someone like Sen. Elizabeth Warren who is respected by the party’s left wing.

Where is President Obama in all this? So far he has largely stayed out of the campaign, other than to say that he doesn’t believe Mrs. Clinton compromised national security with her home-brew email server. But with her poll numbers dropping, her legal headaches increasing, the Sanders candidacy showing renewed vigor, and Donald Trump looming as a wrecking ball for the president’s legacy, Mr. Obama and adviser Valerie Jarrett might begin sending signals to the Democratic National Committee and to the vice president that a Biden rescue operation wouldn’t displease the White House.

All of these remain merely possibilities. But it is easier now than ever to imagine a scenario in which Hillary Clinton—whether by dint of legal or political circumstances—is not the Democratic presidential nominee.

Mr. Schoen served as a political adviser and pollster for President Bill Clinton, 1994-2000.

onawah

3rd June 2016, 00:23

Bernie Sanders Fights On: The Rolling Stone Interview
A defiant candidate on what he's trying to achieve

BY TIM DICKINSON May 31, 2016

Not even "the math" can spoil a Bernie Sanders rally. The democratic-socialist senator from Vermont has outperformed any rational expectation, building an insurgent campaign that has captured 20 states, propelled by more than $210 million in grassroots contributions, averaging under $30 a pop. But with each passing state election – including the ones he's winning by less-than-blowout margins – Sanders' long shot grows longer. At a mid-May Sanders rally in Salem, Oregon, there's not a hint of gloom among the overflow crowd of 4,000 packing the National Guard Armory auditorium to roar for its champion. The vibe in Salem, Oregon's capital city, is Phish-show-meets-Portlandia. Fans wear FEEL THE BERN shirts emblazoned with the Grateful Dead's lightning-bolt logo – tweaked to give the skull Sanders' untamed hair and glasses.

Party atmosphere aside, there's a serious undercurrent to this evening's rally. Jesse Botkin, a former Army specialist who served one tour in Iraq and two in Afghanistan, is searching for a job and working on a computer-science degree on the side. He backs Sanders, he says, because he feels invisible to the political class: "Economically, nobody's really taking into consideration the actual ****ing people." Botkin knows Sanders is promising too much; his agenda – for socialized health care and tuition-free college, among other lofty goals – is "not realistic." But for Sanders' backers, the candidate's ambition is a feature, not a bug.

Even at this late date, with the threat of a Donald Trump presidency looming, Sanders pulls no punches against Hillary Clinton. His stump speech links her to a "rigged economy" – highlighting "hundreds of thousands of dollars" in contributions to the Clinton campaign by a member of the Walton family, whose Wal-Mart fortune, Sanders says, is richer than the combined wealth of the "bottom 40 percent" of the American people. Transforming jeers into cheers, Sanders demands of the billionaire clan, "Instead of making large campaign contributions to Secretary Clinton, pay your workers a living wage!"

Offstage, out of the spotlight, there's little glamour to a grassroots presidential campaign. Late in the evening following the Salem rally, Rolling Stone met up with Sanders at his hotel – a no-frills La Quinta behind a Costco near the municipal airport, where rooms start at $89 a night. Pulling up a chair near the make-your-own-waffle station of the hotel's breakfast bar, Sanders is dressed in a rumpled blue dress shirt and gray slacks. The senator is plainly worn down from the grind of the day: At times during the interview he seems to rest his chin against his chest, as he peers intently over the top of his wire-rimmed glasses.

His body may be out of gas, but Sanders' mind is fiery and cantankerous. In the course of our 45-minute conversation, he blasts Trump as a "phony" and a "dangerous man." He also details his long-shot paths to the nomination, which he still believes he can win; his ambitious agenda to transform the Democratic Party into a people-funded movement for the working class; the challenges of having had to run a campaign "by the seat of our pants"; and why he feels sorry for Hillary Clinton – almost.

