Also ridiculing "rigged elections" and "fake news" -- two other weapons used on him -- the Vermont Senator's relationship to the Democratic Party descends from loyal support to abject subservience.
Bernie burned down his credibility when he fluffed for Hillary after the DNC-rigged primary in 2016. He then doubled down in 2020 by being a Russiagater, and referring to Joe Biden as his friend.
I donated extensively to him. Don't I feel stupid. Bernie would have been a terrible president. I do have to give him credit for pushing and arguing progressive ideas. Too bad he's such a bad politician. . .
The most disappointing thing for me this entire presidential cycle was Bernie's unwillingness to stand up and fight. I am a center right voter for the most part and I enthusiastically voted for Bernie twice in the NH primary in both 2016 and 2020.
It could be somewhat forgiven his capitulation in 2016 as he was still an outsider and his national profile rose so fast as his ideas caught fire for really the first time. There was no such excuse this year, especially as the DNC did him so dirty four years before. Joe Biden is everything that is wrong with the corporate, establishment Democratic Party that Bernie so vehemently has fought against his whole public life. Corrupt, a tool of the financial services industry for decades, wrong on basically every foreign policy decision in the last 40 years, and a history of racist policies (he WROTE the goddamn 1994 Crime Bill)!
The fact that he spent the entire election cycle calling Joe his friend and saying he "agrees with him more than he disagrees" will forever taint my memory of Bernie. It's one thing to be agreeable and non-combative; it's quite another to just have no backbone whatsoever.
Like you I was an enthusiastic Bernie supporter, and felt disappointed in Bernie's support for the DNC, from 2016 and again this year. And my view of Biden is if anything even darker than yours, seeing a vote for him in 2020 as effectively voting in the authoritarian security state/war machine state, CIA et al, since the Dem leadership has so clearly become a servant of these dark influences, which Glenn refers to here as the 'Deep State'. But I don't share scorn for Bernie: I don't listen to him now because of the DNC lines he has been spouting, but I do feel that the achievements of his life are so great as to be worth respect - and especially to be worth studying to learn lessons from them.
Other comments below have referenced his long term focus on workers and other topics which I care about, so I won't repeat those. Instead two main additional points I think it worth taking from his career are:
(1) his career proved that an independent candidate actually CAN win elections - at least as far as the senate. When he began his political career even he didn't think this was possible. And I think the success of his 2016 presidential campaign shocked the establishment by proving that, if they didn't take vigorous measures to 'rig' things, he could well have won the nomination and even the presidency.
(2) his decision to capitulate to the DNC instead of going independent as Nader did seems to me to show not so much a personal 'weakness' - as Glenn (of whom I am a huge fan) suggests here - but rather the extent to which the anti-democratic forces have already taken over the US political system.
If we really wish Bernie to take the path of fighting the establishment - or wish to condemn him for not doing so - we do need to look at what is wont to happen to those who do so. To get a realistic sense of what the consequences of this are likely to have been, we do need to delve into the literature which Glenn references about the CIA and its antecedents and minions. Check out 'the Devil's Chessboard', or some of the books Glenn has referenced, or the recent book 'The Jakarta method', about which Glenn did an interview with the author some months back.
In sum, I think condeming Bernie for not taking this on doesn't do justice to him - is asking too much of him - because it doesn't give realistic recognition to the extent to which the authoritarian elements have taken over the US electoral process, or to the scale of vindictive harm which these anti democratic elements have been wont to inflict on those who do challenge them.
Don't know about the rest of everyone, but I'm quite enjoying 'Greenwald Unleashed' :) It's really what I've always wanted. Go get 'em Glenn. So much love for what you're doing.
Anyway...
This excellent article reminded me of another on subject. While not detracting from what positives Bernie brings to the obvious sham of 'distraction from global looting' that is US politics, he has been conspicuously subservient to the ghoulish/unforgivable machinations of the systemically corrupt dem party (perhaps just an innocent victim of the delusion of "changing the party from within"? Perhaps controlled opposition?). I'll let you all make of that what you will.
Whenever I encounter a Bernie supporter (as I once was - also was an Obama supporter which now makes me throw up a little in my mouth as I admit it), I send them this article. If you bother to read it, be sure to note the date (May 2015) and appreciate how accurately this writer calls out Bernie's eventual performance. That he once again repeats in 2020. So, is he just lame? Or is he complicit?
Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders: Sheepdoggin for Hillary and the Democrats in 2016
The only thing standing between Trump and a landslide win at this point is an honest signature verification. Unfortunately, Glenn hasn’t told Michael Tracey, Aaron Mate, and Jimmy dore about it yet so the left literally doesn’t know how close Biden is to losing. I think Glenn is aware but doesn’t want to be tinfoil hat guy.
The left is ok with fraud benefitting leftists. People who consider murdering babies “health care” and want more of it are not going to give a fuck about election fraud.
I'm of the left and election fraud bothers the hell out of me. It's the liberal class doing the real damage. I really don't feel in any way connected with their horrible, unprincipled shit. You and I, we have a common enemy or two. The comments on Glenn's posts are like a new world opening up before us. If we want it.
I have previously thought a left-right populist alliance was possible. But after seeing high profile populist left independent media ignore and sometimes gaslight about the obvious stolen election, I’ve lost faith in that. However, the populist left and right can use each other to destroy the establishment.
Don’t think it’s going to happen.
The left is too tied to their identity politics and thinking trump is a racist. It will never work.
By the way, I roll my eyes probably as much as you do when I hear people like Ben Shapiro say “We have to keep the senate or we’ll become Venezuela!” Instead of “We have to prevent Joe Biden from winning or we’ll end up starting 3 new wars!”
The difference is Trump has ended the legitimacy of the GOP and we’re never going back.
I don’t think the left have the balls to go against the DNC.
The only thing that might help destroy the establishment dems is this fraud being exposed.
Maybe you're right but I haven't got any room, energy or time left for pessimism. All I see out there is people crushed and frightened and I'm sick of it. We can do better than this, surely? Honestly, I was quite wrapped up in IdPol stuff myselfa, just a few months ago, but, being in Europe, I've watched democracies collapsing around me. It sharpens the mind, believe me. It changed my priorities in days. Sure I sound naive, but that's why I'm in here trying to say: there are more important things to be worried about than whatever seemed most important a year ago. When the Biden administration and its Deep State allies launch an attack on the constitution, a lot of left people (and right) will move past the these unresolvable quarrels. Left or right won't matter when it comes. And, fwiw, I see a lot of allies on the left spitting fury at Biden. They really loathe him too and see right through him. Maybe they're not so visible behind the liberal wall of noise? Not sure.
Jesus, how have 'Biden and his allies' not attacked the Constitution already? Anyone who is not a blind Democrat partisan absolutely *knows* that there was an obvious and massive effort to thwart the will of the American people. The Constitution is under attack on all sides. It is the last thing standing between ice cold NWO Oligarchy bigtime and our God given freedoms. The time to stand up is now or never.
@dylan, WTAF are you talking about? Where did I say anything about Biden or Trump? There's more to the country than whatever tool of the Establishment happens to be occupying the White House, you know. Funny, isn't it, that your Tin Foil Tiara only resonates and goes "DING" to Biden winning the office of POTUS, and NOT to all those people with an "R" after their name. Newsflash from the Reality Bureau: The "R" won all these seats because the "D" sucks harder. And if there is a GOP win in the midterms -which I believe is quite possible, given the current climate- it will be, again, because the "D" sucks more.
The hard left and hard/trumpy right want the same things on some key issues but have an entirely different philosophy (power of the state and politicization of social issues to achieve their ends vs power of the constitution and individual liberties), which means they will want different legislative outcomes to get the things they want. There will be no coming together because of this. (More jobs for working class, collapse of big corporations, ending the endless wars are some issues where both sides might have similar ideas)
But I can't see the two sides getting along any time soon because both have been so poisoned about the other, but also when I hear about things that happen on college campuses, I myself would rather not engage with the hard left. They're pretty group-thinky. So are Trumpers, but then again, they have an older median age and less cohesive so theyre less dangerous.
As for Trump ending the legitimacy of the GOP - we were so close to having it all - I'd say more people switched to Trump who voted for Obama than they did in 2016, and less the other way around to Biden. But then Trump lost and he handled it poorly. If they expose widescale fraud we'd end this whole clown show, but I doubt there's anyone at the top who'd allow that leak.
I get it. It seems impossible. But I've gone from groupthinky leftist to actively seeking out Trump voter and conservative viewpoints and celebrating those shared principles. I go where I can find and hear the truth. Simple as that. The shift has already happened in many respects. Alliances have permanently changed. All it took was recognition of the seriousness of the problems we collectively face. Giving up on this possibility is giving up on humanity and I'm not ready to do that.
There’s a lot of craziness around the Trump legal team. But what I’ve noticed around Trump is that the news cycle with him is always the same way. Something happens and the media declares him down and out, and he always outsmarts them in the end.
The George Floyd riots were a clear trap by the dems and media to make him call in the national guard and they call him a dictator. Didn’t work. It ended up destroying all the cities that they governed.
When he got covid everyone said that it was the end and it was all over, but the media was wrong again.
The point is that the media says he’s so incompetent and he’s failed horribly, but then he got the most votes ever by an incumbent.
I don’t know if you’ve been closely following the court cases and election contests that are going on behind the scenes (the msm hasn’t shown that) but the basis of the case is very reasonable. Just do a signature verification on par with what has been done historically. There were historically high mail in ballots (fraudulent) so a 1-2% rejection rate gives trump the win in all these states (Michigan is slightly different) . As cynical about the system a Trump supporter is, I’m actually feeling good about his chances.
Everyone knows it was stolen.
Also, what you’re saying about the far left is true. As a populist right I recognize that the far left is insane and god forbid they ever attain any kind of power.
Agreed. The Russian collusion hoax, the Hillary situation, the Hunter Biden scandals were other instances where the media insisted on their version of the truth and were proven wrong. They look stupider every day because of the lengths they'll go to try to disenfranchise Trump. What makes Trump ideal is that he's not afraid of being called a liar or looking stupid, and because of that he'll go where others haven't dared to go, and come out on the other side stronger. He's proven that over the past four years. My problem is that he's losing his main source of leverage and power - the presidency. I support his going after election fraud, but if he doesn't expose it in time we'll lose everything. And even though I dislike what many neocon and establishment republicans stand for and have done for the country, I know that the Republican party is the only way we can stop the Democrats at this moment in time - and I give them credit for standing with Trump for the most part in these past 4 years, despite not being brave enough to do what he's done on their own. I worry what will happen to the party if people lose faith in the system. This is what the Dems want. They'll burn down America to preserve their party's power, and disenfranchise people who challenge them.
The hard left wishes Bernie fought for them like Trump fights for his party. Trump won't back down, even if it destroys his legacy. I know there was fraud, and probably enough to tip the scales back to Trump's favor. Whether the legal system will allow this to happen is another story. They're probably more concerned about the disruption that it'll do to the country, more than the truth of Trump's claims. I think it's something that has to be done anyways. But no matter the outcome, chaos will ensue. Of course the media will blame Trump, even they themselves are to blame for the chaos, because of their dishonest reporting.
It should bother you. This brave new world where we shall now be governed by the party that has prioritized elections "by any and every means necessary" over measured integrity and the rule of law, can only lead to future administrations that are successively more aggressive, deceptive and eventually purely tyrannical. You know, precisely the opposite of what the founders envisioned and created. And that's what you will be leaving to your children. Best we do dumb them all down now, just teach them to grovel. It will be less painful for them if they never knew what was lost. No shining city on the hill for them. But, no one from outside trying desperately to get in either, so there's that. The Republic that we couldn't keep.
This plan is not about the climate, that's just the sales pitch. It's about surveillance and control. Many of the worst elements are an absolute totalitarian nightmare and you now know for sure that it's coming down the pipe. I am now counting on Republican allies to block this stuff, to work through the courts and through the states to prevent the truly awful stuff from happening. I am behind every one of those efforts.
Am I completely misunderstanding your comment or are you implying that here in the US we kill tens of thousands on innocent brown people annually?? If so, please send my your data! I could understand if you are referencing black on black crime, but I am afraid you are not because you said without due process, which to me indicates you are claiming law enforcement is killing tens of thousands of innocent people every year.
What innocent brown people are you talking about? Just people all around the world with our imperialist, egotistical actions?
Or do you not know the actual numbers in our justice system? US Police kill about 1000 people per year. Less than 100 are unarmed. That's too high and should be addressed but 700 people have been murdered already this year IN THE CITY OF CHICAGO ALONE.
Trump and Obama both killed babies with drones, but let’s pretend we’re in the ethical position of talking exclusively about babies in a medical setting.
who's deflecting now...honestly, in some blue states there is legislation that allows for partial birth abortions, or for babies who didn't die during abortion to not receive medical care at all. I mean it's completely a non-sequitur but it is sick
Only the inconvenient ones. And they make those babies "comfortable" while discussing the method of extermination and disposal with the mother. In another room, of course.
Its unfortunate that such magical thinking is so prevalent. Its over - the powers that be have declared Biden the winner and that's how it is going to be. It doesn't matter how fraudulent the election was or wasn't.
Your line of thinking is very similar to those who believe that Brennan and Clapper are going to be arrested for their many crimes and their coup attempt against Trump. It isn't going to happen - its not a matter of right and wrong. Barring an armed revolution that overthrows the government and displaces all of the people and establishments in power, none of these people are ever going to be held responsible for their crimes nor is their decision to anoint Biden going to be reversed.
It's usually the little people that go to jail. Like Kevin Clinesmith. One wonders, who suggested he destroy his legal career by forging the FISA application? Durham has requested incarceration/full term in his sentencing guidelines. Or did he, "act alone" while all around him cheered on the Russia Russia Russia party?
Monsieur Petrov, where are you getting your news from? All roads point to a decision Pro-Trump by SCOTUS. Biden/Harris will NEVER step into the White House. You do know that many states haven’t confirmed yet, do you not?
As far as a revolution, are you American? Because you sound foreign as one who doesn’t know the American spirit and genetically imprinted desire to remain free.
Arms? There are 3 million armed US troops, and 70 million armed ProTrump citizens, in certain forums, you can read active organization of forces and supplies, weapons are one thing and digital warfare is another, the scope and magnitude of the attack would bring a Biden/Harris administration to its knees in weeks, obviously you’ve allowed the MSM psych ops to get to you, they are losing, but all you read is that they are “ winning” but it’s a lie. I hope you post to me when Trump is confirmed for four more years.
I'm an American who derives his worldview from a deep understanding of history, society and from objective reality, not delusion and false hope.
On January 20th when Biden is sworn in (if he lasts that long and it isn't President Harris) you will no doubt come up with some other rationalization to keep the dream alive. If that's what gets you through the day, more power to you.
