The Democrats are corrupt. Corrupt in that they rig their election process so that a populist progressive just like Bernie Sanders never has a chance to ever win. The ‘Super Delegates’ are there to kill off any real threat to the hierarchy of neoliberal hawks in cheap suits that really run the Party.
Normally this level of corruption doesn’t matter, but this time around it does. The Sanders campaign has surprised and shocked many Democrats to the point they now desperately need Sander supporters to flock to Clinton.
It was always going to be a huge task because most Bernie Sander supporters see Hillary like this…
…the very military industrial complex corporate cheerleader she really is…
We can’t have more of the same: The very real dangers of Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy
There are times in history when the continuity card is the right one to play. As a value, continuity cannot be judged except in historical context, which ought to be obvious. Hillary Clinton now flings this card face-up on the table. It is a lurch rightward, which can surprise us in only one way: Wasn’t she going to wait at least until Sanders exited stage left?
…and Hillary’s running mate is a corporate puppet…
VIRGINIA SEN. TIM Kaine, considered a leading contender for the Democratic vice presidential nomination, has spent this week signaling to the financial industry that he’ll go to bat for them.
On Monday, Kaine signed onto two letters, one to federal banking regulators and the other to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, urging them to loosen regulations on certain financial players. The timing of the letters, sent while Kaine is being vetted for the top of the ticket, could show potential financial industry donors that he is willing to serve as an ally on their regulatory issues.
In the letters, Kaine is offering to support community banks, credit unions, and even large regional banks. While separate from the Wall Street mega-banks like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, these financial institutions often partner with the larger industry to fight regulations and can be hostile to government efforts to safeguard the public, especially if it crimps their profits.
…so getting Sanders’ supporters to back Clinton was always going to be hard.
It may now have become impossible. While I’m sure Russia has a reason to hack and impact the American Election, the reality of how divisive and corrupt the Democrats were to Bernie Sanders are now all out in the open for everyone to see…
WikiLeaks email trove plunges Democrats into crisis on eve of Convention
On the eve of the convention at which Hillary Clinton is to be confirmed as presidential candidate, the Democratic Party has been plunged into crisis – the US media is brimful of ugly and embarrassing stories from within the party’s head office, all based on 20,000 emails dropped on Friday evening by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks.
The correspondence seems to confirm allegations by the campaign of defeated Senator Bernie Sanders that the Democratic National Committee was actively rooting for Clinton to win, a revelation that will most likely serve as a wedge between the two camps and make it even more difficult for her to persuade Sanders voters to support her.
The emails also reveal plotting within the DNC to embarrass Republican candidate Donald Trump, including drafting a fake ad to recruit “hot women” to work for him.
…this is likely to enrage Bernie supporters and it explains why Trump is trying to reach out to them. Without a democratic base to count on, Clinton’s candidacy has every chance of failure now and it may allow an orange fascist to take over.
The only real difference between Hillary and Trump is that Trump will blunder into a war in 6 months where as Hillary will have planned an invasion in 6 months.
The surprise by Hillary supporters that the Left despise Clinton sounds like the same intellectual snobbery that didn’t see Brexit.
Yes, yes, we all know Clinton is corrupt, however at least many of her policies are more intelligent than Trumps – like increasing the tax rich people pay vs Trumps decreasing. And let us not forget she doesn’t encourage racism, xenophobia or sexism.
There is really no difference between a dumb idea and a really well thought out dumb idea
So what has that got to do with the Clinton Trump choice? Write about some actual differences instead of a few words that could apply to anything & get agreement from most people.
“And let us not forget she doesn’t encourage racism, xenophobia or sexism.”..not exactly a winning campaign slogan is it?
Clinton shift on taxation is cosmetic and forced by Bernie. She won’t do it.
Who cares if some of her policies are good, when she is a corrupt criminal ?
Have we forgotten what the word ethics means ?
A corporate lying hypocrite bowing to the upper elite and who will soon be taken down by the recent Wiki Leaks info. The sooner the better. She does not deserve to lead the U.S. and neither does Trump.
The USA political landscape is like watching “One Flew over the Cuckoo’s nest”, a conflict between a passive-aggressive, repressed Clinton and a narcissistic, psychopath Trump.
Best scenario, Trump wins, then is lobotomised and then reads his presidential scripts to the camera, just like Ronald Reagan did.
US politics is life imitating art.
I wasn’t particularly surprised by news that the Democratic Party was conspiring against Bernie all along. What I would love to see now is Bernie standing in front of the Democratic National Convention and spelling it out to America that the whole election was effectively rigged against him and his supporters from the get go. Explain how the democratic processes have been cynically corrupted to ensure their “chosen” (i.e. corporate shill) man/woman gets the nod. I’d end with something like: “Go ahead and vote for Hillary. Or for Trump. It really doesn’t matter which. Either way, we are going to get what we deserve”.