How does Trump's emergence as the nominee affect your endgame with Secretary Clinton?
Trump's emergence should make it clear to Democratic delegates at the convention that Bernie Sanders is the stronger candidate. If you look at all of the national polls out there – virtually all of them – and if you look at all the state polls, we do much better against Trump than does Hillary Clinton.

Looking at the polls you're talking about, there seems to be a swing vote that could consider your candidacy or Donald Trump's. You seem to be drawing from the same stream of voters here.
I wouldn't go so far on that... [Laughs]

To a certain degree ... So what is the common denominator among those voters?
Here's what the common denominator is: To the media's great shock and to the pundits' great shock, there are millions of Americans who are very, very angry. And they're angry because they're working longer hours for lower wages. They're angry because they're working two and three jobs. They're worried about the future of their children – getting decent jobs and getting homes. And then they look at the leadership of the Democratic Party and the leadership of the Republican Party and they don't see people addressing – or even paying attention to – their needs. And Trump comes along and starts to blame Mexicans or Muslims or women for the problems facing society. The people are seeing that someone at least is speaking to their anger. And that's unfortunate. That's a very ugly approach. But that's why he's succeeding.

We are also addressing the anger of the American people. [But] in a constructive way. And that is to say: We've got to bring people together. Do the exact opposite of Trump, who is trying to divide us up. To look at the real causes for why the middle class is declining, and develop public policy that addresses the needs of working families.

Bernie Sanders, you've described your path to victory now as "narrow." What does that long shot look like? How would it work?
Here's how it works. It works in three ways. Number one: For us to win the majority of pledged delegates, we're going to have to do very, very well in the remaining states. I think we have a shot – a real shot in California. We're putting a lot of our resources into that. New Jersey, we have a longer shot, but we can do it. So the path to victory is to do extremely well. You can do the arithmetic as well as I could. That's one path.

The second path is to tell the superdelegates, for example, we just won by 15 points in West Virginia. But it looks like six of the eight superdelegates are gonna vote for Hillary Clinton. We won in Washington state with 70 percent of the vote. Won in New Hampshire with 60 percent of the votes. Yet almost all of the superdelegates are voting for Clinton. And I think the people of the states will make it clear to the superdelegates that they have to respect the wishes of the voters of those states and vote for the candidate who won overwhelming – I'm not talking about one or two points, I'm talking landslide – victories.

The third path to victory: making it clear to the superdelegates that their primary goal is to make sure we defeat Donald Trump. And that I am, in fact, the stronger candidate. And if they want to be risky – voting for Hillary Clinton, who could lose. I'm not saying she will. I'm not saying she can't defeat Trump. I think she absolutely can beat Trump. But I am the stronger candidate against Trump.

Is this fight to persuade superdelegates to back you over Clinton a test of your philosophy of a political revolution? You've got a friendly opposition that you've got to convince to do something. And it's arguably in their electoral self-interest...
No. It's an inside-the-Democratic Party strategic effort, just trying to get the delegates we need. It's not the political revolution. The political revolution is waking up millions of people to stand up and fight for their own rights. The political revolution is to bring out 1.2 million people at rallies throughout this country. The political revolution is to bring in more individual campaign contributions at this point in a campaign than any candidate in American history, averaging $27 apiece. A political revolution is in every single primary or caucus we win an overwhelming majority of voters 45 years of age or younger. I wish we were doing better among seniors. And it does blow my mind: I've spent my entire life in Congress fighting for seniors, working to expand Social Security. Look at my record. Much better than Clinton's on senior issues. And she's beating us badly among seniors. But, important point: When you look at the future of this country and the future of the Democratic Party, we are winning the overwhelming majority of people 45 years of age [and younger]. That's the political revolution.

You've been criticized – including in Rolling Stone – for not putting more specifics behind what the political revolution means as a form of governing—
Well, I—

Can I ask the question? To put it in terms that you were talking about tonight at the rally, I think the critique is not blaming Bernie Sanders for thinking too big, but critiquing Bernie Sanders for sweeping the "unpleasant truths" of our political system right now – the way it ties everything up in knots – "under the rug." Many people say you're right as rain on the policy and the objectives, but "Boy, I just don't think he can do it."
Yes ...