What's wonderful is that we only have to wait 6 weeks to see which one of us is delusional.
It looks to me you’re the one holding on to wishful thinking that nothing else exists but your opinion. If indeed History is your base then it should point towards my suggestions for events to come. I think you’re just a Funlectual, sitting in the safety of your computer desk, but inactive otherwise.
We won’t have to wait six weeks for the news, but yes, I guess you’ll dismiss it as delusion, its safe in there for ppl like you, call everyone crazy and be done with it.
There's an easy way to cut through this dance. Bet. Set odds. Stan - would you give 100:1 odds if you're so certain? If not, state the odds you truly would bet to, and we can respond.
I find actually betting, or going through the exercise as if you really were betting at least, to really focus people on what matters in the discussion and separate insight from palaver. Until there are real repercussions, no one hones in very tightly.
In other words I am 100% certain DonaldJTrump will be confirmed and one heck of a rumble will ensue! To the chagrin of the “Historians” here present, that if indeed we’re counting on history repeating itself, then should look back to it and revisit what happens when American born (and those who have learned the lessons of socialism) don’t get what they want. Ooohoo! One heck of a rumble! Plus a black out to last months! (Forgive me, I’m just a ruckus old lady, get very excited at the possibility of bringing this DS down! Where I can kick it in the face!) 💣😁💣 🖕DS
This is my least favorite article of yours that I have ever read. With all due respect, I don't think its founded on proven facts. The gist seems to be that you know Sanders has become a sell out to the centrist Dems and will remain that way for eternity. But the reality is, politics makes strange bedfellows. What did you expect him to do when Biden got the Dem nomination? The only way to defeat Trump was to get onboard. How do you know that once Biden takes office, Sanders won't return to his more left-leaning roots?
Also, I agree with the commenter who wrote "We do face some serious dangers from the hidden parts of the state (and its corporate allies), from distorted and inaccurate news, and from anti-democratic practices in election campaigns. But the slogans of Deep State, Fake News, and Rigged Elections are so vague, and so often used without any trustworthy journalism behind them, that a lot of pretty reasonable people develop a habit of rejecting them because they've become excuses for people to believe whatever they want to believe. To alert people to the real dangers, you can't just repeat these somewhat discredited slogans; you have to develop a way of speaking that clearly rejects the worst ways of overusing these slogans while drawing attention to solid evidence for what's troubling."
I am immediately put-off when I see someone use the term "Deep State". I think it would be beneficial for you to remove it from your vocabulary or define what it means to you. It has become a term most frequently used by whackos. It brings to mind QAnon who helped to discredit the valid concerns of troubling matters in the Demo party -- via turning the Podesta emails into a grand conspiracy theory of a Dem-run pedophile pizza parlor being headed by Hilary Clinton, who would soon be jailed for it. I think it would help if a different term was used to describe the problems that are still relevant and in need of being put into check in the next four years.
Just my two cents. I learn a lot from reading your politically historical writings. I am happy that you are sharing what you know of the problematic recent history -- so they can be thwarted from repeating in the future.
LOL. Even QAnon seems more credible than CNN, MSDNC, Fox News, et al. by now! And honestly, I’d probably be more inclined to to listen to a QAnon supporter, or even a Flat Earther, than a Deep State denier.
No one denies that there are deeply seated problems within the Dem party leadership. Allowing one's kite strings to be tied to the nuts at QAnon, only serves to discredit one's words; thereby enabling the problems to continue. Just telling you that the term "Deep State" has become owned by nuts who promote outrageously ridiculous theories. Better to use a different term when legitimately working for change.
Sharon - the term long precedes Qanon. If, as you proclaim, it elicits an emotional bias in your thinking - consider that the onus is on you to change your biases rather than GG and the rest of us to conform to you. If there is any intellectual rigour that empowers this forum, I'll warrant that the notion that you are responsible for your own biases is a primary factor.
Hi Thewakka. I think its a given that one's biases impact their perceptions. With regard to the term "deep state" sometimes terms become passe' for various reasons and to continue to use them sends the opposite message than its intent. The reason that I have bias against that term is because I've seen it spun and mass marketed by QAnon while discrediting its original intent. As a result, there are many people out there who honestly believe that what was exposed by the Podesta emails about the "deep state" is that there is a pedophile pizza parlor in DC headed by HRC -- all else is irrelevant. People may use whatever terms they wish. I'm just telling you that when I and many others see that term used, we are less likely to see the rest of the words written with it as being credible b/c it has become closely associated with discredited conspiracy theory nuts. Its like going through a whole day with spinach in your teeth and no one bothers to tell you. How would Glenn or others, who use that term when writing of legitimate concerns of a deeply rooted problem in DC, know that there is an automatic perception bias against their writing when they use that term, if no one bothers to tell them?
You’re afraid, the term DeepState was coined by people a lot smarter than you, way before you were born. The shit is deep, very literally, and it’s ignorant cowards like you who’ve allowed it to grow. There’s another possibility for your adamant willful ignorance, that you’re getting paid to distribute disinformation, because there’s always the ignorant masses to brainwash. WTF are you doing in this forum?! The Deep State is a problem so virulent many have died and brilliant minds like GG and Snowden forced to live in exile! You stupid idiot! Learn something of get the FCK OUT!
I understand where you are coming from for sure. Words themselves have become politicized and this has especially gotten bad in the Trump era. I do have to say though is this is a political calculation - they are saying certain buzzwords have underlying meaning (a secret meaning if you will) and they tie these certain buzzwords to certain groups. Deep State = right winger or Trump supporter but nothing could be further from the truth - the left is the group who has bitched about this over and over again long before Trump picked up the term. We have also seen this in the way politicians and politicians group us (typical divide and conquer tactic), ie. 1) All black Amercians are for defunding the police and agree with Black Lives Matter's tactics. False. ; 2) That certain chosen groups speak for an entire community. I see this with the LGBT community - much of what certain "LGBT" say is just plain hogwash. I'm part of that community and they do not speak for me/ False. ; 3) All people who attended anti-lockdown protests are right wing idiots/virus spreaders/granny killers Trump supporting neo-nazis and that they could not support both BLM and an anti-lockdown position. False - I, and THE MAJORITY of the people at that anti-lockdown rally, supports both causes. So, we have a group of people who tell us who goes in what social group, who speaks for them, and what words mean. I know this got a bit off course. Do we allow them to define and categorize us and tell us certain words link you with certain people and go along with their post-modern idiocy or do we continue to use long established words and phrases? I lean toward the latter because the politicians and media will just demean you and the language you use to replace it.
I would think the opposite is true. I would think they love it b/c its become a common perception that those who use it are conspiracy theory nuts. It makes for an easy means to derogatorily broad-brush label people without actually having to say it.
I never said there is no "Deep State". I said the term is not good to use these days to describe deeply entrinched problems in DC. This is because it has been taken over by the QAnon crowd to promote easily debunked conspiracy theories like #PizzaGate, #SharpieGate, etc. It has become self-discrediting to use it.
You guys are giving this moron, Sharon Kramer , too much credit. If she was at all informed she would know that unimpeachable sources have risked all to inform us of this grave danger, Snowden, Dr.Greer and many others. Some of us actual targets of this terrible DS, but she wants to change the term, why? smells like ass to me! Like a disinformation agent, I’m just curious what she would call it, given that this DeepState is under the process of rolling out their agenda in full, and stealing the election is just one step. What is she going to call it? “TheOtherState” ?
The only people who matter are the swinging independents, and trust me, they use the words "deep state" (notwithstanding MSNBC's and your disapproval). Independents will actually vote against someone who stops using a word because of what MSNBC thinks. They want real people, not actors.
The other people who matter are those who do not vote. They’re portrayed as lazy losers but maybe they need something to vote for. I’ve heard it said that a majority of non voters are to the left of the Democrats. This would not surprise me. I’m a non voter myself for this reason.
And mine. It does not have a good definition, and even if it did the Trumpeters would have mangled it badly by now. We need more accurate language for our conversations so we are understood by eachother.
In mine. Soon as i saw that in the post title i worried that old Glenn's going off the rails. Why should i pay to read non-sense here when i can read non-sense for free at InfoWars? As it stands, i haven't bothered to read it so i can't say if he has or hasn't gone nuts, but it's NOT a term you use when wanting to be taken seriously. "The Establishment" is far more credible.
old Glenn, going off the rails three years ago along with the rest of us who could see it plain as day. Can't run the news? Let's brief Trump and Obama to make it newsworthy so we can write the headline that they've been briefed on it! That's not obvious at all... It turns out it wasn't, to many.
This is a long established libertarian left term and theory that's been in place long before Trump and the reactionary knee-jerk to everything Trump says came on the scene. The same thing happened with the term "conspiracy theory". It is a way to discredit people based on some ad hominem language assessment attack. Dont fall for it. The "Deep State" is not as cohesive as many people make it out to be. It is usually people with massive amounts of money controlling what legislation gets passed, what wars we fight in, and the general everyday workings of government. For example a Wall Steet 'banking cabal' tried to overthrow FDR (although it was not a very well thought out plan and had little success of working). He gave a speech stating, "In 1936 President Franklin Roosevelt famously proclaimed that “Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.” Doesn't that sounds like Donald Trump? Regardless of what your feelings about that guy are (im not found) it is evident the so called "deep state" was wide awake during the Trump years - they are called the Resistance. I know that may sound silly BUT when you have a group who tries to "keep a president from acting out his worst policies" you literally have a group who is undermining a duly elected president. Thats the very definition of the " Deep State".
The term "establishment" includes almost everyone in power including politicians, corporations and corporate media. I think the term "deep state" a meant to refer to the unelected, powerful, unnacountable, rogue beurocracy. Its hard to deny such a thing exists, given that every civilization that ever existed has had one.
Denying the name of such a thing makes it difficult to talk about, a tactic out of 1984 where words are erased in order to erase thoughts.. Please suggest another two or three word term which captures the same meaning - "the establishment" doesnt capture it.
I think the phrase you used is a good answer to your own question, "rogue bureaucracy". Ultimately, though, I think one has to keep coming up with new terms. Any good phrase will in time be stolen by the infowars crowd and fall into disrepute.
Fuck off with not liking the term, suggest something in English or shut up! You know what? I changed my mind, don’t shut up, just stay stupid until you pass out!
Perhaps greater care or definition in the use of "deep state" would be good, but I hate allowing conspiracy but cases to hijack the language. Clearly Glenn isn't talking about those idiots.
“I think it would help if a different term was used to describe the problems that are still relevant and in need of being put into check in the next four years.”
Most of the words I've used to describe it over the years, I wouldn't dare put into writing on a comment board. They're typically paragraphs long rather than a concise catch phrase. I don't know what a good catch phrase to replace "deep state" would be. Have to think about it. How about you? Do you have any suggestions?
Any possible new label would be co-opted by propagandists and infected w the same "far right tinfoil hat" yuckiness that is scaring you away from the term "Deep State."
The only suggestion I have is not to be so scared of that which propaganda instructs you to be scared of.
You’re retarded, the Deep State is called so bc it’s DEEP, not just corporations involved. My insults are very well placed thank you very much, bc your idiocy is an insult to my intelligence, and a waste of my time. Please don’t respond or you’ll get another kick on the face.
"The only way to defeat Trump was to get onboard."
I think you are missing the point of the article. The problem isn't that Bernie got "onboard", the problem was HOW he got onboard -- how he failed the truth and joined in singing false narratives that he knew were false. His behavior in this regard was all the more shocking because of who he WAS; a person who had these very tactics used against him. I think you will find the same theme in Glenn's recent article on Ilhan Omar's defense of John Brennan. Things break down when principles are tossed aside. Bernie could have gotten "onboard" the Biden train without, to quote Glenn from the Omar article, "becom[ing] exactly what [he] started off believing [he was] fighting".
My point was, I don't think its been proven what direction Sanders will take in the future. In the big scheme of things, HOW he got on board may not be as relevant as WHY he got on board. DC politics seems to be a barter system, particularly in election cycles when everyone is jockeying for position under a new administration. I think it might be an error to conclude that Omar and Sanders have rolled over while compromising their integrity, when we have no way of knowing what's being negotiated behind closed doors. Maybe those glowing recommendations were part of the best deal they could negotiate. I could well be wrong, but I don't think that's proven yet.
" I think it might be an error to conclude that Omar and Sanders have rolled over while compromising their integrity, when we have no way of knowing what's being negotiated behind closed doors."
Well, this is just a personal opinion, but I don't care if they negotiated heaven itself behind closed doors in exchange for an intentional momentary lapse of integrity. Our willingness to compromise seems to lead inevitably to hollow victories (Obama's presidency comes to mind). I recommend reading Habid Dabashi's article "Why I will not vote for Joe Biden" https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/9/5/why-i-will-not-vote-for-joe-biden/
It is not "compromise" that is being discussed, it is "integrity". Engaging in deceitful gaslighting is not required in order to govern "outside of a dictatorship".
I think there is a difference between compromising and being compromised. If the best deal possible requires Sanders to speak as he has in public, to kowtow to the Democratic representatives of the "billionaire class" he once denounced, and continue to be willing to accept nothing discernible for us in "exchange" for his impassioned loyalty to them -- well, that hardly suggests that he has accomplished something for we the people, rather than simply for himself and the plutocrats that openly attacked him and whom he now considers his friends. All that may have succeeded in doing was keeping far too many progressives stubbornly loyal (at least to some degree) to the Democratic Party instead of efforts to build our own third party.
I understand that Sanders meant a lot to many progressives, and he gave many of us hope. It is very unsettling to consider that he could be beaten down and made to accept "the way it is," and to rationalize it as his making "deals" on our behalf.
I think we should face up to the evidence at hand: the only deal he made was one that made it less likely he will end up like Ralph Nader. And then face up to this fact: no single politician, let alone one who accepts any continued variation of the capitalist system, is going to guide us to a better world. That is going to take the collective choice and efforts of the 99%, and none of us are among the handful that Sanders works alongside every day.
The solution for "deep state" becoming an excuse for some people to believe whatever they want is certainly NOT an excuse for reasonable people to develop a habit of rejecting the raising of these issues without investigation and thought.
That's by definition becoming what you are professing to hate. I do enjoy the irony that so many live their lives without seeing that. In fact, sometimes they leave quite long comments detailing their myopia.
And some don't bother to read before they comment. It's the term "Deep State" that is the problem. Surely there is a better way to articulate people's concerns than always myopically relying on that term.
I have an interesting observation on this front. A long time ago I read Dostoyevsky's "The Idiot". It's quite excellent and I recommend it. He obviously wrote in Russian, but the common English title translation was chosen long ago. I started thinking about it and did some research.