Yes, yes, we all know Clinton is corrupt, however at least many of her policies are far more intelligent than Trumps – like increasing the tax rich people pay vs Trumps decreasing. And let us not forget she doesn’t encourage racism, xenophobia or sexism.
Yes we always knew Bernie was undermined as our corrupt NatZ did that to Phil Goff, David Cunliffe ec’t also!!!!
So we see that “DIRTY POLITICS is well and alive even in the “good old” USA, so do you think this dirty lot in Government aren’t planning another repeat here next year or this year?
“Once bitten twice shy.”
Personally I cant think of any good reason to want Phil Goff in government. Sure he could be better than what we have now but in a halfhearted way only.
@ cleangreen…
it was the debbie wassermans in the new zealand labour party who campaigned relentlessly against cunnliffe/a less rightwing/neoliberal labour party..
..it was them who did far more to bring cunnliffe down (in large part by sending him out with an empty policy-satchel..eh david parker..?..was that revenge on yr part..?..)
all of this hurt cunnliffe far more that yr ‘natz’ did..
..blame where blame is due..eh..?
(and asking us to cry crocodile-tears for goff..?…you hafta be feckin’ kidding..eh..?..)
And let us not forget she doesn’t encourage racism, xenophobia or sexism.
No – she just bombs brown people, organises regime change and turns a blind eye to Bill’s peccadilloes.
..and don’t forgot that her and Bill did more than their fair share of policy making to also incarcerate as many black people as they can..
Clinton – Libya . She has no regrets, murder mayhem and crushing of a sovereign social equity government with its own state bank.
Clinton aligns with banks, war, privileged and expanding empire for profit and looting by the few.
More divisive than Trump and has killed off the best option who would defeat trump on every front.
None of this will end nicely and the world will suffer accordingly.
“The only real difference between Hillary and Trump is that Trump will blunder into a war in 6 months where as Hillary will have planned an invasion in 6 months.”
Did you ask the Latino, Black, women, immigrant and the LGBTQ communities if that’s the only difference between Trump and Clinton? They might have a different view.
“Corrupt” is a big word. And a bit too easy to fling around.
Obviously the Dem insiders preferred Hillary. Why? Because
1. Bernie might be a democratic socialist, but he isn’t a Democrat. (He simply borrowed their apparatus).
2. The insiders actually wanted to beat the Republicans. For all the Bernie-mania, the received wisdom among most respected pundits both then and now, was – rightly or wrongly – that Bernie wouldn’t be able to win in November. Is this unreasonable, even if you think Bernie might have had a good chance against Trump? My opinion, for what it’s worth is that the American people would, in the end, find it impossible to overturn a hundred years of anti-socialist propaganda. Then you would have the Donald. Happy?
By the way, I see no sign that Hillary is particularly corrupt, despite the volume – in both senses of the word – of claims both from Left and Right. Sure both her campaign and the Clinton foundation have probably taken donations from both Wall Street and Saudi Arabia. So what? And Bernie didn’t. So what (again)? Unsurprisingly, they didn’t offer him any. But money is just money and can come from plenty of sources. Ask Hone.
So where is this corruption? You may hope for some favours in exchange for donations – or speaking fees. But it is only corruption if you receive some inappropriate advantage in exchange. Until compelling evidence is presented, I have no reason to believe this has happened. Overt and transparent contributions are actually the least likely to be signs of corruption.
Or would you rather get into the Benghazi conspiracy theories or (even) sink to the level of suggesting some nefarious bullshit about the emails?
Come on. Bernie was likely to lose in the end, super-delegates or not.
But despite the obvious and understandable preferences of most Democrat insiders, they gave him a pretty fair crack of the whip. And they still are. He will speak at the convention and get quite a bit of leverage on the policy settings. This is way more than anyone might have expected, say, a year ago.
Hillary isn’t a revolutionary, so far as I can tell. (Did you really imaging that Occupy Wall Street was going to win the presidency? Do you also believe that Jeremy Corbyn is going to sweep to victory in the UK any time soon? Just a tad la-la for mine). But the ill-fated “Hillary-care” had more in common with Bernie’s programme than Obama’s. (She can hardly declare that she is all-in for single-payer and still keep the useful support of the president responsible for Obamacare). She has always been at heart to the left of Bill, who, himself was forced to tack right with an uncompromising Congress.
What you might consider is a minor inoculation of realpolitik. In the end it is all about the Senate and the House. If the three branches of Congress are not working together, all you will get is more inertia, no matter who wins the Presidency.
Good points Nick – although I disagree on the electability of Sanders argument (I think the electorate has changed and Sanders is votable).
The critiques of HRC from the left are a moral panic. It’s as if people think she’s a monster or something. Or that what she said 20 years ago defines her current policies (lol). HRC is just another Clintonite / Blairite – same as what we have in the NZ Labour Party. I don’t like that ideology and there’s no way I’d vote for it, but the Left needs to stop this silly story of Trump & Clinton being the same.