So how do you do it? What are the specifics that allow you to—
What are the specifics about how I, personally, all by myself, do what nobody in American history has done? And I'm being criticized? Why don't you do it? Why doesn't the editor of Rolling Stone do it? Look. You know. With all due respect, that's an absurd question.

Hopefully, we will end up winning the nomination and winning the general election. If we don't do that, which is certainly a possibility, we will have accomplished an enormous amount. Could we have done better? Could I do better? Of course. I'm not quite sure what the—

The question is: Assuming you're president and you're dealing with a Congress that looks like the one we have today...
Let me just comment on that. If I am elected president, the odds of the Senate remaining Republican would be minimal. You'd have very large turnout helping Democrats up and down the line.

But you'd still likely face Paul Ryan as your negotiating partner. And I'm trying to figure out how you get something like public-college-for-all passed with Paul Ryan as your counterpart. Given that you just said today that they won't play ball.
To answer that question successfully requires us to think outside of a zero-sum game. You're saying to me, and it's a fair question: "Bernie, if you sit down with Paul Ryan and say, 'Paul, I want a tax on Wall Street speculation to make public colleges and universities tuition-free and to lower student debt,' the likelihood is that Paul won't say, 'Hey, Bernie, why didn't I think of that? Fantastic idea! Let's go forward together.'" So what's the strategy? The strategy – which is unprecedented, and this is where we're talking about thinking outside the box – is to have a president who actually, vigorously goes around the country and rallies the American people, who are in favor of this idea. This is not some sort of fringe idea. The American people want it. And [the president] rallies the American people and makes it clear that people in the Republican Party – or Democratic Party – who are not sympathetic will pay a political price. That changes the dynamics.

Everything that I campaign on – they're not fringe ideas. They're not radical ideas. They're ideas that the American people support. What we've got to do now is close the gap that currently exists between the American people over here [gestures to one side of the table], who have needs and goals and desires, and a Congress [gestures to other side], which in almost every instance is ignoring what the American people want.

Now, is it easy to do? No. How do you do it? It's a good question. And the truth is, right now I'm a bit busy running for president to have figured that out, other than to tell you that it requires a mass-based political effort bringing millions of people together to stand up and fight back. Unions could play an important role. Environmental groups, women's groups – groups that are already actively involved. We're going to bring people together to effectively organize and put pressure on Congress to do the right thing.
Here's a specific policy question that has generated more heat than light. And that is this question of how you would break up the banks. You drew a lot of heat on this after the Daily News interview. I want to understand, what is your preferred policy mechanism for breaking up the banks? Does Dodd-Frank allow you to do it? Or – are you going to need an act of Congress?
Well, you can do it either way. You can pass the legislation that I've introduced, which would require an act of Congress. [Editor's note: The "Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist" Act would, according to Sanders' summary of the bill, "require the breakup of JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley within one year of enactment."] Or you can do it with Dodd-Frank. Or you could do, in a sense, a combination of the two by having a Sanders secretary of treasury, in the first 100 days of our administration, make a determination of which banks – if they failed – would bring systemic damage to the economy, i.e., too big to fail. And then take that information, through section 121 of Dodd-Frank, which is the process by which the Fed and other, uh, other regulatory agencies, work to go forward to breaking up these institutions. In other words: We would be more aggressive. On my own, we would have the secretary of treasury coming in saying, "There are six major banks that, if they fail, would bring systemic damage. Let's go forward and under section 121 of Dodd-Frank..." That's what we could do. All right?

If you're unable to secure the nomination, which is the mathematical likelihood, what are your priorities for the convention: Reforms to the process? Platform planks?
Number one, we want the strongest progressive platform that we can [get]. That would incorporate many of the ideas that we've fought for: from Medicare for all; paid family and medical leave; 15-bucks-an-hour minimum wage; very strong language on climate change and a carbon tax; stopping fracking; public colleges and universities tuition-free, et cetera, et cetera.