At that time, the term "idiot" was a polite clinical term for a person with mental disabilities. Then people started calling others "idiots" when their thinking was slow or in question, because they were comparing the person metaphorically to a truly mentally disabled person. In time, "idiot" became a common insult. The clinical term changed to recognize that, and a new polite term, "mental retardation" was selected. Over time, of course, because it's natural to metaphorically compare a person of typical intelligence to a truly mentally disabled person when they have errors in their thinking (especially if they have them quite often), the term "retarded" and the term "retard" came into common use. Then, of course, society switched the polite language again to say that the truly mentally disabled have a "mental disability". Now I'm sure that you will hear regularly between school aged kids when they gather: "what are you, mentally disabled or something?"
You can play with the polite language all you want, for whatever reason, but unless you're an idiot you see that it's a natural process for the next phrasing to be turned to the same uses and end with the same fate.
So do you deny that when you hear the term "Deep State", you conclude that whatever comes next is discredited already in your mind? Because either you do that, and the problem is with your thinking, or you don't do that, and there's no problem at all.
"But the slogans of Deep State, Fake News, and Rigged Elections are so vague, and so often used without any trustworthy journalism behind them,"
Those are views I generally share. (I also tune out rightwingers he spew out "SJWs," a snarl word that generally means people whose views on women and minorities they do not like.) But Greenwald went to pretty great pains in his article to explain the legitimacy of the "Deep State" concept, to wit:
>>That a Deep State lurks within and over the U.S. Government is now treated in establishment liberal circles as if it is some new right-wing conspiratorial concoction rather than what it is: a long-standing reality recognized long before Trump by political science scholarship, left-wing foreign policy critiques, and mainstream journalism.
This post-World-War-II truth of a U.S. Deep State entered mainstream discourse when Dwight Eisenhower used his 1961 Farewell Address to warn Americans that “in the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex” because, he said, “the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
The war hero and five-star General had seen the Deep State up close and personal during his two terms as a Cold War President — prior to its explosive growth during the Vietnam War and in the wake of the 9/11 attack — causing him to lament that “this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience” and “the total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government.”<<
For the "rigged election" term, Greenwald also cited to the leaked DNC emails and 5 subsequent resignations of those revealed to have been working to tank Bernie.
So, while I agree with you in general about the slipperiness of these terms, Greenwald explained his meaning with 2two of the three.
What you just wrote is word by word from a script, almost, that everyone reads aloud from whenever they describe the exact level of disillusionment and knowledge you currently are at, about the issues at hand. When you learn more and become more disillusioned, you realize what you just argued against is as well-documented as 2+2=4. Glenn is widely known for having a rare obsession with empiricism and rationality, almost to a fault. Trump and QAnon hijacked the term "the deep state" because it was useful while luring the protesters against the government on the right to donate money and vote for Trump. Like Glenn said, this term existed long before Trump discovered it. Are you going to stop using the alphabet because Trump uses it to disinform people? You think mostly wackos use the term because you, at your level of insight, aren't aware the most informed and respected part of the independent media on the left uses it.
Glenn has barely touched on how Bernie is a fraud, yet you react like a Hillary-supporter to it. Because you, at your level of disillusionment, haven't found it necessary to spend the time yet, for instance, trying to find out why Bernie's staff told him to go fuck himself and quit, some in tears, because he tried to start taking corporate donations like the rest of the Democrats. According to Nick Brana, one of the staffers, that scared him into changing his mind because he became, like Biden, of all people, pointed out, too scared people in general would see through him and loathe him as well. He didn't mind pointing that out because he considers Bernie a joke nobody with real power and connections has to take seriously. Noam Chomsky said that in our day and age, you only know as much as you find out spending your own time finding it out, because there is a media blackout on what's really going on. Applying empiricism and by never jumping to conclusions, you can navigate information without resorting to believing in falsehoods. Glenn has never been proven wrong in anything he has ever said, and he has the most critical, intellectually astute and knowlegdeable audience in the world. "Discredited slogans". It's a detriment to sentience you are forced, because of the amount of time you have spent - and nothing else - on politics, to live in the bubble where the media and the Democrats reside, in which that is true. As for rigged elections, I'm sure you're not aware the DNC was sued and they their strategy to get the case thrown of court out was saying, in court, they have the right to rig their own elections because they're a corporation, all while Bernie, as the victim, observed this from a distance keeping his mouth shut about it in order to keep his supporters loyal to this "corporation". Before you proceed on your path of attempting to understand what a corporate dictatorship you live in, take a step back, ask yourself out loud: "What is it that makes me think I know Bernie better than his own staff, who saw through him and couldn't stand being in the same room as him the rest of their lives? Who is responsible for deluding me in this way? Because it certainly didn't happen by my own effort". Feel free to ask me for sources, taped interviews of the staff, etc. Or you can react like a Hillary-supporter, it all depends on the configuration of your personal characteristics. Your strenghts and your weaknesses. That's what decided how much you know and understand now, that's what will decide how much you will know and understand in the future.
>politics makes strange bedfellows
That would've been valid to point out if Bernie had said and done and not said and not done 0.1% of what he stands accused of among people who have seen through him. If you're going to reply, and you're going to try to explain to me why "politics makes strange bedfellows" didn't convince Bernie's staff, you're either going to be the one making up conspiracy theories or you're going to display a personality disorder that allows you to think you have supernatural powers of observation. And no, I'm not resting my case on Bernie's staff. They make up one out of a thousand concrete reasons I don't have the time to bring up with you, reasons it's batshit insane to think Bernie is anything else than a liar and a fraud that even, amazingly, disgusts the most corporate of Democrats because they know what a "company man" he pathetically wants to be, while he fools his supporters into thinking he's a progressive. That is, if by progressive you mean someone who wants money out of politics. His reversal on that is what made his staff end their political careers immediately in order to not having to spend a single fucking minute more in the same room as him. Like I said, feel free to ask me for sources. I spent 1-2000 hours defending Bernie until I saw through him when his staff did, I have no motive to make anything up, not a single thing, not a single sentence.
You are addressing assertions Sharon never made. She never said that there is no "Deep State". All she said was that it is not a good idea to keep using that particular term to refer to it because it has been successfully hijacked into meaning "Pizzagate"! And she is correct!!!
Thom, that's a ridiculous and offensive comment. Derogatorily labeling people who question things differently than you do, never helps to lend credibility to your words. If I was an "ostrich" who was likely to bury my head in the sand, why would I even bother to pay to read Glenn's writings? I'm learning a lot from his writings and also from the comments of his followers -- most of whom seem to be really thinking.
I interpret that to mean you are one of those QAnon followers, right? Reply if you wish. I won't be. I have no intention of getting into an irrelevant argument on this thread. I came here to learn, not fight.
@Sharon: it's up to you whether you want to reply, but I often just skip those who try to get insulting while they don't have much to say and don't even know the English language much. (Seriously, "unto" the sand?)
“The only way to defeat Trump was to get onboard. How do you know that once Biden takes office, Sanders won't return to his more left-leaning roots?”
We don’t know, but we can have our doubts.
But here’s a question that can be answered right now: How do you know the only way to defeat Trump was to get on board while ignoring more left-leaning roots?
Hi Doc. You asked "How do you know the only way to defeat Trump was to get on board while ignoring more left-leaning roots?" Because we have a two party system. Once Biden secured the Dem nomination, Sanders had three choices: 1. Back Biden 2. Back Trump 3. Back no one. Of those three choices it seems only logical that backing Biden was the most likely option to assure that Sanders had a viable position in DC after the elections. Was there another option that could have been better for him?
4. Back Biden in return for his support of universal health care, an economic stimulus for people, an end to endless wars, a living minimum wage, and/or student debt relief.
Sanders could have demanded something popular in return for his support.
Might well have happened. I'm not sure Sanders got much, but these deals are rarely open. (For instance, I got the impression during Obama's presidency that he named Clinton as Secretary of State in exchange for a promise that Clinton would later appoint him to SCOTUS, but that never came out so it wasn't confirmed.)
Yeah, that terrible choice. I donated to Bernie & Gabbard, but voted for Trump. B/c the system is broken. Bernie surrendered all his power willingly, not once, but twice. The Deep State can now ignore him b/c his movement no longer exists in any meaningful way.
Can anyone prove that a so-called Qanon movement is actually "a thing," that exists anywhere outside of the hysterical minds of NYT writers?
How would anyone go about proving this amorphous NYT claim anyway?
And how come no one who reads the NYT can figure out that the person who claims the existence of a vast invisible conspiracy is the one who is the "conspiracy theorist?"
Which word would you instead replace it with that would more adequately denote those with power who are embedded in the system against the people's benefit? Would the "military-industrial complex" work better? Would the "one percent" work? Or would you rather completely ban any use of such a term?
Hi Dave, I don't know what a better short term to describe the underlying problem is. I just hate to see the term "deep state" attached to articles describing legitimate concerns about the roots of problems in U.S. gov't. Because the conspiracy theory nuts have taken ownership of that term, the rest of the words in a legitimate author's articles are automatically discounted in many readers' eyes via the association to that term. "Military-industrial-complex" doesn't seem to accurately encompass the problem either. Not all unethical decisions coming out of DC are tied to conflicted interests at the DOD (although many are!). "One percent" seems to lean too far to left. That's the battle cry of the down trodden against the elite and doesn't really denote gov't involvement in causing the problem.
It seems more like a troika to me: 1) Private Sector Lobbyists fueling the funding of 2) Elected Legislators to cause special interest acts by 3) Federal Agencies -- that are adverse to the public's best interest.
From my perspective, those seem to be the three elements needed to steer many Trojan horses into U.S. policies and practices under the guise of good government.
I've been reading Sharon's thread and found this gem. I agree w/your take. For me, you're either onboard w/ the concept of the existence of a Deep State as defined by Glenn & others or you're not. (That is the red/blue pill, right?) Now...if you are on board like you and me, seeing through the bs is so easy. I remember I took it during the 2016 primaries, reading the comments on Krugman's anti-Sanders pieces....
Saying scales fell from my eyes is the exact metaphor. My wife and I for weeks in 15, then 16 were both gobsmacked at the unending use of innuendo, deliberate falsehoods (chairs thrown at the convention) etc etc.
The only Dem candidate who stuck to their guns about this was pretty much sidelined from the jump. Yeah, Tulsi Gabbard just kept saying her truths calmly & clearly and today is an afterthought of a footnote in US Politics... and I can't blame her for bailing on Washington DC (she leaves Congress in Jan).
I am able to understand Sharon's reticence w/the terminology, though. It seems to me she's afraid that she'll be painted w/ the same brush that's used on the QAnon crowd. I know that I get that treatment.
But...isn't the truth the truth? I mean, sure, the post modern education of the last 15 (20?) years in University has landed on that there is no objective truth. For example, BION, there's a debate going on that 2+2 does not equal 4, but is rather a tool of oppression...
Didn't KellyAnne Conway coin the term 'alternative truths' even?
Sharon's objections point more to the fungability that's descended on language itself that's developed.
Back in the 60's, the term 'the establishment' was in vogue. It's a word. What ever happened to the phrase 'whaddya mean by that' being employed in discussion? Instead, we assume labels still work. They really don't, do they? Because they're so fungible nowadays.
I respect the hell out of Sharon's intellect. She defends her position well. I'm more saddened by the fact that her position is borne of fear. Fear of being mis-categorized by people who don't want to agree w/her (or Glenn).
But...that kind of shit is unsustainable. You can dismiss, mis-categorize, attack and slag all you want. The underlying truth is, in fact the truth. There is, in fact, a hidden loose association of neo-liberals and defense/intelligence and financial industry people who have common goals of maintaining power and enriching themselves. And will do anything to maintain their status quo. Their ideology is secondary; their desire to continue this current system is in itself the end goal. They will do and say whatever it takes to continue that. They've managed to weaken language to Orwellian proportions...
BUT...
2+2=4
The longer they're in power the worse it will be when the system eventually collapses.
I'd like to imagine that someone has something on him. Something bad with pictures involved. For a lot of his career he seemed to fight the good fight, but now he seems to be a sheep dog. It makes me sad.
I think it is pretty clear that in the age post Citizens United and McCutcheon, who controls the money within the party can control the party with an iron fist. That's why nobody dares cross Schumer or Pelosi in any way, and thus whatever the billionaire donors ask of those two is what the rest of the party falls behind. This consolidation behind the national security state, MIC and mainstream media as well places any democratic process within the Democratic party at the bottom tier of the agenda.
To survive within the totalitarian political parties you must prove your fealty by lying to you constituents and spreading propaganda, even propaganda you know will be used against you. Either you are on board with the Establishment/Deep State/Elite Class agenda, or you end up like Tulsi Gabbard, cut off at the knees, ignored, blacklisted and de-funded.
Since the Democratic Party is a dictatorship of billionaire donors and power security state interests, nothing democratic, that benefits the public in a meaningful way we will pass through it, nor can we expect any honesty or transparency over vital issues. Either we form a new party, or a new citizens assembly and scrap the House and Senate.
Outstanding -- a third party appears the only way but -- current (billionaire + deep state) dictatorship will do absolutely everything/anything to prevent it
I really do think we've reached a point of fracture. It's time for people vs. the state. Unravel the concentrations of power now or this is the beginning of the end.
While the true division of power lies along class lines, we're pretty well neutered by social issue divisions.
There isn't widespread homelessness, food shortages, or inability to access consumer good markets. Not sure how a 'revolution' will spark without those things.
I understand where you're coming from but I think it's going to get a lot worse, pretty quickly. In Europe, people are starting to realise that present conditions amount to the single worst attack on the working class in history.
That's the crux of the issue. I'll be the first to admit that our safety net is woeful given the wealth and power or our collective society. I'm not trying to minimize the issues we face there.
My intuition tells me tthat the issue isn't so prevalent as to be politically destabilizing.
Which part? Kinda seems we’re already at the first phase. If I recall correctly, the military had to stage a coup to bring things back to ‘normal’ in Egypt. I’m not sure if I see an alternative here, either. We should never have let it come to this...
Bernie continues to be a huge disappointment to multi-millions of his supporters. By now he is a distant and hopeless apparition.
I do have a suggestion to Tulsi Gabbard, an exact opposite of Bernie's incompetence – from one of her numerous ardent admirers
Tulsi was a rising star at DNC in 2015 until she declared her support of democratic-socialist Bernie and was instantly “excommunicated”; soon Hillary brazenly proclaimed that Tulsi is a “Russian asset”
Now that Trump has defeated himself -- Tulsi could do an invaluable service to our country - to have a video conference (or three sequential) stating:
1. The entire (stupid and so dangerous) anti-Russian narrative and Ukraine impeachment “entertainment” were deliberate fabrications – the entire Democratic structure knew it from the start
2. Requesting a major investigation of chronic and deep corruption within DNC – starting with Biden-Hunter corruption
3. Announce that she will join a third party and hopefully become presidential candidate in 2024
Tulsi is as big a fraud as Bernie. She endorsed war monger Biden with high praise, was gutless and played the middle with her "present" vote on impeachment, and she's never called out Pelosi like all good Democrats. Her "noncommittal present stance" on important decisions in the Oval Office would have made her an ineffectual leader, and ultimately conforming to the establishment like Bernie and the rest of them. Your suggestions she will never do.
