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..?..)
The Americans invented dirty politics .
They are masters at it.
Bernie should stand on a Reform ticket and campaign on his policies.
Then watch the establishments reaction, this latest anti Sanders behavior could have a massive impact.
Anything is possible now.
no..because if sanders did this – it would split the vote and guarantee the election of trump..
..this is what ralph nader did with his quixotic run for the green party – which split the vote – and brought us g.w. bush..
..(and we all know how that turned out..)
..would you prefer not to learn from history/politics 101..?..
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.
Let’s not forget her ‘super predators’ interview…
..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.
Trump will wipe the floor with Crooked Hillary,
you have no facts to base your opinions on about Russia providing leaks – just like the fact you have no facts to back up claims that
Trump will be a warmonger like the cackling one in the pant suit!
“No Facts”? The hack was traced back to the Russians. What more do you want, a signed love letter from Putin saying, “Dearest Hilary, Hacked with Love”?
It’s no coincidence hat Putin and Trump are in a bro-mance. They are both demagogues cut from the same fascist-black cloth.
Samwise you are not! If there were facts to prove that Russia provided the leaks it would be all over MSM! But it’s not! Today out right lies and bullshit are supposed to be treated as truth but only the dumb will believe it.
So no proof then, just another conspiracy theory
Poor Hillary is a victim & the US govt wpuld never rig or try influence an election, I bet you are unaware of Obama legalising propaganda on the US citizens,
You cant source any proof of your claims because
There is none other than s nameless experts opinion
Trump is a demagogue, though I’m not sure whether that label would apply to Putin. Neither of them can be classed as ‘fascists’.
Using Russia is not new.
The propaganda goes down well with those who have been receptive of the US PR / propaganda on Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Iran…….. the list goes on.
When a state propagates wholesale lies as a means of engendering political support, then why believe anything they say without hard evidence from many independent sources.
Could it be that the emails are just true. No scape goat needed unless or course a scape goat is viewed as a means of defence and that having a scape goat neutralises the damning evidence.
A scapegoat in this case is irrelevant but perhaps blaming Russia ( the declared enemy ) invokes an emotional reaction that can be manipulated further to nullify the evidence in the eyes of a brain washed US public.
But we are in NZ so why just swallow that stuff.
#ClintonCashMovieVideo will be available until 11PM ET.
No password is required.
http://www.breitbart.com/clinton-cash-movie/
“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.
“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.”
I’ll take that once step further:
“The only real difference between Hillary and Trump is that Trump will blunder into a war with ISIS in 6 months where as Hillary will have planned an invasion of Russia in 6 months.”
oh, please.
So you believe her anti-Russian blustering is just for show?
Do you believe Trump’s attack on Nato is not prompted by Putin?
Nato is withdrawing its missile sited away from Russia’s borders in response to Russia overtures for peace and cooperation.
As well the US is inviting Russia to set up bases in Cuba and Latin America just to keep a peaceful balance. – Yeah Right.
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?
Do we really have to spell it out for you Dave?
There are two main contenders for the job – Trump and Clinton.
If TDB thinks that Clinton has lost the election due to the Democratic Party not giving Sanders a fair go, then obviously there is only other realistic alternative.
Who do you think that might be Dave?
Trump maybe?
Every time you do your trolling here, you show how ignorant you are of the facts and issues. Whaleoil is your perfect hangout.
!. I am no troll, simply a swinging voter, one that the left only seem to want to disenfranchise. I am dismayed that the left whom I consider the only viable opposition in todays N.Z. political scene seem to have a really nasty streak, and seem to enjoy insulting people, calling them silly. I was in fact expecting someone to say that if Hillary lost, then we all have lost.
When Bernie was scuttled then we have all lost.
“When Bernie was scuttled then we have all lost.”
First Bernie wasn’t scuttled. he just didn’t get enough votes, super or any other kind.
Second, you, personally haven’t lost anything.
Bernie had a wish list, not a programme. He was adopted and supported by Occupy-Wall-Streeters for their own ends. He was never going to be able to lead any sort of revolution, even if he won the nomination.
However what programme he did have has largely been adopted by the Democrats. To suggest the Democrats are in any way the equivalents of the Nats here, is to completely misunderstand US politics.
Meanwhile, FYI, Bernie wasn’t actually suggesting any version of marching on Wall Street armed with pitchforks, the equal distribution of land among peasants or where’s Madame la Guillotine when you need her, whatever his more vociferous “supporters” might imply.
Get real.
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”
Your best line. Love 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!
Bernie Sanders supporters are in a fairly caustic mood, judging by the negative reaction Sanders received when he urged his supporters to get in behind Clinton, rather than the demagogue Trump.
This could mean trouble for Clinton and I wonder if we might see an independent rise and challenge the status quo. An independent might take quite a lot of votes off those (many) Republicans who fear the disaster of a Trump presidency and those Democrats who loathe Clinton.
Could be interesting.