Number two is, we gotta change the rules that govern the Democratic Party. For one, I think the idea of having closed primaries is a dumb idea.

Why?
Because the American people, more and more people, are looking at their politics as outside the Democratic and Republican parties – for a variety of reasons. Some of them think the Democratic Party is too conservative. But whatever, they are independents. Three million people in New York state could not cast a vote in the Democratic or Republican primary for the president of the United States. On the surface, that's absurd. You really could almost raise legal issues. You're an independent in New York, you're paying for that election, it's conducted by the state. But you can't vote? Think about it. And from a political point of view, it is absurd, because independents do vote in the general election. So what you're saying is, "You can't vote now, and we don't want you to come into our party. But you can vote later on." I think that's dumb. Given that so many young people are independent, we ought to welcome them in.

Issue number two is the whole issue of superdelegates. The deck is stacked in favor of the establishment candidate. If my memory is correct – where's my wife? [Scans the lobby] She's not here. I think 450 superdelegates committed to Hillary Clinton before the process began. You need less than 2,400 delegates to win. You have an establishment candidate who goes to the governors and the senators and the Congress people and the money people. It would be very, very hard for the best insurgent candidate – a candidate who did really well among the people – to take that on. Does that make any sense?

Furthermore, we have to deal with the way that the party raises money. It really is quite amazing. And I feel sorry for her in a sense. Hillary Clinton spends an enormous amount of time – look at her schedule – running all over the country. You know what she does? She goes to wealthy people's homes – and she raises money! Here you are in the middle of a campaign, and she's out raising money. I'm talking to 10,000 people. She's out raising money. We have got to figure out a way in which the Democratic Party has the ideology and the positions that excite ordinary people who are prepared to contribute to the Democratic Party or the candidate.

I think to some degree, we have proven in this campaign, having received 7.6 million individual campaign contributions, more than any candidate in history at this point, it can be done. Last night, we were in Sacramento. We had 16,000 people, OK? How many Democrats are out there talking to thousands of people as opposed to being at some rich guy's house talking to 10 people and walking out with $30,000? This has got to be the goal: to communicate with people, bring people into a political movement. Not just spend your whole life hustling money.Your fundraising network gives you a tremendous bargaining chip in an endgame in which you're not the nominee. What kind of promises or concessions might you be looking for from Secretary Clinton for her to start enjoying dividends from those relationships?
It's premature to talk about. And I don't think it works quite like that.

How's that?
Right now, I'm running for president, and that's what we have to focus on.

Would you seek or accept an invitation to become the vice president?
[Waves hand, shakes head] That's too early to talk about.

You've lit a fire under a young generation of progressives – brought them out in droves to the Democratic Party's primary process. What does the party have to do to keep them there?
That's a good question. Unlike all your other dumb questions.

[Laughter, joined by nearby Sanders staffers]

That's why the media love me. I'm so subtle. Naw, I'm only kidding. You asked a very important question. Let me just give you an example: We were in Denver. We had a rally at 5:00 in the afternoon. We had 18,000 people. People who are passionate about wanting to change America, wanting to be involved in the political process. My guess is that 95 percent of those people had never gone to a Democratic Party meeting – or ever dreamed of going to a Democratic Party meeting. Two hours later, I walk into a [Democratic Party Jefferson-Jackson fundraising] dinner where there are 1,000, maybe 2,000 Democrats, who are contributors to the party, who are lawyers and whatever, local politicians. Older people, upper-middle-class and professional people – who are active in the Democratic Party.

There are two different worlds. So the question is: What happens when that 18,000 marches into that room with 2,000 people? Will they be welcomed? Will the door be open? Will the party hierarchy say, "Thank you for coming in. We need your energy. We need your idealism. C'mon in!"? Or will they say, "Hey, we've got a pretty good thing going right now. We don't need you. We don't want you"? That's the challenge that the Democratic Party faces. And I don't know what the answer is.