Here Henry Giroux (32:38 mins) backs Noam Chomsky’s view that Leftists who suggest Trump is better than (or equal to) Clinton are clinically insane: https://soundcloud.com/this-is-hell/909henrygiroux
As I said, I wouldn’t vote for HRC, just as I wouldn’t vote for the NZ Labour Party on their current neoliberal policies. But the Left has lost perspective on HRC. Half-baked theories and lame dot-connecting.
Bernie is very electable.
How much campaign kitty would Clinton have is not for corporate backing.
Principle over popular assumptions.
Things are changing as we face a shrinking hope for the future.
Could be an interesting day in Philly’…
The “Democrats” are just as “democratic” as John Key and the National Party are here in New Zealand.
Dissent gets killed off swiftly, and government is based on network with vested interest holding parties.
This is only just proof for what most of us have known all along, what was revealed by Wiki Leaks about Clinton and her establishment friends in the upper ranks of their party.
Maybe it is time for Bernie to hand in his party membership card and run as an independent candidate, against Clinton and Trump. Who knows, he may then win after all?
With his grass roots support and dedicated followers, he may even get the war chest filled with cash, not needing the many corrupting donors that Clinton “enjoys” to entertain.
The revelations give Bernie the perfect reason to do just that.
If Hillary just lost the election, who has won?
Somewhere, somehow…….George Carlin is laughing his head off. I’m not convinced that one is obliged to vote for someone in a 2-horse race simply because they’re the lesser of two evils. Voter turnout for the Presidentials will be interesting to see. As I’ve said before, the movie “Idiocracy” is looking more like a documentary with every passing day.
Do you really think it will take 6 months for Trump to start a war? Seems like he would be exercising super human patience if he could keep his finger off the button that long. And just think of all those nukes sitting there. Doing nothing. This really is worrying, right?
“Do you really think it will take 6 months for Trump to start a war?”
As unpalatable as I find Trump, I find rewriting history to turn slightly-less-extreme-right-wing candidates like Clinton into saints even more unpalatable. I don’t think the facts of Clinton’s record support Bomber’s claim that Trump is as likely to start (or escalate) wars as Clinton. John Pilger’s articles on the subject are a good place to start:
http://johnpilger.com/articles/trump-and-clinton-censoring-the-unpalatable
It’s also worth noting that there has growing opposition to the overseas adventurism of the US military among the US right. The anti-war fires were ignited by the more neo-liberal (“libertarian”) factions, who conceptualize the use of the military in non-defensive capacities and the suspension of civil liberties to facilitate the War of Terror, as negatives examples of “Big Government”. These arguments were prominent in the Ron Paul campaign in the last US presidential election. The flames have been fanned by the increasing awareness among right-leaning voters that Bush lied to them about “weapons of mass destruction”, and the fact that an increasing number of them now personally know someone who has been killed, wounded, or traumatized by their service in the Middle East, even though the situation there is clearly getting worse, not better.
Trump must be aware of this, and has no real motive to support warmongering. Unlike both Republican neo-cons and many Democrat neo-libs, he’s not invested in the arms business as far as I’m aware, nor any of the other corporate war profiteers documented in the doco Iraq For Sale (please correct me on this if you have evidence I’m wrong).
So why do people think Trump would start a war? Because we don’t like him (admittedly for some very good reasons)? Sorry, that’s not a convincing argument, nor a good reason to support or apologise for war criminals like Clinton.
Why would he start a war? Well, I don’t really know why he would, but his rhetoric certainly does not reassure me that he would be cautious at all if he felt the opportunity existed to make a point. But I do agree, a Clinton presidency would do very little for world peace. So which would be better, for the world… a Trump presidency, or a Clinton presidency? because that is the big question, isn’t it?
“The only real difference between Hillary and Trump is that Trump will blunder into a war in 6 months where as Hillary will have planned an invasion in 6 months.”
Actually (as opposed to “akshully”) thats a BRILLIANT observation, Mr Bradbury.
i take my hat off to you!
my favourite comparison of Trump and Clinton is……
Trump will destroy the USA ,Clinton will destroy the world.
rush/courier that person a special hysterical-over-reaction-award..!
Bernie’s a good man and knows that you don’t always win in the first round. A very astute speech today. And that, along with Michelle Obama’s superb speech (what a woman!) should win a lot of voters for Hilary.
And all and any votes she can get are so important.She’s GOT to win otherwise……. Armageddon? As in ‘Ahm a-gettin outa here!’
Michelle is not an elected representative, just another citizen so let’s not put her on a pedestal and attribute standing by way of association / reverence.
Tipping ones hat to “masters” is a servitude that helps very few.
anyone who knows there history will know that trying to invade russia will only end one way.
Trump apparently wants to:
Remove America from NATO.
Refrain from toppling any government America doesn’t like.
Reach some sort of detente with Russia and China.
Reduce military spending.
None of these would apply to Clinton. Therefore, if the rhetoric is to be believed, Trrump would be the better bet when it comes to promoting world peace. It’s a no-brainer really.
Comments are closed.