We created Bernie’s campaign (and momentum) – and he served his purpose for us. Many corrupt people and organizations are now exposed and weakened. I stated from the beginning in these forums that Bernie’s campaign was a long, difficult path and was a small (yet important) part of a much larger grassroots movement puzzle.
Bernie’s campaign helped (and continues to help) create inroads that’ve been needed in order for our greater grassroots movements to reach new levels of infiltration into corrupt corridors of American power and corporate media control.
What you’re about to see in the coming months and years is the grassroots movements aligning themselves with hacktivists in more dynamic ways to bring down a corrupt, violent, corporatist aristocracy. It’s already in process and we won’t be stopped.
Global climate change isn’t waiting for the worst elements of humankind to get its shit together – therefore, the best of us are acting now.
It wasn’t necessarily just Bernie Sanders that the hubristic assholes should’ve been afraid of all this time.
The shakeup of the party by its Democratic wing is already well underway (for example in my state), and certainly it should continue, but I was just wondering what benefits you see specifically in convention turmoil.
Thanks for curating a couple of stories here. There were a lot of emails dumped and I’ve been just seeing bits and pieces of information.
Of course it just confirmed what we already knew. This dump isn’t giving us info, it’s taking away deniability.
What’s honestly a little scary about the whole thing is just how stupid they are. If I were in on that conspiracy, I would be meeting people in private saying, “Listen, morons, never say anything in an email that you wouldn’t want the public to see.” Their stupidity and lack of understanding of hacking and leaking makes me think Trump is seriously going to win the presidency.
I swear if they’d just put up some no name person they would have crushed Trump. The only obstacle to a Clinton win is that people don’t like Clinton and the stands for exactly the kind of thing that people think their Trump votes can destroy. Someone who people were largely neutral towards would easily defeat someone as odious as Trump.
I’m mobile @ the moment so can’t watch embedded vids, but I caught some video from the Nevada Democratic Convention. The Bern here had totes prepared on the ground well ahead of time.
Anys, @ the convention, Debs did voice votes on a couple of things, the one i particularly remember was the one to end the convention which went a lot like this:
Debs: those in favor of closing convention say aye
Convention: lots of Boos
Debs: those opposed
Convention: even more Boos (significantly more)
Debs: the ayes have it (slams gavel, walks away)
Convention: goes nuts
I was watching Samantha Bee ask people why they supported Trump and she found one very excited (i.e., not reluctant) Trump supporter who supported Trump because he was like a teenager having a tantrum. “Remember when you were a teenager, how angry you felt at the hypocritical adults around you?”
So I think there is a different standard being applied. For Clinton people are applying their, “Politician” standard, and they are sick of politicians they can’t trust because it seems like you should be able to trust politicians - that politicians you can’t trust should lose office and trustworthiness should be evolved in. But for Trump they are apply a “Rebel” standard. They know they can’t trust him, but they don’t expect to be able to trust him. They trust him to do what they want him to do, which is stick it to untrustworthy politicians.
Clinton has to show that she’s worth voting for. Trump has to show that Clinton isn’t worth voting for. He’s the default for those who are angry.
I saw something this morning - I think it was the British Wiesel - where he was digesting some statements from Cleveland where those who were giving speaches equated “feelings” with “truth”, while the left has their “facts” the right has their “feelings” and they are continually pushing the concept that “feelings” are every bit as valid as “truth”, so if you “feel” things are worse, even tho the facts not only don’t support that but directly contradict it, the conclusion drawn “because feelings” is every bit as valid (if not more so) and correct and factual as that which is merely drawn from “facts”.
You mean into war with Russia? Yeah, that’ll be greeeeaaat. I wonder how many more leaders (including democratically elected ones) she’ll have deposed or assassinated for getting in the way of corporate American interests.
I genuinely don’t know which one is more likely to get into a war with Russia. If I knew, I think I would support the one less likely to do it on that fact alone. I can speculate about the difference in the reasons they would get into war with Russia, but it’s very hard to say how likely that is.
Why do you think Clinton will get us in a war with Russia? Of the things I’d see as likely, that’s at the bottom of the list next to “invents solution to Global Warming in the White House Labs.” Am I missing some crucial data here?
Would it be better for Trump to be elected and have the US serve as a client state to Russia?
I’ve seen multiple articles about NATOs ability to defend Lithuania and Estonia from Russian aggression. People genuinely think Putin might try to further expand Russian territory and think that the solution to that problem would be military conflict. Clinton is a, when it comes to war, a neo-con hawk.
That relates to what was on my mind. I don’t trust Clinton, but she is at least a shady egotistical self-serving politician. Trump is shady, egotistical, and self-serving - but not even a politician of any sort. If I had to pick between those two, it is obvious to me that Clinton is better qualified, if not a good choice on her own merits.
Russia will be belligerent, but I guess I see the Clinton WH and her tenure as Sec. State as being happy to rain bombs on small non-Western nations (usually with a coalition), or back pro-Western corporate regime-changes (Trump would be a puppet as likely to do this), but unless there’s an explicit call for NATO action due to Russian hostilities I don’t see her doing anything outside that domain. We’re also not saying she’s a hawk here, so much as someone who would stand up in a coalition to respond to a nation invading another nation.
Let’s say Russia starts invading even more countries, our options are Trump dropping out of NATO and letting Russia encroach more and more into Europe, or Clinton backing NATO and joining the rest of Europe in pushing them back. I honestly think the latter would be my preference, since Putin’s trouble.
I’d doubt there’s a high likelihood of a hot war, but I’d much, much, rather see NATO intact so Putin’s scared of NATO destroying their already crumbling military, than see Trump handing over countries to Putin willy-nilly to let them go the way of the war-torn mess of human rights violations we have in Ukraine.