Mike, I agree. An independent candidate promoting Sanders-type views would be an interesting proposition. Presumably Sanders himself did the numbers before deciding to back Clinton, and trying to effect policy changes from within the formidable Democratic Party machine?
no..it won’t happen..and no it wouldn’t be ‘interesting’ (unless you think a president trump is an ‘interesting’ concept..)
what is it with these people claiming to be ‘left’ – yet advocating action/formulae that wd guarantee a trump victory..?
..what’s up with that..?
Philip, I don’t think Mike is advocating for a Trump victory. Unless I have misinterpreted, in which case, apologies. Merely that there is apparent political space for an independent candidate to prosper by garnering the votes of disaffected Democrat and Republican voters. Their numbers appear to be greater than usual in the current American political scene.
if they had mmp yr argument would be entirely valid – and i would be supporting this..
but america has fpp…which means this would only split the vote and guarantee victory for trump..(c.f. nader/bush jnr..)
..and under fpp any major changes must be driven from within those established parties..
much like what the tea-party has done in the republicans..and loathe them as you must – but they have been ‘successful in that mission..the party that ended slavery is now the haven of foaming nutjobs..
so any change must come from within the democrat party – which is what (to a certain degree) bernie has already achieved..
whereas here it is different…if labour don’t get their act together and renounce neoliberalism and present policies to confirm that..well and good..
..if not..they can just wither away into a skinny rump-party – and that change-vacuum will be filled elsewhere..
.this is the major benefit of mmp…
..america does not have that luxury..
Phillip, the right have the Libertarian party polling at 13%, and the Greens are polling at 9%.
As for – you are left you must vote for fascist B, over fascist A argument is looking wlike the pile of dog dodo that it is all the time
Ask yourself would you prefer to vote for Mussolini, or Berlusconi – that is what this race effectively is.
If progressives and the those on the left actually voted left, like the Green Party. Then I’m guessing we could get a real race on our hands. Plus a real possibility of no one getting enough votes to be president via the electoral colleges.
@ adam..i think the situation/reality is more nuanced than that two-fascists comprison….
as a disclaimer of sorts i shd note i have been supporting bernie since elizabeth warren said ‘no to running.
in fact @ whoar my first bernie-story is from 2006..it is about this marx-quoting/socialist politician in an intensely conservative/republican part of vermont – who was loved by those conservative-republicans he politically presided over..
i am a bernie fanboy from way back..
and yes the email-leak/hack shows that bernie wuz robbed – how wasserman et al. conspired against when they should have been neutral..
..but here is now..the choice for americans is trump or clinton..
..and the nuance i referred to earlier can be seen in the policy-victories bernie has achieved..
(a telling example is the minimum-wage – increasing from $7.25 per hr to just under $16 per hr…
think about that..!
..that would be like the labour party having a policy increasing the minimum wage to $30 per hr..(as they should..!..but they won’t..)
so i can’t agree there is no difference between trump and clinton..
and just staying with that minimum-wage for a mo’..trump is opposed to raising the minimum-wage – in fact he wants to give states the right to lower that current $7.25..
..different..?..much/enough..?
..and that policy is just one of the bernie-victories..
..as he said..his revolution does not end with that nominee-race..
..and he is delivering on that promise..
..and yes many will have problems swallowing that dead-mouse of voting for clinton..
..but realpolitik imperatives dictate that small rodent-swallow over the much larger rabies-riddled dead-rat that is trump..
and surely i dont need to explain the ugly outcomes from vote-splitting to you..?
..closer to home..the actions you advocate have ensured that split-vote between labour and greens has gifted peter dunne his little feifdom..election after election..
(and we all know how that has turned out..)
It would be much more interesting than simply watching Clinton and Trump criss-crossing the country each trying to out b..s the other.
A third party or independent candidate that threatened to gather significant support could help put a bit of sense back into the campaigning.
Besides it isn’t a left-right contest. Its a right-even more right contest.
(sigh..!)..can i suggest you go and read up on the policy-victories sanders has already achieved..?
..with his wholesale support (now ) of clinton guaranteed to only increase his influence/’revolution’ within the democrat party..
..and do i really have to explain the likely outcomes from vote-splitting under fpp 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.
https://newmatilda.com/2016/03/23/john-pilger-why-hillary-clinton-is-more-dangerous-than-donald-trump/
i read that link – and while nodding along to much of what pilger said..
..but i didn’t see him make the case for the claim in his headline..
In order to get a grip on this you need to see it from the perspective of the average American voter.
Obama has been an abject failure. He turned out to provide ‘change you CAN’T believe in’ the minute he appointed a bunch of Goldman Sachs people into his administration. How’s that for treachery!!!
Even worse, he’s exacerbated racial tensions in the country. Race-baiting along the lines of Sharpton and Farrakhan has done black people in the US endless harm. Sadly, his legacy is a racial tinder box when he could have done so much to heal wounds.
Americans generally think that voting for Hillary will result in just more of the same poisonous medicine.
Trump may be an uninformed clown (although he’s not a fascist – that’s just over-egging it Martyn) but the American working class is now desperate enough to hold their nose and vote for him just because he’s not Shillery.
Comments are closed.