That's absolutely ridiculous. Tulsi's one statement about Biden (which I disagree with) was hardly "high praise".
*“Today, I’m suspending my presidential campaign, and offering my full support to Vice President Joe Biden in his quest to bring our country together,” she said in a video announcing her decision.*
That was it. She didn't urge her supporters to vote for Biden. She didn't campaign for Biden, at all. She didn't raise money for Biden or give her email list to Biden fundraisers. She certainly didn't repeat all sorts of Russiagate idiocy or make moronic statements about dictators and facism like Bernie has done all year.
She is the only one who spoke for Assange and Snowden, repeatedly. She's the only one who spoke against our genocidal sanctions, including trying to attach a sanctions-related amendment to the spending bill. She took massive heat by refusing to support impeachment with every other Democrat.
Nobody is perfect, including Tulsi, but you are either deluded, mentally deficient and/or entirely ignorant if you think she is anywhere near as fraudulent or gutless as Bernie Sanders.
You are very decisive and negative in your opinions. I have monitored her activity over the years -- all the resolutions and recommendations that I have seen were very good and timely.
Tulsi was a breath of fresh air and gives me some hope (oh boy,I am setting myself up again... 😩) that there are sane politicians still around. I hope she remains in politics following her departure from Congress. I don’t agree with her on some very important issues, but would consider voting for her in a presidential election. I only hope she can resist the corruption that has claimed so many of our leaders.
Bernie has the right policies and the moral core, but he has no killer instinct. For all his anti-establishment rhetoric, deep down he still wants to be liked by the same establishment that has been openly trying to destroy him and crush his movement. What the left needs is Bernie’s ideas and moral honesty, but combined with Trump’s killer instinct. And a new people’s party, not owned by billionaires/big corporations and the war machine.
Glenn - Sanders does not run to be president. Sanders runs to raise money to support his lifestyle. Running for president is a great way to campaign to remain a senator, an office without term limits. Ron Paul had the same modus operandi at the other end of the bookshelf, and Rand is continuing the family business. Warren plays the same supporting role too. You get to build a national following, maintain a high profile, collect a stack of IOUs and project an undeserved moral leadership role. It makes running to keep the senator gig almost free.
If you make it to the White House, the best you get is one more campaign. Then irrelevance like Jimmy Carter, waiting for the tap on the shoulder like Bill Clinton, or the void of Sainthood (Obama). The Clintons complained about being broke after their term-limited career ended, and the Deep State has Epstein, amongst a wardrobe full of skeletons, to rattle should they ever step out of line.
Who needs the grief of winning, if you are a professional politician?
In the 2020 campaign Sanders' wife picked up 15% on all his ad spend. He flew for thousands of miles, and I bet Mrs Sanders ran his travel bookings on her Amex, with a % fee as well.
In 2016 Sanders was gifted a house. He's worth millions. Like Biden. On a senator's salary. Sanders did that by being in the swamp, scratching backs, running the tollbooth, campaigning but not quite winning the top gig. It's a performance. He plays the role of Bernie Sanders to perfection. And he can run again in 2024.
"Sanders runs to raise money to support his lifestyle....In 2016 Sanders was gifted a house. He's worth millions. "
That's a pile of bullshit. I'm as angry and disappointed in Bernie as is anyone, but that is all garbage on stilts.
His "lifestyle"? Bernie didn't have $2 million worth until his 70s when he published his policy book in 2016, subsequent to the election. And that house was inherited by his wife, a phenomenon that happens thousands of times a week in this country.
No evidence exists that he and his wife's political activism has been motivated by greed.
"Betraying his base" is not evidence of greed. Bernie is too fucking nice, and, as noted by many, including some here, he lacks a killer instinct. He has said he genuinely considers Joe Biden a friend, which makes me want to retch.
He seems to find it impossible to justly attack people he's gotten to know. But that lifelong trait has hardly gotten him rich.
I appreciate your perspective, I just disagree with it.
I think you pay too much attention to what a lifelong politician says, and give too little weight to what he does.
I've not met him so I don't know how "nice" he is. Have you? I doubt any of the people writing that about him have either. I've also had people be nice to me because they wanted something from me but they weren't nice people.
I don't call betraying your base, twice, "nice" - but I suppose I'm just strange that way.
"I've not met him so I don't know how 'nice' he is. Have you? I doubt any of the people writing that about him have either. I've also had people be nice to me because they wanted something from me but they weren't nice people."
I've met him before. He held a townhall-meeting in my small town of 1100 people. He was legitimately curious about the issues that we were facing. He didn't have anybody thrown out of the meeting. He explained his positions and motivations for them when asked. I was given the opportunity to raise a question about rx drug pricing. He wrote me a letter a couple weeks afterwards to give me more information about the various ongoing initiatives in DC to control prescription drug prices.
Nice isn't the correct word. He was respectful and genuinely curious as to the needs of his constituents. After living in many states, I've yet to meet another federal representative that is willing to do that. When's the last time you've talked to your senator at a local town hall meeting?
Sure, I feel a bit betrayed, but it's undeniable that Bernie's campaigns elevated the legitimacy of certain policies like medicare for all. It's not a complete loss. I really think he deserves respect for what he has achieved against a deeply entrenched power structure, even if it was wasn't a complete success.
Then you disagree with facts; no evidence exists that Bernie and Jane Sanders spent the last 4 decades practicing a politics motivated by *greed*; they have not become wealthy like the vast majority of the DC pigs feeding at the trough.
As for your inapposite pondering on Bernie being "nice," it's been widely noted that he simply does not have, as I said, a killer instinct. You may take that to be what I mean when observing that he is "too fucking nice."
You mean there's no possible alternative than that he is so fucking nice that he couldn't face down his own party but he could betray tens of millions of voters? Twice.
I think I'm not the one with the reality problem in this conversation, sister.
One possible alternative theory: maybe he's just not as good at it as the others? That would also fit the facts, wouldn't it?
I'm with you. I think people underestimate the extent to which someone like Bernie who cares feels pained at being blamed for the election of Trump--even if he deserves no blame.
To go through that again; I don't think he was willing. Rather than blame him, why not some of the hundreds of other chicken shit democrats who could stand up to big money but do not do so.
What is it that Bernie "cares" about? Returning to big wars everywhere? Big credit card security? Locking up "super-predators?" Tara Reade's complaint locked securely at the University of Delaware? "Billionaires should not exist" except for George Soros, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Mike Bloomberg? Bernie knows his "place" and is very happy there.
Wow, if you grade Bernie an F, where can you go for the rest of them? He's no perfect (who is?) but failing to recognize that he exists within a fucked up system that fucks him over, and treating him as if he is akin to the corporatist democrats is of course one option.
but, imo, corporatism, corruption, and complicity with money machines exists on a continuum. Bernie gets a B- compared to Biden's F--and that distinction matters, a lot, imo.
But, if you think differently. Run for office. He's made it farther than anyone else on these issues. He gambled that they would compromise or allow him to set the agenda if he didn't contest. the outstanding question is: did he shift the Dems meaningfully to the left. I'm not sure. Are you sure he hasn't?
No, Mona. He was gifted the money by the DNC to buy a home, after he sucked it up for Hillary. They have several homes. You're thinking of another home. His wife has been taking the 15% advertising agency cut for his ad spend - check it out. Publicly available. They set up the ad buy business specifically to skim the commission. Was it his wife that screwed over that college? I'm sure they have the highest of ideals, Mona, but they have come out on the winning side.
Sanders once attacked “millionaires and billionaires.” Sometime around 2017, he dropped the millionaire part from his criticisms. That’s when he was bought and paid for. He was once an important, anti-establishment voice. Now he’s nothing but a weak sellout traitor to his own cause.
Bernie Sanders has been around Burlington, Vermont for decades. I’m just surprised so many people took him seriously as time has shown that he’s a talker and not into doing any heavy-lifting. Bernie and his grifter wife have become millionaires with substantial properties, cash assets, and retirement systems, I will give them that, though. His form of traveling evangelism has served him well.
I could write for an entire week about why you're wrong. Instead I'll spend a minute. Bernie's own staff told him to go fuck himself and quit, some in tears, because he tried to take corporate donations and siphon off a percentage through a secret firm bying TV ads, which would land him tens of millions. I bet you don't know about that, I bet you don't know how furious his staff still is because of that. I also don't think you are aware he tried to sell 30 min VHS audio tapes about socialism for 700 dollars for each cassette (adjusted for 2020 dollars). He didn't sell any because he's a greedy moron and he was a nobody trying to hustle a buck out of socialism at the time, he hadn't realized what kind of money he'd earn becoming a mayor of Burlington yet, which was within his reach because Vermont is uniquely progressives compared to the rest of the US. "I'm the one who had to tell him, you can't do that [take corporate donations], people will see through you, man". - Biden, the one time he said something true. The one time Hillary said something true, was when she said nobody in Congress likes Bernie [because] he's a fraud and a career politician intentionally scamming his supporters. I got tons examples of Bernie trying to hustle money out of his political engagement, doing that and getting powerful friends in the party is the only motivation he's EVER HAD. If this is hard to wrap your head around, which I bet it is, try to understand that you're a human being, you're a small degree from an ape and a small degree from a Hillary supporter: Common for apes, you and Hillary supporters, is that you live in a world where there is no functioning media. You either have to spend an ocean of time finding things out for yourself, or you don't know anything. That was a quote by Chomsky, by the way.
How much of those millions did he donate to the cause, Comrade? And, how much did he devote to buying up houses like a real-life monopoly game? Which, is basically what Donald Trump did, just far more successfully, and not while being a public servant. It’s funny how the Trump people basically accept his numerous flaws, mainly don’t deny them, and say “he’s good for the country, and therefore we like him anyway!”. While the typical Bernie sycophant must stop at nothing to preserve his untarnished image, as though he were Big Brother himself.
aren't you describing Killery and Bill here? They are the true grifters and multi multi millionaires. the only heavy lifting Bill did was give the repugs everything they couldn't get on their own? Are they two of the best repugs in the dim party? And they have real bulldogs/trolls like Tanden to stand up for them, withthe support of the deep state who does love wars very very much - as do Bill and Killery.
Unfortunately Bernie has always been a spineless Democratic party sycophant who spouted some good rhetoric while supporting all the worst machination of the DC establishment - the original AOC.
One of the worst examples of this behavior by Bernie was 10 years ago, when he struck an agreement with Ron Paul to introduce into the Senate a real audit of the FED, which would, for the first time, give the people a look behind the financial curtain. At the 13th hour, Bernie broke his pledge and capitulated to Obama, Chris Dodd and the banks by modifying the bill to allow them to maintain their cloak of secrecy.
Any doubts that remained about Bernie should have been snuffed out in 2016 after his own party rigged the primary against him and shit all over him, but he still went out to campaign for Hillary Clinton.
How can anyone expect a guy who won't stand up for himself to stand up for you?
I could easily write for a few weeks pausing only to sleep and eat, about the reasons Bernie is and has always been, his whole life, a raging fraud, a sinister, lying, creepy, greedy, neurotic little scumbag weasel. Part of the reason I haven't done so yet is because I've been constantly postponing the job of sorting approx. 10 000 bookmarks about US politics. I spent somewhere between a 1000 and 2000 hours defending him during the 2016 primaries. I finally saw through him when his own staff did, when they (except a few who couldn't afford to quit their day job) told him to go fuck himself and quit, some in tears, the fall of 2016. I started an unbelievable tumble down a rabbit hole into a world I was almost alone in until Jimmy Dore showed up there after I (and a few others) had bombarded him for a long time with probably less than a percent of what there is to know about Bernie to realize he's not weak or afraid or playing 4D chess, he's a hustler and a fraud and he's completely aware of it and so is in large part the Democratic Party, especially Hillary, Biden and Obama. Though Bernie has achieved what he wanted to achieve and probably won't run for president in 2024, it's vital people find out the things there are to know about him in order to be equipped to identify the Bernie Cult 2.0 (and future versions), which is headed by AOC and the squad, which will have the same amount of impact on the Democratic party as the first one, which was at best none, but in reality, it pushed it to the right by helping cover up how far to the right they really are and instilling a fear into them what would happen if they in any way showed any kind of of willingness to compromise with rationality and decency. According to a study referred to by the WSJ, 70% of Americans are furious with both parties. They're fine with that,but they're not fine with giving those voters an option to do something about it, a candidate to vote for they don't control. So far, based on how AOC votes in Congress, she's 5.2% a progressive and 94.8% Nancy Pelosi. Based on what she says, she's a wonderful new Bernie Sanders and a victory for women. I'm gonna stop writing now, for now. I'm gonna start sorting my bookmarks instead.
Big accusations. Sounds like you should write a book, or maybe start your own substack?
Idk, "his whole life, a raging fraud, a sinister, lying, creepy, greedy, neurotic little scumbag weasel," is a pretty charged statement. You mention nothing in your post to back it up. You don't really mention anything about the guy other than you worked on his campaign. Maybe if you had focused on a single example that displayed fraud or any of the other descriptors you use, I'd be enlightened a bit more about the guy. Otherwise, it's easy to discount everything you say.
Sorry it took a while before I got back to you about this, I've been too busy for my own good.
Democracy Now interview with the head staffer, Claire Sandberg, and the corporate fire extinguisher Bernie and (his best friend) Jeff Weaver sent off to smile and lie about what happened:
“I’m the guy that told [Bernie], you shouldn’t accept any money from a super-PAC, because people can’t possibly trust you" - Biden
"Nobody [in Congress] likes him [Bernie], it's amazing he's managed to fool all his supporters into thinking he's not a career politician" - Hillary the one time she told the truth
Bernie's official reply to that, as head of the progressive movement and a presidential candidate with the largest morale responsibility bestowed on a single human being to do his best in the history of politics on Earth: "Not even my wife likes me, but gee I gotta go now, I'm in a hurry, bye!".
I wrote more about my own trauma than Bernie, that's true, I didn't try to back up what I said outside a single reference to when his own staff told him to go fuck himself and quit, some in tears. They were disgusted by him to the extent they considered immediately ending their political careers and income an acceptable way to avoid having to be anywhere near him because they considered him a fraud and a grifter, which is not a small accusation when it comes to the future of 320 million Americans, and in many ways, the future of the world. That's that one example you're asking for. I assume you haven't heard about it, or consider money in politics an important issue, since you don't consider it something that backs up what I said.
What was the fraud and grift? What did he do that caused an emotional reaction from his staff. Did any of that get documented by people that were there? Did anybody write about their experiences? You still aren't saying much of anything. Were you there? Surely there's more to the story than you're letting on.