Some of the signs from the party are not encouraging...
The danger is, when you bring people in, the whole composition of the Democratic Party begins to change. It becomes much younger. It becomes more working-class. Its emphasis will be less on raising money from Wall Street and big-money interests than on transforming America. That is the dynamic that we're lookin' at.

This has been a tough campaign – a good campaign, but tough in many respects. I've heard a number of your supporters, more than I would expect, say that they'd rather vote for Trump than Clinton, or that they'd rather sit out the whole thing. What's your message to those people?
Wrong question. It's not, "What is my message to them?" It's not my job to think that I can reach out and say to millions, "Do what I want you to do." That's not the way it works. The question that should be asked is, "Why?" I think Trump is incredibly irresponsible. And an incredibly dangerous person. A man who is primarily a showman and an opportunist and an egomaniac. A man who has already significantly damaged this country with his attacks on Mexicans and Muslims and women and veterans and African-Americans and so forth. Very dangerous man. And yet, how come you have millions of people who are prepared to vote for him and not Hillary Clinton? [We got] information from West Virginia just a few hours ago. Apparently, a lot of people who voted for me are not prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton. Why is that?

Many working-class people in this country no longer have faith in establishment politics. And, of course, that's what Trump has seized upon. He's a phony and an opportunist. But he has seized upon that and said, "I am not part of the establishment." He's only a multibillionaire who has worked with Wall Street and everybody else. But he claims not to be part of the establishment, right? That has created a certain amount of support for him.

I am the son of working-class people. It is incomprehensible to me that you have working-class people vote for a Donald Trump. And yet working-class people in this country – white working-class people – have voted for Republicans for a number of years. Why? Why is that? How does it happen that they vote for candidates who want to send their jobs to China, want to give tax breaks to billionaires and want to cut their health care and their education for their kids? What are they doing? That's the question we have to deal with.

Much more at the link:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/bernie-sanders-fights-on-the-rolling-stone-interview-20160531?page=9

onawah

4th June 2016, 03:01

Linking the Clinton's sale of US uranium to Hillary's emails

Is the CIA getting ready to dump the Clintons?
by Jon Rappoport
How many times are the dynamic duo allowed to wander off the reservation?
by Jon Rappoport

June 3, 2016
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/is-the-cia-getting-ready-to-dump-the-clintons/

Mainstream press outlets are mounting a new brand of coverage on Hillary Clinton’s campaign. They’re questioning her ability to win the nomination and/or the general election. All of a sudden, the done deal is not done.

What’s behind this switch?

Aside from fear of The Donald, there is the boiling Hillary email scandal. There is also the specter of further revelations about the syndicate known as the Clinton Foundation. That’s a big one. A very big one.

As I’ve previously reported, the sale of 20% of the uranium in the US to Putin—that’s right—involved donors to the Foundation—unreported donors—as well as the participation of Mrs. Clinton’s State Department. Detailed by the NY Times, the scandal has lain there for several months like a poisoned meal, with the press afraid to touch it further.

Now, enter a financial analyst named Charles Ortel. Ortel made a name for himself by publishing his analysis of serious problems in General Electric’s financial reports (2008). On his website, he has begun taking apart the entire Clinton Foundation, brick by brick. Here is an explosive excerpt from his overview:

“In financial terms, the size of criminal activities directly involving the Clinton Foundation exceeds $2 billion—counting affiliated and indirect criminal activities, the size exceeds $50 billion. The geographic scope of these unprosecuted criminal activities touches all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and more than 100 foreign countries where Clinton Foundation entities operate or solicit donations.”

“Beginning late in 2008, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and others expanded efforts to cover up illegal operating and fundraising activities of the Clinton Foundation since inception. Working ultimately with individuals inside the I.R.S. and elsewhere, these persons led efforts to ‘restructure’ the Clinton Foundation to make it appear that it had been legally constituted and validly operated in compliance with applicable laws, when this was certainly not the case.”