Sorry it took a while before I got back to you about this, I've been too busy for my own good.
Democracy Now interview with the head staffer, Claire Sandberg, and the corporate fire extinguisher Bernie and (his best friend) Jeff Weaver sent off to smile and lie about what happened:
“I’m the guy that told [Bernie], you shouldn’t accept any money from a super-PAC, because people can’t possibly trust you" - Biden
"Nobody [in Congress] likes him [Bernie], it's amazing he's managed to fool all his supporters into thinking he's not a career politician" - Hillary the one time she told the truth
Bernie's official reply to that, as head of the progressive movement and a presidential candidate with the largest morale responsibility bestowed on a single human being to do his best in the history of politics on Earth: "Not even my wife likes me, but gee I gotta go now, I'm in a hurry, bye!".
I wonder though how much the Russia smears really contributed to his loss. I’m sure it factored a little bit and I think Sanders handled it poorly by dignifying it instead of attacking it as farce. But despite the 24/7 media frenzy on Russia for many years, I think I recall seeing primary polling showing it as a low priority among most voters. I could be wrong though so if anyone disagrees please chime in.
Bernie burned down his credibility when he fluffed for Hillary after the DNC-rigged primary in 2016. He then doubled down in 2020 by being a Russiagater, and referring to Joe Biden as his friend.
Well said! Pretty much sums it up.
Bernie sold out (or caved in) but he held out much longer than almost every other politician, journalist and business leader.
What reward or punishment is it that convinces almost all our "leaders"
to sell out their principles and
integrity to the deep state? I can't believe Bernie is a weak,spineless jellyfish.
It would be nice if one of the jellyfish would fess up, in exchange for anonymity for course.
I donated extensively to him. Don't I feel stupid. Bernie would have been a terrible president. I do have to give him credit for pushing and arguing progressive ideas. Too bad he's such a bad politician. . .
You should've given that money to Trump
The most disappointing thing for me this entire presidential cycle was Bernie's unwillingness to stand up and fight. I am a center right voter for the most part and I enthusiastically voted for Bernie twice in the NH primary in both 2016 and 2020.
It could be somewhat forgiven his capitulation in 2016 as he was still an outsider and his national profile rose so fast as his ideas caught fire for really the first time. There was no such excuse this year, especially as the DNC did him so dirty four years before. Joe Biden is everything that is wrong with the corporate, establishment Democratic Party that Bernie so vehemently has fought against his whole public life. Corrupt, a tool of the financial services industry for decades, wrong on basically every foreign policy decision in the last 40 years, and a history of racist policies (he WROTE the goddamn 1994 Crime Bill)!
The fact that he spent the entire election cycle calling Joe his friend and saying he "agrees with him more than he disagrees" will forever taint my memory of Bernie. It's one thing to be agreeable and non-combative; it's quite another to just have no backbone whatsoever.
Like you I was an enthusiastic Bernie supporter, and felt disappointed in Bernie's support for the DNC, from 2016 and again this year. And my view of Biden is if anything even darker than yours, seeing a vote for him in 2020 as effectively voting in the authoritarian security state/war machine state, CIA et al, since the Dem leadership has so clearly become a servant of these dark influences, which Glenn refers to here as the 'Deep State'. But I don't share scorn for Bernie: I don't listen to him now because of the DNC lines he has been spouting, but I do feel that the achievements of his life are so great as to be worth respect - and especially to be worth studying to learn lessons from them.
Other comments below have referenced his long term focus on workers and other topics which I care about, so I won't repeat those. Instead two main additional points I think it worth taking from his career are:
(1) his career proved that an independent candidate actually CAN win elections - at least as far as the senate. When he began his political career even he didn't think this was possible. And I think the success of his 2016 presidential campaign shocked the establishment by proving that, if they didn't take vigorous measures to 'rig' things, he could well have won the nomination and even the presidency.
(2) his decision to capitulate to the DNC instead of going independent as Nader did seems to me to show not so much a personal 'weakness' - as Glenn (of whom I am a huge fan) suggests here - but rather the extent to which the anti-democratic forces have already taken over the US political system.
If we really wish Bernie to take the path of fighting the establishment - or wish to condemn him for not doing so - we do need to look at what is wont to happen to those who do so. To get a realistic sense of what the consequences of this are likely to have been, we do need to delve into the literature which Glenn references about the CIA and its antecedents and minions. Check out 'the Devil's Chessboard', or some of the books Glenn has referenced, or the recent book 'The Jakarta method', about which Glenn did an interview with the author some months back.
In sum, I think condeming Bernie for not taking this on doesn't do justice to him - is asking too much of him - because it doesn't give realistic recognition to the extent to which the authoritarian elements have taken over the US electoral process, or to the scale of vindictive harm which these anti democratic elements have been wont to inflict on those who do challenge them.
Don't know about the rest of everyone, but I'm quite enjoying 'Greenwald Unleashed' :) It's really what I've always wanted. Go get 'em Glenn. So much love for what you're doing.
Anyway...
This excellent article reminded me of another on subject. While not detracting from what positives Bernie brings to the obvious sham of 'distraction from global looting' that is US politics, he has been conspicuously subservient to the ghoulish/unforgivable machinations of the systemically corrupt dem party (perhaps just an innocent victim of the delusion of "changing the party from within"? Perhaps controlled opposition?). I'll let you all make of that what you will.
Whenever I encounter a Bernie supporter (as I once was - also was an Obama supporter which now makes me throw up a little in my mouth as I admit it), I send them this article. If you bother to read it, be sure to note the date (May 2015) and appreciate how accurately this writer calls out Bernie's eventual performance. That he once again repeats in 2020. So, is he just lame? Or is he complicit?
Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders: Sheepdoggin for Hillary and the Democrats in 2016
https://blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary
The only thing standing between Trump and a landslide win at this point is an honest signature verification. Unfortunately, Glenn hasn’t told Michael Tracey, Aaron Mate, and Jimmy dore about it yet so the left literally doesn’t know how close Biden is to losing. I think Glenn is aware but doesn’t want to be tinfoil hat guy.
The left is ok with fraud benefitting leftists. People who consider murdering babies “health care” and want more of it are not going to give a fuck about election fraud.
I'm of the left and election fraud bothers the hell out of me. It's the liberal class doing the real damage. I really don't feel in any way connected with their horrible, unprincipled shit. You and I, we have a common enemy or two. The comments on Glenn's posts are like a new world opening up before us. If we want it.
I have previously thought a left-right populist alliance was possible. But after seeing high profile populist left independent media ignore and sometimes gaslight about the obvious stolen election, I’ve lost faith in that. However, the populist left and right can use each other to destroy the establishment.
Don’t think it’s going to happen.
The left is too tied to their identity politics and thinking trump is a racist. It will never work.
By the way, I roll my eyes probably as much as you do when I hear people like Ben Shapiro say “We have to keep the senate or we’ll become Venezuela!” Instead of “We have to prevent Joe Biden from winning or we’ll end up starting 3 new wars!”
The difference is Trump has ended the legitimacy of the GOP and we’re never going back.
I don’t think the left have the balls to go against the DNC.
The only thing that might help destroy the establishment dems is this fraud being exposed.
Maybe you're right but I haven't got any room, energy or time left for pessimism. All I see out there is people crushed and frightened and I'm sick of it. We can do better than this, surely? Honestly, I was quite wrapped up in IdPol stuff myselfa, just a few months ago, but, being in Europe, I've watched democracies collapsing around me. It sharpens the mind, believe me. It changed my priorities in days. Sure I sound naive, but that's why I'm in here trying to say: there are more important things to be worried about than whatever seemed most important a year ago. When the Biden administration and its Deep State allies launch an attack on the constitution, a lot of left people (and right) will move past the these unresolvable quarrels. Left or right won't matter when it comes. And, fwiw, I see a lot of allies on the left spitting fury at Biden. They really loathe him too and see right through him. Maybe they're not so visible behind the liberal wall of noise? Not sure.
Jesus, how have 'Biden and his allies' not attacked the Constitution already? Anyone who is not a blind Democrat partisan absolutely *knows* that there was an obvious and massive effort to thwart the will of the American people. The Constitution is under attack on all sides. It is the last thing standing between ice cold NWO Oligarchy bigtime and our God given freedoms. The time to stand up is now or never.
"The difference is Trump has ended the legitimacy of the GOP"
Wow, that explains why the "D" flipped all those seats at all levels of government. Oh, wait....
Lmao you still believe Biden won? By the way. The gop’ers won on the back of trump and there will be a gop purge in 2022 with trump as a king maker
@dylan, WTAF are you talking about? Where did I say anything about Biden or Trump? There's more to the country than whatever tool of the Establishment happens to be occupying the White House, you know. Funny, isn't it, that your Tin Foil Tiara only resonates and goes "DING" to Biden winning the office of POTUS, and NOT to all those people with an "R" after their name. Newsflash from the Reality Bureau: The "R" won all these seats because the "D" sucks harder. And if there is a GOP win in the midterms -which I believe is quite possible, given the current climate- it will be, again, because the "D" sucks more.
The hard left and hard/trumpy right want the same things on some key issues but have an entirely different philosophy (power of the state and politicization of social issues to achieve their ends vs power of the constitution and individual liberties), which means they will want different legislative outcomes to get the things they want. There will be no coming together because of this. (More jobs for working class, collapse of big corporations, ending the endless wars are some issues where both sides might have similar ideas)
But I can't see the two sides getting along any time soon because both have been so poisoned about the other, but also when I hear about things that happen on college campuses, I myself would rather not engage with the hard left. They're pretty group-thinky. So are Trumpers, but then again, they have an older median age and less cohesive so theyre less dangerous.
As for Trump ending the legitimacy of the GOP - we were so close to having it all - I'd say more people switched to Trump who voted for Obama than they did in 2016, and less the other way around to Biden. But then Trump lost and he handled it poorly. If they expose widescale fraud we'd end this whole clown show, but I doubt there's anyone at the top who'd allow that leak.
I get it. It seems impossible. But I've gone from groupthinky leftist to actively seeking out Trump voter and conservative viewpoints and celebrating those shared principles. I go where I can find and hear the truth. Simple as that. The shift has already happened in many respects. Alliances have permanently changed. All it took was recognition of the seriousness of the problems we collectively face. Giving up on this possibility is giving up on humanity and I'm not ready to do that.
There’s a lot of craziness around the Trump legal team. But what I’ve noticed around Trump is that the news cycle with him is always the same way. Something happens and the media declares him down and out, and he always outsmarts them in the end.
The George Floyd riots were a clear trap by the dems and media to make him call in the national guard and they call him a dictator. Didn’t work. It ended up destroying all the cities that they governed.
When he got covid everyone said that it was the end and it was all over, but the media was wrong again.
The point is that the media says he’s so incompetent and he’s failed horribly, but then he got the most votes ever by an incumbent.
I don’t know if you’ve been closely following the court cases and election contests that are going on behind the scenes (the msm hasn’t shown that) but the basis of the case is very reasonable. Just do a signature verification on par with what has been done historically. There were historically high mail in ballots (fraudulent) so a 1-2% rejection rate gives trump the win in all these states (Michigan is slightly different) . As cynical about the system a Trump supporter is, I’m actually feeling good about his chances.
Everyone knows it was stolen.
Also, what you’re saying about the far left is true. As a populist right I recognize that the far left is insane and god forbid they ever attain any kind of power.
Agreed. The Russian collusion hoax, the Hillary situation, the Hunter Biden scandals were other instances where the media insisted on their version of the truth and were proven wrong. They look stupider every day because of the lengths they'll go to try to disenfranchise Trump. What makes Trump ideal is that he's not afraid of being called a liar or looking stupid, and because of that he'll go where others haven't dared to go, and come out on the other side stronger. He's proven that over the past four years. My problem is that he's losing his main source of leverage and power - the presidency. I support his going after election fraud, but if he doesn't expose it in time we'll lose everything. And even though I dislike what many neocon and establishment republicans stand for and have done for the country, I know that the Republican party is the only way we can stop the Democrats at this moment in time - and I give them credit for standing with Trump for the most part in these past 4 years, despite not being brave enough to do what he's done on their own. I worry what will happen to the party if people lose faith in the system. This is what the Dems want. They'll burn down America to preserve their party's power, and disenfranchise people who challenge them.
The hard left wishes Bernie fought for them like Trump fights for his party. Trump won't back down, even if it destroys his legacy. I know there was fraud, and probably enough to tip the scales back to Trump's favor. Whether the legal system will allow this to happen is another story. They're probably more concerned about the disruption that it'll do to the country, more than the truth of Trump's claims. I think it's something that has to be done anyways. But no matter the outcome, chaos will ensue. Of course the media will blame Trump, even they themselves are to blame for the chaos, because of their dishonest reporting.
It should bother you. This brave new world where we shall now be governed by the party that has prioritized elections "by any and every means necessary" over measured integrity and the rule of law, can only lead to future administrations that are successively more aggressive, deceptive and eventually purely tyrannical. You know, precisely the opposite of what the founders envisioned and created. And that's what you will be leaving to your children. Best we do dumb them all down now, just teach them to grovel. It will be less painful for them if they never knew what was lost. No shining city on the hill for them. But, no one from outside trying desperately to get in either, so there's that. The Republic that we couldn't keep.
I agree. Worse is coming unless people start to react immediately:
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/528482-john-kerry-reveals-bidens-devotion-to-radical-great-reset-movement
This plan is not about the climate, that's just the sales pitch. It's about surveillance and control. Many of the worst elements are an absolute totalitarian nightmare and you now know for sure that it's coming down the pipe. I am now counting on Republican allies to block this stuff, to work through the courts and through the states to prevent the truly awful stuff from happening. I am behind every one of those efforts.
Women's right to choose = So bad, it's the only thing that matters
Murdering tens of thousands of innocent brown people annually without any due process = let's just ignore this
Am I completely misunderstanding your comment or are you implying that here in the US we kill tens of thousands on innocent brown people annually?? If so, please send my your data! I could understand if you are referencing black on black crime, but I am afraid you are not because you said without due process, which to me indicates you are claiming law enforcement is killing tens of thousands of innocent people every year.
What innocent brown people are you talking about? Just people all around the world with our imperialist, egotistical actions?
Or do you not know the actual numbers in our justice system? US Police kill about 1000 people per year. Less than 100 are unarmed. That's too high and should be addressed but 700 people have been murdered already this year IN THE CITY OF CHICAGO ALONE.
"leftists" "murdering babies" Really?
What's confusing about that? Leftists certainly support late term killing of babies. What a pointless comment you made.
Horray for culture war deflection on abortion!
Trump and Obama both killed babies with drones, but let’s pretend we’re in the ethical position of talking exclusively about babies in a medical setting.
Both killed “babies” with drones?!? Really?!? Congratulations, I can never take a word you say seriously against. Wow...
Good. :D
Oooo! Critique of deflection by . . . deflection.
who's deflecting now...honestly, in some blue states there is legislation that allows for partial birth abortions, or for babies who didn't die during abortion to not receive medical care at all. I mean it's completely a non-sequitur but it is sick
I always assumed that the DNC picked the color blue because of lividity.
The only "confusion" here is why someone would shoehorn abortion into this discussion OTHER than being motivated by a singular, warped ideology.
Did you read the OP comment? Do you believe abortion kills babies? It's not a hard question to answer.
Your question is moot. Here's one that isn't: What does abortion, late term or otherwise, have to do with Bernie Sanders and/or this this article?
You claim that the unborn are “babies”. That’s bullshit right there.
Yeah, who cares about the heartbeat?
Apparently, Roman Catholics and other fascist Christians.
Only the inconvenient ones. And they make those babies "comfortable" while discussing the method of extermination and disposal with the mother. In another room, of course.
That’s my real suspicion. If the left doesn’t start speaking out about it soon there will be no respect left
Its unfortunate that such magical thinking is so prevalent. Its over - the powers that be have declared Biden the winner and that's how it is going to be. It doesn't matter how fraudulent the election was or wasn't.
Your line of thinking is very similar to those who believe that Brennan and Clapper are going to be arrested for their many crimes and their coup attempt against Trump. It isn't going to happen - its not a matter of right and wrong. Barring an armed revolution that overthrows the government and displaces all of the people and establishments in power, none of these people are ever going to be held responsible for their crimes nor is their decision to anoint Biden going to be reversed.
It's usually the little people that go to jail. Like Kevin Clinesmith. One wonders, who suggested he destroy his legal career by forging the FISA application? Durham has requested incarceration/full term in his sentencing guidelines. Or did he, "act alone" while all around him cheered on the Russia Russia Russia party?
Monsieur Petrov, where are you getting your news from? All roads point to a decision Pro-Trump by SCOTUS. Biden/Harris will NEVER step into the White House. You do know that many states haven’t confirmed yet, do you not?
As far as a revolution, are you American? Because you sound foreign as one who doesn’t know the American spirit and genetically imprinted desire to remain free.
Arms? There are 3 million armed US troops, and 70 million armed ProTrump citizens, in certain forums, you can read active organization of forces and supplies, weapons are one thing and digital warfare is another, the scope and magnitude of the attack would bring a Biden/Harris administration to its knees in weeks, obviously you’ve allowed the MSM psych ops to get to you, they are losing, but all you read is that they are “ winning” but it’s a lie. I hope you post to me when Trump is confirmed for four more years.
I'm an American who derives his worldview from a deep understanding of history, society and from objective reality, not delusion and false hope.
On January 20th when Biden is sworn in (if he lasts that long and it isn't President Harris) you will no doubt come up with some other rationalization to keep the dream alive. If that's what gets you through the day, more power to you.
What's wonderful is that we only have to wait 6 weeks to see which one of us is delusional.
It looks to me you’re the one holding on to wishful thinking that nothing else exists but your opinion. If indeed History is your base then it should point towards my suggestions for events to come. I think you’re just a Funlectual, sitting in the safety of your computer desk, but inactive otherwise.
We won’t have to wait six weeks for the news, but yes, I guess you’ll dismiss it as delusion, its safe in there for ppl like you, call everyone crazy and be done with it.
Delusion is a bitter pill to swallow. Keep the dream alive though, trust the plan, right?
https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/president-trump-commits-to-orderly-transition-of-power/
1-you’re the deluded one thinking this was a legal “ election, IT WAS A COUP.
2-Don’t start dancing just yet, your President Biden is a pervert and a liar
3- FUCK YOU,eat shit and DIE. Fuck you and your gloating, lucky for you, you’ll never say that to my face. 🖕🏻
There's an easy way to cut through this dance. Bet. Set odds. Stan - would you give 100:1 odds if you're so certain? If not, state the odds you truly would bet to, and we can respond.
I find actually betting, or going through the exercise as if you really were betting at least, to really focus people on what matters in the discussion and separate insight from palaver. Until there are real repercussions, no one hones in very tightly.
Why would I lay odds? I'm certainly willing to bet if Glenn Greenwald or some other mutually trusted 3rd party is willing to hold the funds in escrow.
Mmmh, delicious! I bet 100/1
In other words I am 100% certain DonaldJTrump will be confirmed and one heck of a rumble will ensue! To the chagrin of the “Historians” here present, that if indeed we’re counting on history repeating itself, then should look back to it and revisit what happens when American born (and those who have learned the lessons of socialism) don’t get what they want. Ooohoo! One heck of a rumble! Plus a black out to last months! (Forgive me, I’m just a ruckus old lady, get very excited at the possibility of bringing this DS down! Where I can kick it in the face!) 💣😁💣 🖕DS
Ahhh...the view from Gab.com.
Glenn,
This is my least favorite article of yours that I have ever read. With all due respect, I don't think its founded on proven facts. The gist seems to be that you know Sanders has become a sell out to the centrist Dems and will remain that way for eternity. But the reality is, politics makes strange bedfellows. What did you expect him to do when Biden got the Dem nomination? The only way to defeat Trump was to get onboard. How do you know that once Biden takes office, Sanders won't return to his more left-leaning roots?
Also, I agree with the commenter who wrote "We do face some serious dangers from the hidden parts of the state (and its corporate allies), from distorted and inaccurate news, and from anti-democratic practices in election campaigns. But the slogans of Deep State, Fake News, and Rigged Elections are so vague, and so often used without any trustworthy journalism behind them, that a lot of pretty reasonable people develop a habit of rejecting them because they've become excuses for people to believe whatever they want to believe. To alert people to the real dangers, you can't just repeat these somewhat discredited slogans; you have to develop a way of speaking that clearly rejects the worst ways of overusing these slogans while drawing attention to solid evidence for what's troubling."
I am immediately put-off when I see someone use the term "Deep State". I think it would be beneficial for you to remove it from your vocabulary or define what it means to you. It has become a term most frequently used by whackos. It brings to mind QAnon who helped to discredit the valid concerns of troubling matters in the Demo party -- via turning the Podesta emails into a grand conspiracy theory of a Dem-run pedophile pizza parlor being headed by Hilary Clinton, who would soon be jailed for it. I think it would help if a different term was used to describe the problems that are still relevant and in need of being put into check in the next four years.
Just my two cents. I learn a lot from reading your politically historical writings. I am happy that you are sharing what you know of the problematic recent history -- so they can be thwarted from repeating in the future.
LOL. Even QAnon seems more credible than CNN, MSDNC, Fox News, et al. by now! And honestly, I’d probably be more inclined to to listen to a QAnon supporter, or even a Flat Earther, than a Deep State denier.
No one denies that there are deeply seated problems within the Dem party leadership. Allowing one's kite strings to be tied to the nuts at QAnon, only serves to discredit one's words; thereby enabling the problems to continue. Just telling you that the term "Deep State" has become owned by nuts who promote outrageously ridiculous theories. Better to use a different term when legitimately working for change.
Sharon - the term long precedes Qanon. If, as you proclaim, it elicits an emotional bias in your thinking - consider that the onus is on you to change your biases rather than GG and the rest of us to conform to you. If there is any intellectual rigour that empowers this forum, I'll warrant that the notion that you are responsible for your own biases is a primary factor.
Hi Thewakka. I think its a given that one's biases impact their perceptions. With regard to the term "deep state" sometimes terms become passe' for various reasons and to continue to use them sends the opposite message than its intent. The reason that I have bias against that term is because I've seen it spun and mass marketed by QAnon while discrediting its original intent. As a result, there are many people out there who honestly believe that what was exposed by the Podesta emails about the "deep state" is that there is a pedophile pizza parlor in DC headed by HRC -- all else is irrelevant. People may use whatever terms they wish. I'm just telling you that when I and many others see that term used, we are less likely to see the rest of the words written with it as being credible b/c it has become closely associated with discredited conspiracy theory nuts. Its like going through a whole day with spinach in your teeth and no one bothers to tell you. How would Glenn or others, who use that term when writing of legitimate concerns of a deeply rooted problem in DC, know that there is an automatic perception bias against their writing when they use that term, if no one bothers to tell them?
You’re afraid, the term DeepState was coined by people a lot smarter than you, way before you were born. The shit is deep, very literally, and it’s ignorant cowards like you who’ve allowed it to grow. There’s another possibility for your adamant willful ignorance, that you’re getting paid to distribute disinformation, because there’s always the ignorant masses to brainwash. WTF are you doing in this forum?! The Deep State is a problem so virulent many have died and brilliant minds like GG and Snowden forced to live in exile! You stupid idiot! Learn something of get the FCK OUT!
I understand where you are coming from for sure. Words themselves have become politicized and this has especially gotten bad in the Trump era. I do have to say though is this is a political calculation - they are saying certain buzzwords have underlying meaning (a secret meaning if you will) and they tie these certain buzzwords to certain groups. Deep State = right winger or Trump supporter but nothing could be further from the truth - the left is the group who has bitched about this over and over again long before Trump picked up the term. We have also seen this in the way politicians and politicians group us (typical divide and conquer tactic), ie. 1) All black Amercians are for defunding the police and agree with Black Lives Matter's tactics. False. ; 2) That certain chosen groups speak for an entire community. I see this with the LGBT community - much of what certain "LGBT" say is just plain hogwash. I'm part of that community and they do not speak for me/ False. ; 3) All people who attended anti-lockdown protests are right wing idiots/virus spreaders/granny killers Trump supporting neo-nazis and that they could not support both BLM and an anti-lockdown position. False - I, and THE MAJORITY of the people at that anti-lockdown rally, supports both causes. So, we have a group of people who tell us who goes in what social group, who speaks for them, and what words mean. I know this got a bit off course. Do we allow them to define and categorize us and tell us certain words link you with certain people and go along with their post-modern idiocy or do we continue to use long established words and phrases? I lean toward the latter because the politicians and media will just demean you and the language you use to replace it.
Ah, yes, MSNBC hates that term, therefore...
I would think the opposite is true. I would think they love it b/c its become a common perception that those who use it are conspiracy theory nuts. It makes for an easy means to derogatorily broad-brush label people without actually having to say it.
Hmm -- so there is no "Deep state"... after three years of Russia-gate fraud. What has happened to you - Sharon Kramer?
I never said there is no "Deep State". I said the term is not good to use these days to describe deeply entrinched problems in DC. This is because it has been taken over by the QAnon crowd to promote easily debunked conspiracy theories like #PizzaGate, #SharpieGate, etc. It has become self-discrediting to use it.
"It has become self-discrediting to use it."
In whose eyes?
You guys are giving this moron, Sharon Kramer , too much credit. If she was at all informed she would know that unimpeachable sources have risked all to inform us of this grave danger, Snowden, Dr.Greer and many others. Some of us actual targets of this terrible DS, but she wants to change the term, why? smells like ass to me! Like a disinformation agent, I’m just curious what she would call it, given that this DeepState is under the process of rolling out their agenda in full, and stealing the election is just one step. What is she going to call it? “TheOtherState” ?
If you were at all informed, perhaps you would stop relying on name calling and insults to try to justify your uncalled for, inaccurate criticisms.
Half of the people in the United States, who will also be voting again in four years.
"Half the people in the United States"
The only people who matter are the swinging independents, and trust me, they use the words "deep state" (notwithstanding MSNBC's and your disapproval). Independents will actually vote against someone who stops using a word because of what MSNBC thinks. They want real people, not actors.
The other people who matter are those who do not vote. They’re portrayed as lazy losers but maybe they need something to vote for. I’ve heard it said that a majority of non voters are to the left of the Democrats. This would not surprise me. I’m a non voter myself for this reason.
And mine. It does not have a good definition, and even if it did the Trumpeters would have mangled it badly by now. We need more accurate language for our conversations so we are understood by eachother.
Peace!
In mine. Soon as i saw that in the post title i worried that old Glenn's going off the rails. Why should i pay to read non-sense here when i can read non-sense for free at InfoWars? As it stands, i haven't bothered to read it so i can't say if he has or hasn't gone nuts, but it's NOT a term you use when wanting to be taken seriously. "The Establishment" is far more credible.
So judgmental, and you didn't even read the article, and you think you're in a position to judge Greenwald? I don't think so.
Actually, my comment tells you that i HAVEN'T judged him. Darn, i was hoping the level of debate would be higher around here.
old Glenn, going off the rails three years ago along with the rest of us who could see it plain as day. Can't run the news? Let's brief Trump and Obama to make it newsworthy so we can write the headline that they've been briefed on it! That's not obvious at all... It turns out it wasn't, to many.
This is a long established libertarian left term and theory that's been in place long before Trump and the reactionary knee-jerk to everything Trump says came on the scene. The same thing happened with the term "conspiracy theory". It is a way to discredit people based on some ad hominem language assessment attack. Dont fall for it. The "Deep State" is not as cohesive as many people make it out to be. It is usually people with massive amounts of money controlling what legislation gets passed, what wars we fight in, and the general everyday workings of government. For example a Wall Steet 'banking cabal' tried to overthrow FDR (although it was not a very well thought out plan and had little success of working). He gave a speech stating, "In 1936 President Franklin Roosevelt famously proclaimed that “Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.” Doesn't that sounds like Donald Trump? Regardless of what your feelings about that guy are (im not found) it is evident the so called "deep state" was wide awake during the Trump years - they are called the Resistance. I know that may sound silly BUT when you have a group who tries to "keep a president from acting out his worst policies" you literally have a group who is undermining a duly elected president. Thats the very definition of the " Deep State".
The term "establishment" includes almost everyone in power including politicians, corporations and corporate media. I think the term "deep state" a meant to refer to the unelected, powerful, unnacountable, rogue beurocracy. Its hard to deny such a thing exists, given that every civilization that ever existed has had one.
Denying the name of such a thing makes it difficult to talk about, a tactic out of 1984 where words are erased in order to erase thoughts.. Please suggest another two or three word term which captures the same meaning - "the establishment" doesnt capture it.
I think the phrase you used is a good answer to your own question, "rogue bureaucracy". Ultimately, though, I think one has to keep coming up with new terms. Any good phrase will in time be stolen by the infowars crowd and fall into disrepute.
Containing the claim that MSNBC banned Glenn for Deep State references:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/03/glenn-greenwald-the-bane-of-their-resistance
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the-deep-state-goes-to-war-with-president-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/
Fuck off with not liking the term, suggest something in English or shut up! You know what? I changed my mind, don’t shut up, just stay stupid until you pass out!
Don't let her get to you, some people like attention.
I don’t know that pedophile rings in DC were ever actually debunked- and there was Epstein.
That said, I don’t pretend to know much about anything beyond whats public about Epstein and the access he had all by himself.