“Trustees and other persons have been engaged in an unprosecuted criminal conspiracy to operate the Clinton Foundation in the guise of a public charity, when it is, instead, an illegal money-laundering and influence peddling scheme.”

“In fact, the Clinton Foundation has engaged in widespread unauthorized activities, including illegal operations internationally and in the U.S., and illegal fundraising across state and national boundaries, using telephones, mail, and the internet.”

“Moreover, the Clinton Foundation has never validly been authorized by the I.R.S. to pursue tax-exempt purposes other than serving as an archival records repository and research facility in Little Rock, Arkansas.”

“Instead of concentrating upon its specifically-authorized tax-exempt purposes, trustees performed lax oversight and installed ineffective controls, creating conditions where Bill Clinton, Ira Magaziner, and others deliberately and illegally diverted substantial sums from the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates.”

In light of Ortel’s analysis, to say the Clintons have wandered off the reservation would be a vast understatement.

So…how have they remained free of this tsunami of a scandal? Who has been protecting them?

Let us return to the period when Bill Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas—and a 1995 book titled Compromised, by Terry Reed (former CIA asset) and John Cummings (former Newsday reporter).

Buckle up.

According to the authors, Bill Clinton was involved with the CIA in some very dirty dealings in Arkansas—and I’m not just talking about the cocaine flights landing at the Mena airport.

It seems Bill had agreed to set up secret CIA weapons-making factories in his home state, under the radar. But because Arkansas, when it comes to money, is all cronies all the time, everybody and his brother found out about the operation and wanted in. Also, Bill was looking for a bigger cut of the action.

This security breach infuriated the CIA, and a meeting was held to dress down Bill and make him see the error of his ways. His CIA handlers told him they were going to shut down the whole weapons operation, because Bill had screwed up royally. A screaming match ensued—but the CIA people backed off a bit and told Bill he was still “their man” for the upcoming 1992 run for the Presidency.

Of course, there are people who think Reed and Cumming’s book contains fiction, but John Cummings was a top-notch reporter for Newsday. He co-authored the 1990 book, Goombata, about the rise and fall of John Gotti. He exposed US operations to destroy Cuban agriculture with bio-weapons. It’s highly doubtful he would have put his name on Compromised without a deep conviction he was correctly adding up the facts.

Here, from Compromised, is an account of the extraordinary meeting, in Arkansas, between Bill Clinton and his CIA handlers, in March of 1986, six years before Clinton would run for the Presidency. Author Terry Reed, himself a CIA asset at the time, was there. According to the authors, so was Oliver North, and a man named “Robert Johnson,” who was representing CIA head Bill Casey.

Johnson said to Bill Clinton:

“Calm down and listen….We are all in this together…I’m not here to threaten you [Bill]. But there have been mistakes. Bill, you are Mr. Casey’s fair-haired boy. But you do have competition for the job you seek [the US Presidency]. We would never put all eggs in one basket. You and your state have been our greatest asset…Mr. Casey wanted me to pass on to you that unless you **** up and do something stupid, you’re No. 1 on the short list for a shot at the job you’ve always wanted.

“That’s pretty heady stuff, Bill. So why don’t you help us keep a lid on this [CIA weapons-manufacturing] and we’ll all be promoted together. You and guys like us are the fathers of the new government. Hell, we are the new covenant.”

By this account, Bill Clinton was the CIA’s boy back in 1986, long before he launched himself into his first Presidential campaign.

The Matrix Revealed

He was their boy, and they protected him, despite the fact that he had wandered off the reservation.

But now, it’s happening again. It appears Bill and his wife have taken their massive Foundation to new heights of careless, reckless, devil-may-care criminality.

Well, the Clintons are that way, aren’t they? They don’t just push the boundaries of what is legal and moral, they drive a huge tank through the boundaries and shout WHO CARES as they hurtle off to commit new and slimier deeds.

The question is, will the CIA still give this duo cover? Or will Agency insiders throw in the towel and leave them out in the cold?

Has that decision to abandon them already been made? Is that why the CIA Mockingbird press is starting to turn on Hillary?