Perhaps greater care or definition in the use of "deep state" would be good, but I hate allowing conspiracy but cases to hijack the language. Clearly Glenn isn't talking about those idiots.
Nut, not but!
“I think it would help if a different term was used to describe the problems that are still relevant and in need of being put into check in the next four years.”
Fair enough: what term do you have in mind?
British Empire 2.0
Most of the words I've used to describe it over the years, I wouldn't dare put into writing on a comment board. They're typically paragraphs long rather than a concise catch phrase. I don't know what a good catch phrase to replace "deep state" would be. Have to think about it. How about you? Do you have any suggestions?
Any possible new label would be co-opted by propagandists and infected w the same "far right tinfoil hat" yuckiness that is scaring you away from the term "Deep State."
The only suggestion I have is not to be so scared of that which propaganda instructs you to be scared of.
Yes, call it what it is: the Deep State.
Yes, we believe you can’t come up with anything. how’bout fuck off Sharon K?🖕
I agree with you 100% Sharon. Great point!
I would use the term "Corporate-Corrupted" or "Corporate-Bought"!
You’re retarded, the Deep State is called so bc it’s DEEP, not just corporations involved. My insults are very well placed thank you very much, bc your idiocy is an insult to my intelligence, and a waste of my time. Please don’t respond or you’ll get another kick on the face.
You flatter yourself by thinking I was addressing you or that I would care about your infantile remarks. Bye, bye.
"The only way to defeat Trump was to get onboard."
I think you are missing the point of the article. The problem isn't that Bernie got "onboard", the problem was HOW he got onboard -- how he failed the truth and joined in singing false narratives that he knew were false. His behavior in this regard was all the more shocking because of who he WAS; a person who had these very tactics used against him. I think you will find the same theme in Glenn's recent article on Ilhan Omar's defense of John Brennan. Things break down when principles are tossed aside. Bernie could have gotten "onboard" the Biden train without, to quote Glenn from the Omar article, "becom[ing] exactly what [he] started off believing [he was] fighting".
I think a lot people comment on Glenn's long articles without reading, understanding them or just not caring because they want to push their agenda.
Definetely don't read the whole thing before starting to troll
My point was, I don't think its been proven what direction Sanders will take in the future. In the big scheme of things, HOW he got on board may not be as relevant as WHY he got on board. DC politics seems to be a barter system, particularly in election cycles when everyone is jockeying for position under a new administration. I think it might be an error to conclude that Omar and Sanders have rolled over while compromising their integrity, when we have no way of knowing what's being negotiated behind closed doors. Maybe those glowing recommendations were part of the best deal they could negotiate. I could well be wrong, but I don't think that's proven yet.
" I think it might be an error to conclude that Omar and Sanders have rolled over while compromising their integrity, when we have no way of knowing what's being negotiated behind closed doors."
Well, this is just a personal opinion, but I don't care if they negotiated heaven itself behind closed doors in exchange for an intentional momentary lapse of integrity. Our willingness to compromise seems to lead inevitably to hollow victories (Obama's presidency comes to mind). I recommend reading Habid Dabashi's article "Why I will not vote for Joe Biden" https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/9/5/why-i-will-not-vote-for-joe-biden/
Compromise is part of governing outside of a dictatorship. I’m not convinced that it’s as sleazy as it looks
It is not "compromise" that is being discussed, it is "integrity". Engaging in deceitful gaslighting is not required in order to govern "outside of a dictatorship".
I think there is a difference between compromising and being compromised. If the best deal possible requires Sanders to speak as he has in public, to kowtow to the Democratic representatives of the "billionaire class" he once denounced, and continue to be willing to accept nothing discernible for us in "exchange" for his impassioned loyalty to them -- well, that hardly suggests that he has accomplished something for we the people, rather than simply for himself and the plutocrats that openly attacked him and whom he now considers his friends. All that may have succeeded in doing was keeping far too many progressives stubbornly loyal (at least to some degree) to the Democratic Party instead of efforts to build our own third party.
I understand that Sanders meant a lot to many progressives, and he gave many of us hope. It is very unsettling to consider that he could be beaten down and made to accept "the way it is," and to rationalize it as his making "deals" on our behalf.
I think we should face up to the evidence at hand: the only deal he made was one that made it less likely he will end up like Ralph Nader. And then face up to this fact: no single politician, let alone one who accepts any continued variation of the capitalist system, is going to guide us to a better world. That is going to take the collective choice and efforts of the 99%, and none of us are among the handful that Sanders works alongside every day.
The solution for "deep state" becoming an excuse for some people to believe whatever they want is certainly NOT an excuse for reasonable people to develop a habit of rejecting the raising of these issues without investigation and thought.
That's by definition becoming what you are professing to hate. I do enjoy the irony that so many live their lives without seeing that. In fact, sometimes they leave quite long comments detailing their myopia.
And some don't bother to read before they comment. It's the term "Deep State" that is the problem. Surely there is a better way to articulate people's concerns than always myopically relying on that term.
So every time a PR firm dirty bombs the use of a specific term it becomes radioactive and off-limits?
Where can I short the market for rational conversation?
I have an interesting observation on this front. A long time ago I read Dostoyevsky's "The Idiot". It's quite excellent and I recommend it. He obviously wrote in Russian, but the common English title translation was chosen long ago. I started thinking about it and did some research.
At that time, the term "idiot" was a polite clinical term for a person with mental disabilities. Then people started calling others "idiots" when their thinking was slow or in question, because they were comparing the person metaphorically to a truly mentally disabled person. In time, "idiot" became a common insult. The clinical term changed to recognize that, and a new polite term, "mental retardation" was selected. Over time, of course, because it's natural to metaphorically compare a person of typical intelligence to a truly mentally disabled person when they have errors in their thinking (especially if they have them quite often), the term "retarded" and the term "retard" came into common use. Then, of course, society switched the polite language again to say that the truly mentally disabled have a "mental disability". Now I'm sure that you will hear regularly between school aged kids when they gather: "what are you, mentally disabled or something?"
You can play with the polite language all you want, for whatever reason, but unless you're an idiot you see that it's a natural process for the next phrasing to be turned to the same uses and end with the same fate.
Ahh yes- the quotient craze of the 20th century. What a horrible chapter.
Arguments for decorum are the equivalent of begging for alms because you have no ideas to go home to.
So do you deny that when you hear the term "Deep State", you conclude that whatever comes next is discredited already in your mind? Because either you do that, and the problem is with your thinking, or you don't do that, and there's no problem at all.
Why can’t we just say MIIC to mean Military Industrial Intelligence Complex and leave it at that? Seems so much more accurate.
Note that there is precedence for this: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Military-industrial-congressional_complex#Military-industrial-intelligence_complex
Last point: MIIC is nice because it captures to ‘non-elected officials’ aspect without descending into the paranoid connotations of ‘deep state.’
Yes. That makes much more sense to me as a way to effectively articulate the ongoing problem. Thank you.
"But the slogans of Deep State, Fake News, and Rigged Elections are so vague, and so often used without any trustworthy journalism behind them,"
Those are views I generally share. (I also tune out rightwingers he spew out "SJWs," a snarl word that generally means people whose views on women and minorities they do not like.) But Greenwald went to pretty great pains in his article to explain the legitimacy of the "Deep State" concept, to wit:
>>That a Deep State lurks within and over the U.S. Government is now treated in establishment liberal circles as if it is some new right-wing conspiratorial concoction rather than what it is: a long-standing reality recognized long before Trump by political science scholarship, left-wing foreign policy critiques, and mainstream journalism.
This post-World-War-II truth of a U.S. Deep State entered mainstream discourse when Dwight Eisenhower used his 1961 Farewell Address to warn Americans that “in the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex” because, he said, “the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
The war hero and five-star General had seen the Deep State up close and personal during his two terms as a Cold War President — prior to its explosive growth during the Vietnam War and in the wake of the 9/11 attack — causing him to lament that “this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience” and “the total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government.”<<
For the "rigged election" term, Greenwald also cited to the leaked DNC emails and 5 subsequent resignations of those revealed to have been working to tank Bernie.
So, while I agree with you in general about the slipperiness of these terms, Greenwald explained his meaning with 2two of the three.
What you just wrote is word by word from a script, almost, that everyone reads aloud from whenever they describe the exact level of disillusionment and knowledge you currently are at, about the issues at hand. When you learn more and become more disillusioned, you realize what you just argued against is as well-documented as 2+2=4. Glenn is widely known for having a rare obsession with empiricism and rationality, almost to a fault. Trump and QAnon hijacked the term "the deep state" because it was useful while luring the protesters against the government on the right to donate money and vote for Trump. Like Glenn said, this term existed long before Trump discovered it. Are you going to stop using the alphabet because Trump uses it to disinform people? You think mostly wackos use the term because you, at your level of insight, aren't aware the most informed and respected part of the independent media on the left uses it.
Glenn has barely touched on how Bernie is a fraud, yet you react like a Hillary-supporter to it. Because you, at your level of disillusionment, haven't found it necessary to spend the time yet, for instance, trying to find out why Bernie's staff told him to go fuck himself and quit, some in tears, because he tried to start taking corporate donations like the rest of the Democrats. According to Nick Brana, one of the staffers, that scared him into changing his mind because he became, like Biden, of all people, pointed out, too scared people in general would see through him and loathe him as well. He didn't mind pointing that out because he considers Bernie a joke nobody with real power and connections has to take seriously. Noam Chomsky said that in our day and age, you only know as much as you find out spending your own time finding it out, because there is a media blackout on what's really going on. Applying empiricism and by never jumping to conclusions, you can navigate information without resorting to believing in falsehoods. Glenn has never been proven wrong in anything he has ever said, and he has the most critical, intellectually astute and knowlegdeable audience in the world. "Discredited slogans". It's a detriment to sentience you are forced, because of the amount of time you have spent - and nothing else - on politics, to live in the bubble where the media and the Democrats reside, in which that is true. As for rigged elections, I'm sure you're not aware the DNC was sued and they their strategy to get the case thrown of court out was saying, in court, they have the right to rig their own elections because they're a corporation, all while Bernie, as the victim, observed this from a distance keeping his mouth shut about it in order to keep his supporters loyal to this "corporation". Before you proceed on your path of attempting to understand what a corporate dictatorship you live in, take a step back, ask yourself out loud: "What is it that makes me think I know Bernie better than his own staff, who saw through him and couldn't stand being in the same room as him the rest of their lives? Who is responsible for deluding me in this way? Because it certainly didn't happen by my own effort". Feel free to ask me for sources, taped interviews of the staff, etc. Or you can react like a Hillary-supporter, it all depends on the configuration of your personal characteristics. Your strenghts and your weaknesses. That's what decided how much you know and understand now, that's what will decide how much you will know and understand in the future.
>politics makes strange bedfellows
That would've been valid to point out if Bernie had said and done and not said and not done 0.1% of what he stands accused of among people who have seen through him. If you're going to reply, and you're going to try to explain to me why "politics makes strange bedfellows" didn't convince Bernie's staff, you're either going to be the one making up conspiracy theories or you're going to display a personality disorder that allows you to think you have supernatural powers of observation. And no, I'm not resting my case on Bernie's staff. They make up one out of a thousand concrete reasons I don't have the time to bring up with you, reasons it's batshit insane to think Bernie is anything else than a liar and a fraud that even, amazingly, disgusts the most corporate of Democrats because they know what a "company man" he pathetically wants to be, while he fools his supporters into thinking he's a progressive. That is, if by progressive you mean someone who wants money out of politics. His reversal on that is what made his staff end their political careers immediately in order to not having to spend a single fucking minute more in the same room as him. Like I said, feel free to ask me for sources. I spent 1-2000 hours defending Bernie until I saw through him when his staff did, I have no motive to make anything up, not a single thing, not a single sentence.
You are addressing assertions Sharon never made. She never said that there is no "Deep State". All she said was that it is not a good idea to keep using that particular term to refer to it because it has been successfully hijacked into meaning "Pizzagate"! And she is correct!!!
Agreed!
Such a perfect example of controlled outrage. Preach baby; I got your back.
Ostrich Sharon bury thy head unto the sand!
Thom, that's a ridiculous and offensive comment. Derogatorily labeling people who question things differently than you do, never helps to lend credibility to your words. If I was an "ostrich" who was likely to bury my head in the sand, why would I even bother to pay to read Glenn's writings? I'm learning a lot from his writings and also from the comments of his followers -- most of whom seem to be really thinking.
Sharon, if you can’t stand the heat get the hell out of the kitchen. As it were.
I interpret that to mean you are one of those QAnon followers, right? Reply if you wish. I won't be. I have no intention of getting into an irrelevant argument on this thread. I came here to learn, not fight.
@Sharon: it's up to you whether you want to reply, but I often just skip those who try to get insulting while they don't have much to say and don't even know the English language much. (Seriously, "unto" the sand?)
RR you are one of those I am mocking and ridiculing ... mock and ridicule are *not* repeat *not* insults.
“No one can be offended or insulted *without their permission*” saith Eleanor Roosevelt unto thee and your gal pal Sharon ;)
Well said Sharon Kramer.
“The only way to defeat Trump was to get onboard. How do you know that once Biden takes office, Sanders won't return to his more left-leaning roots?”
We don’t know, but we can have our doubts.
But here’s a question that can be answered right now: How do you know the only way to defeat Trump was to get on board while ignoring more left-leaning roots?
Hi Doc. You asked "How do you know the only way to defeat Trump was to get on board while ignoring more left-leaning roots?" Because we have a two party system. Once Biden secured the Dem nomination, Sanders had three choices: 1. Back Biden 2. Back Trump 3. Back no one. Of those three choices it seems only logical that backing Biden was the most likely option to assure that Sanders had a viable position in DC after the elections. Was there another option that could have been better for him?
4. Back Biden in return for his support of universal health care, an economic stimulus for people, an end to endless wars, a living minimum wage, and/or student debt relief.
Sanders could have demanded something popular in return for his support.
Might well have happened. I'm not sure Sanders got much, but these deals are rarely open. (For instance, I got the impression during Obama's presidency that he named Clinton as Secretary of State in exchange for a promise that Clinton would later appoint him to SCOTUS, but that never came out so it wasn't confirmed.)
Yeah, that terrible choice. I donated to Bernie & Gabbard, but voted for Trump. B/c the system is broken. Bernie surrendered all his power willingly, not once, but twice. The Deep State can now ignore him b/c his movement no longer exists in any meaningful way.
Ah, another CIA troll posts here. Glen gets them a little nervous.
Does “Cabal” work for you?
Qanon could be maintained by the deep state to discredit anyone that questions. 🤪
Can anyone prove that a so-called Qanon movement is actually "a thing," that exists anywhere outside of the hysterical minds of NYT writers?
How would anyone go about proving this amorphous NYT claim anyway?
And how come no one who reads the NYT can figure out that the person who claims the existence of a vast invisible conspiracy is the one who is the "conspiracy theorist?"