Have she and Bill gone too far?

Is John Kerry lurching into his polished loafers and getting ready to step into the breach as the Democratic nominee for President?

Wind

4th June 2016, 05:05

Thanks for posting these articles, Onawah. I truly wish that awful witch gets impeached and Bernie gets a chance to go against Trump. Anyways, either one of them is way better than Clinton. Is she even a human being? At least not one with genuine empathic feelings.

onawah

10th June 2016, 00:37

The black vote for Bernie Sanders
JACq7Tg-J3M
There are an estimated 3 million Californians who voted by mail and whose votes have not been counted yet, and it will take some time before they are all counted, though the lamestream media continues to report Hillary as the winner.
And even if she is, it porobably won't be over, because it looks like more Americans are waking up, and I can't even imagine how angry black voters must be after Obama's betrayal of so many promises.

onawah

11th June 2016, 15:53

RT America with LEE CAMP
on Tuesday
Superdelegates May Switch With Hillary’s Pending Jail Time
The mainstream media has declared Hillary Clinton the presumptive nominee of the Democratic primary, but seem to be forgetting one little thing. - Redacted Tonight

https://www.facebook.com/RTAmerica/videos/10153549966076366/
and today:Here’s How Much The Media Is Drooling Over Hillary Clinton

https://www.facebook.com/RTAmerica/videos/10153557652521366/
This guy is funny, and he makes some good points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umPFpfY7Bjg

onawah

14th June 2016, 02:21

California Counts Millions Of Provisional And Mail-In Ballots, Counties Flip For Bernie And Nine More Superdelegates Drop Clinton
6/12/16
http://www.inquisitr.com/3193693/california-counts-millions-of-provisional-and-mail-in-ballots-counties-flip-for-bernie-and-nine-more-superdelegates-drop-clinton/
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cksalf1UoAIXuuC.jpg

Even though The New York Times declared that Hillary Clinton “secured enough delegates for the Democratic nomination,” and later issued a correction blaming the erroneous statement due to “an editing error,” Hillary Clinton did not actually earn enough delegates to be declared the nominee of the Democratic Party. In fact, contrary to the call by the Associated Press, Clinton also has not actually won California either. There are still millions of ballots that remain uncounted that will indeed be counted as the official canvass progresses, according to the California Secretary of State’s office. As the canvassing got underway, things started to to look up for Bernie Sanders’ supporters.
In Los Angeles County 275,972 Vote-By-Mail, 256,326 Provisional and 24,021 ballots of another form still had to be counted as of Friday afternoon. This totals over 556 thousand ballots in Los Angeles County alone that will be counted, where Clinton’s lead over Sanders is just over 164 thousand votes. Los Angeles County could still go either way.
The votes simply aren’t all accounted for just yet, but they will be.
The most recent report shows that in Glenn County, now that all of the late mail-in ballots and all of the provisional ballots are counted, Bernie Sanders’ voters managed to flip the county. On election night, Glenn County was called for Clinton, but the most recent report shows that with all but 24 ballots counted, Sanders won Glenn County. As the votes are still being counted in San Luis Obispo County, Bernie also surpassed Clinton there. He pulled ahead of Clinton in Santa Barbara County as well, where there are almost 21,000 ballots left to count, and on election night, there were only around 25,000 ballots cast for the Democratic primary. The ballots to be counted are almost the same number of Democratic ballots reported in the hours after the election day. The New York Times, as of Saturday night, had not updated their results in any of the counties where Bernie flipped the votes.
Berniecrats have not given up hope that Sanders will catch up and maybe even win in California before all the ballots are counted. The Secretary of State’s office in California explains.
“It typically takes weeks to process and count all of the ballots. Elections officials have approximately one month to complete their extensive tallying, auditing, and certification work (known as the ‘official canvass’).”
“Most notably, voting by mail has increased significantly in recent years and many vote-by-mail ballots arrive on Election Day. In addition, vote-by-mail ballots postmarked on or before Election Day and received by county elections officials no later than 3 days after Election Day must be processed. In processing vote-by-mail ballots, elections officials must confirm each voter’s registration status, verify each voter’s signature on the vote-by-mail envelope, and ensure each person did not vote elsewhere in the same election before the ballot can be counted.
“Other ballots that are processed after Election Day include provisional ballots (processed similar to vote-by-mail ballots), and ballots that are damaged or cannot be machine-read and must be remade by elections officials.”
Now, while provisional ballots are generally used in the manner mentioned on the Secretary of State’s webpage, these ballots are playing a massive role in the hope that Bernie Sanders’ supporters are carrying that Sanders, who is separated by Hillary Clinton’s lead by only around 400 thousand votes in the entire state, could end up winning California after all.
After meeting with President Obama at the White house this week, Sanders reminded the press that the final numbers are still not in for California and that he looks forward to the remaining ballots making the race in California a much closer delegate split.
Those provisional ballots might not reflect the same proportion of votes in California this year that they normally do. According to multiple reports by poll workers, poll workers in districts in California were being told to give voters who were considered “No Party Preference” provisional ballots, rather than just giving them cross over ballots.
o800P2MyWSw

onawah

15th June 2016, 14:34

With Five Million Votes Still Uncounted and Unreported in the Democratic Primary, Sanders Could Still Win California!
By Dave Lindorff - June 13, 2016
http://www.nationofchange.org/news/2016/06/13/five-million-votes-still-uncounted-unreported-democratic-primary-sanders-still-win-california/?platform=hootsuite

The Los Angeles Times, actually a Hillary Clinton backer, reports that not 3.6 million votes, as reported on election night, but 8 million votes were actually cast in the California Democratic primary — a turnout of 47%. According to the Times article, the Secretary of State of California, Alex Padilla, concedes that 2.5 million of those votes, mostly mail-in ballots from young people and Hispanic voters, or Bernie’s strong point, have been counted, and another 2 million have yet to be counted by local county officials.

But Padilla has also not reported on what the results were of those other 2.5 million votes that have been counted thus far since election day. (This even though his office did report the count of early mail-in votes on election day before people had even finished voting.)

All the votes are legitimate and need to be counted — by hand. As long as a ballot was received by the end of the day Friday, June 10, and were postmarked by election day, they are valid.

The Times said that people should prepare to see the vote totals of not just the presidential race, but also down-ticket races, change dramatically.

A tsunami of 5 million mailed-in and provisional ballots could reverse the result of Californi's Democratic PrimaryA tsunami of 5 million mailed-in and provisional ballots could reverse the result of California’s Democratic Primary

The problem is that the Secretary of State has 30 days to certify the votes and declare winners. That would be July 8! So far, most reporting on the uncounted votes has been limited to the alternative media. The NY Times and the big TV and radio news organizations haven’t said a word about it. The Washington Post did mention the uncounted votes, buy scoffed at the notion that they could change the results, making the bogus argument that Clinton had won among early mail-in voters by 58-44% — but of course she was way ahead in the polls than before Sanders really began campaigning in California, and the uncounted votes are also last-minute voters when Sanders was tied or ahead in the polls.

Don’t just take my word for it. Check it out at the Los Angeles Times.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-primary-wednesday-s-big-question-how-many-1465375928-htmlstory.html

Clearly, Sanders, who met with a group of key advisors and friends at his home in Burlington, VT Sunday evening, came out to announce that he was continuing his campaign for the Democratic nomination, probably right through to the July 25 convention. No doubt, he has the continuing California vote count in mind, as well as the potential for either a Justice Department indictment of Clinton in for violating national security law and FOIA through her use of a private email server as Secretary of State, or a scathing report on the FBI’s investigation of that issue, combined with her poor polling performance against Donald Trump. While he didn’t say what his plans going forward are, he has not rejected or so far even commented on an offer by Green Party activists, including presumptive Green presidential nominee Jill Stein, for him to accept that party’s nomination to be its candidate in the general election.