Perhaps it is time we asked the NYT scribes to name the prominent QAnonists whose ideas are so threatening.
Which word would you instead replace it with that would more adequately denote those with power who are embedded in the system against the people's benefit? Would the "military-industrial complex" work better? Would the "one percent" work? Or would you rather completely ban any use of such a term?
Hi Dave, I don't know what a better short term to describe the underlying problem is. I just hate to see the term "deep state" attached to articles describing legitimate concerns about the roots of problems in U.S. gov't. Because the conspiracy theory nuts have taken ownership of that term, the rest of the words in a legitimate author's articles are automatically discounted in many readers' eyes via the association to that term. "Military-industrial-complex" doesn't seem to accurately encompass the problem either. Not all unethical decisions coming out of DC are tied to conflicted interests at the DOD (although many are!). "One percent" seems to lean too far to left. That's the battle cry of the down trodden against the elite and doesn't really denote gov't involvement in causing the problem.
It seems more like a troika to me: 1) Private Sector Lobbyists fueling the funding of 2) Elected Legislators to cause special interest acts by 3) Federal Agencies -- that are adverse to the public's best interest.
From my perspective, those seem to be the three elements needed to steer many Trojan horses into U.S. policies and practices under the guise of good government.
What term is more agreeable to you than "Deep State"?
Sanders is a nobody. This article is completely irrelevant
I've been reading Sharon's thread and found this gem. I agree w/your take. For me, you're either onboard w/ the concept of the existence of a Deep State as defined by Glenn & others or you're not. (That is the red/blue pill, right?) Now...if you are on board like you and me, seeing through the bs is so easy. I remember I took it during the 2016 primaries, reading the comments on Krugman's anti-Sanders pieces....
Saying scales fell from my eyes is the exact metaphor. My wife and I for weeks in 15, then 16 were both gobsmacked at the unending use of innuendo, deliberate falsehoods (chairs thrown at the convention) etc etc.
The only Dem candidate who stuck to their guns about this was pretty much sidelined from the jump. Yeah, Tulsi Gabbard just kept saying her truths calmly & clearly and today is an afterthought of a footnote in US Politics... and I can't blame her for bailing on Washington DC (she leaves Congress in Jan).
I am able to understand Sharon's reticence w/the terminology, though. It seems to me she's afraid that she'll be painted w/ the same brush that's used on the QAnon crowd. I know that I get that treatment.
But...isn't the truth the truth? I mean, sure, the post modern education of the last 15 (20?) years in University has landed on that there is no objective truth. For example, BION, there's a debate going on that 2+2 does not equal 4, but is rather a tool of oppression...
Didn't KellyAnne Conway coin the term 'alternative truths' even?
Sharon's objections point more to the fungability that's descended on language itself that's developed.
Back in the 60's, the term 'the establishment' was in vogue. It's a word. What ever happened to the phrase 'whaddya mean by that' being employed in discussion? Instead, we assume labels still work. They really don't, do they? Because they're so fungible nowadays.
I respect the hell out of Sharon's intellect. She defends her position well. I'm more saddened by the fact that her position is borne of fear. Fear of being mis-categorized by people who don't want to agree w/her (or Glenn).
But...that kind of shit is unsustainable. You can dismiss, mis-categorize, attack and slag all you want. The underlying truth is, in fact the truth. There is, in fact, a hidden loose association of neo-liberals and defense/intelligence and financial industry people who have common goals of maintaining power and enriching themselves. And will do anything to maintain their status quo. Their ideology is secondary; their desire to continue this current system is in itself the end goal. They will do and say whatever it takes to continue that. They've managed to weaken language to Orwellian proportions...
BUT...
2+2=4
The longer they're in power the worse it will be when the system eventually collapses.
Yep, exactly. It's not just the US. It's the whole of the Occidental world now. And yes, some days I want to kill myself.
sO mAnY oThEr CoLoRs!!!
His behavior now makes me question what the fuck he was playing at during the two primaries he ran in.
Yes. Especially when he raised almost half a billion from people who could least afford it.
Democratic socialist is an oxymoron. He can retire to the lake "cabin" to count his millions.
I'd like to imagine that someone has something on him. Something bad with pictures involved. For a lot of his career he seemed to fight the good fight, but now he seems to be a sheep dog. It makes me sad.
I think they threatened him. I do. But I am still angry at what he did. Makes me sad too.
I think it is pretty clear that in the age post Citizens United and McCutcheon, who controls the money within the party can control the party with an iron fist. That's why nobody dares cross Schumer or Pelosi in any way, and thus whatever the billionaire donors ask of those two is what the rest of the party falls behind. This consolidation behind the national security state, MIC and mainstream media as well places any democratic process within the Democratic party at the bottom tier of the agenda.
To survive within the totalitarian political parties you must prove your fealty by lying to you constituents and spreading propaganda, even propaganda you know will be used against you. Either you are on board with the Establishment/Deep State/Elite Class agenda, or you end up like Tulsi Gabbard, cut off at the knees, ignored, blacklisted and de-funded.
Since the Democratic Party is a dictatorship of billionaire donors and power security state interests, nothing democratic, that benefits the public in a meaningful way we will pass through it, nor can we expect any honesty or transparency over vital issues. Either we form a new party, or a new citizens assembly and scrap the House and Senate.
Outstanding -- a third party appears the only way but -- current (billionaire + deep state) dictatorship will do absolutely everything/anything to prevent it
I really do think we've reached a point of fracture. It's time for people vs. the state. Unravel the concentrations of power now or this is the beginning of the end.
While the true division of power lies along class lines, we're pretty well neutered by social issue divisions.
There isn't widespread homelessness, food shortages, or inability to access consumer good markets. Not sure how a 'revolution' will spark without those things.
I understand where you're coming from but I think it's going to get a lot worse, pretty quickly. In Europe, people are starting to realise that present conditions amount to the single worst attack on the working class in history.
How do you define "widespread?"
That's the crux of the issue. I'll be the first to admit that our safety net is woeful given the wealth and power or our collective society. I'm not trying to minimize the issues we face there.
My intuition tells me tthat the issue isn't so prevalent as to be politically destabilizing.
Which part? Kinda seems we’re already at the first phase. If I recall correctly, the military had to stage a coup to bring things back to ‘normal’ in Egypt. I’m not sure if I see an alternative here, either. We should never have let it come to this...
Bernie continues to be a huge disappointment to multi-millions of his supporters. By now he is a distant and hopeless apparition.
I do have a suggestion to Tulsi Gabbard, an exact opposite of Bernie's incompetence – from one of her numerous ardent admirers
Tulsi was a rising star at DNC in 2015 until she declared her support of democratic-socialist Bernie and was instantly “excommunicated”; soon Hillary brazenly proclaimed that Tulsi is a “Russian asset”
Now that Trump has defeated himself -- Tulsi could do an invaluable service to our country - to have a video conference (or three sequential) stating:
1. The entire (stupid and so dangerous) anti-Russian narrative and Ukraine impeachment “entertainment” were deliberate fabrications – the entire Democratic structure knew it from the start
2. Requesting a major investigation of chronic and deep corruption within DNC – starting with Biden-Hunter corruption
3. Announce that she will join a third party and hopefully become presidential candidate in 2024
Tulsi is as big a fraud as Bernie. She endorsed war monger Biden with high praise, was gutless and played the middle with her "present" vote on impeachment, and she's never called out Pelosi like all good Democrats. Her "noncommittal present stance" on important decisions in the Oval Office would have made her an ineffectual leader, and ultimately conforming to the establishment like Bernie and the rest of them. Your suggestions she will never do.
That's absolutely ridiculous. Tulsi's one statement about Biden (which I disagree with) was hardly "high praise".
*“Today, I’m suspending my presidential campaign, and offering my full support to Vice President Joe Biden in his quest to bring our country together,” she said in a video announcing her decision.*
That was it. She didn't urge her supporters to vote for Biden. She didn't campaign for Biden, at all. She didn't raise money for Biden or give her email list to Biden fundraisers. She certainly didn't repeat all sorts of Russiagate idiocy or make moronic statements about dictators and facism like Bernie has done all year.
She is the only one who spoke for Assange and Snowden, repeatedly. She's the only one who spoke against our genocidal sanctions, including trying to attach a sanctions-related amendment to the spending bill. She took massive heat by refusing to support impeachment with every other Democrat.
Nobody is perfect, including Tulsi, but you are either deluded, mentally deficient and/or entirely ignorant if you think she is anywhere near as fraudulent or gutless as Bernie Sanders.
You are very decisive and negative in your opinions. I have monitored her activity over the years -- all the resolutions and recommendations that I have seen were very good and timely.
Tulsi was a breath of fresh air and gives me some hope (oh boy,I am setting myself up again... 😩) that there are sane politicians still around. I hope she remains in politics following her departure from Congress. I don’t agree with her on some very important issues, but would consider voting for her in a presidential election. I only hope she can resist the corruption that has claimed so many of our leaders.
A great fantasy plot! You'd have a great future in Hollywood, if Hollywood had a future.
Bernie has the right policies and the moral core, but he has no killer instinct. For all his anti-establishment rhetoric, deep down he still wants to be liked by the same establishment that has been openly trying to destroy him and crush his movement. What the left needs is Bernie’s ideas and moral honesty, but combined with Trump’s killer instinct. And a new people’s party, not owned by billionaires/big corporations and the war machine.
Here is what we need: https://news.gab.com/2020/12/02/how-to-unify-the-american-populist-movement/
Glenn - Sanders does not run to be president. Sanders runs to raise money to support his lifestyle. Running for president is a great way to campaign to remain a senator, an office without term limits. Ron Paul had the same modus operandi at the other end of the bookshelf, and Rand is continuing the family business. Warren plays the same supporting role too. You get to build a national following, maintain a high profile, collect a stack of IOUs and project an undeserved moral leadership role. It makes running to keep the senator gig almost free.
If you make it to the White House, the best you get is one more campaign. Then irrelevance like Jimmy Carter, waiting for the tap on the shoulder like Bill Clinton, or the void of Sainthood (Obama). The Clintons complained about being broke after their term-limited career ended, and the Deep State has Epstein, amongst a wardrobe full of skeletons, to rattle should they ever step out of line.
Who needs the grief of winning, if you are a professional politician?
In the 2020 campaign Sanders' wife picked up 15% on all his ad spend. He flew for thousands of miles, and I bet Mrs Sanders ran his travel bookings on her Amex, with a % fee as well.
In 2016 Sanders was gifted a house. He's worth millions. Like Biden. On a senator's salary. Sanders did that by being in the swamp, scratching backs, running the tollbooth, campaigning but not quite winning the top gig. It's a performance. He plays the role of Bernie Sanders to perfection. And he can run again in 2024.
"Sanders runs to raise money to support his lifestyle....In 2016 Sanders was gifted a house. He's worth millions. "
That's a pile of bullshit. I'm as angry and disappointed in Bernie as is anyone, but that is all garbage on stilts.
His "lifestyle"? Bernie didn't have $2 million worth until his 70s when he published his policy book in 2016, subsequent to the election. And that house was inherited by his wife, a phenomenon that happens thousands of times a week in this country.
No evidence exists that he and his wife's political activism has been motivated by greed.
Apart from betraying his base, twice, you mean?
"Betraying his base" is not evidence of greed. Bernie is too fucking nice, and, as noted by many, including some here, he lacks a killer instinct. He has said he genuinely considers Joe Biden a friend, which makes me want to retch.
He seems to find it impossible to justly attack people he's gotten to know. But that lifelong trait has hardly gotten him rich.
I appreciate your perspective, I just disagree with it.
I think you pay too much attention to what a lifelong politician says, and give too little weight to what he does.
I've not met him so I don't know how "nice" he is. Have you? I doubt any of the people writing that about him have either. I've also had people be nice to me because they wanted something from me but they weren't nice people.
I don't call betraying your base, twice, "nice" - but I suppose I'm just strange that way.
"I've not met him so I don't know how 'nice' he is. Have you? I doubt any of the people writing that about him have either. I've also had people be nice to me because they wanted something from me but they weren't nice people."
I've met him before. He held a townhall-meeting in my small town of 1100 people. He was legitimately curious about the issues that we were facing. He didn't have anybody thrown out of the meeting. He explained his positions and motivations for them when asked. I was given the opportunity to raise a question about rx drug pricing. He wrote me a letter a couple weeks afterwards to give me more information about the various ongoing initiatives in DC to control prescription drug prices.
Nice isn't the correct word. He was respectful and genuinely curious as to the needs of his constituents. After living in many states, I've yet to meet another federal representative that is willing to do that. When's the last time you've talked to your senator at a local town hall meeting?
Sure, I feel a bit betrayed, but it's undeniable that Bernie's campaigns elevated the legitimacy of certain policies like medicare for all. It's not a complete loss. I really think he deserves respect for what he has achieved against a deeply entrenched power structure, even if it was wasn't a complete success.
" I just disagree with it."
Then you disagree with facts; no evidence exists that Bernie and Jane Sanders spent the last 4 decades practicing a politics motivated by *greed*; they have not become wealthy like the vast majority of the DC pigs feeding at the trough.
As for your inapposite pondering on Bernie being "nice," it's been widely noted that he simply does not have, as I said, a killer instinct. You may take that to be what I mean when observing that he is "too fucking nice."
What?
You mean there's no possible alternative than that he is so fucking nice that he couldn't face down his own party but he could betray tens of millions of voters? Twice.
I think I'm not the one with the reality problem in this conversation, sister.
One possible alternative theory: maybe he's just not as good at it as the others? That would also fit the facts, wouldn't it?
(So, you haven't met him?)
I'm with you. I think people underestimate the extent to which someone like Bernie who cares feels pained at being blamed for the election of Trump--even if he deserves no blame.
To go through that again; I don't think he was willing. Rather than blame him, why not some of the hundreds of other chicken shit democrats who could stand up to big money but do not do so.
What is it that Bernie "cares" about? Returning to big wars everywhere? Big credit card security? Locking up "super-predators?" Tara Reade's complaint locked securely at the University of Delaware? "Billionaires should not exist" except for George Soros, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Mike Bloomberg? Bernie knows his "place" and is very happy there.
Wow, if you grade Bernie an F, where can you go for the rest of them? He's no perfect (who is?) but failing to recognize that he exists within a fucked up system that fucks him over, and treating him as if he is akin to the corporatist democrats is of course one option.
but, imo, corporatism, corruption, and complicity with money machines exists on a continuum. Bernie gets a B- compared to Biden's F--and that distinction matters, a lot, imo.
But, if you think differently. Run for office. He's made it farther than anyone else on these issues. He gambled that they would compromise or allow him to set the agenda if he didn't contest. the outstanding question is: did he shift the Dems meaningfully to the left. I'm not sure. Are you sure he hasn't?
No, Mona. He was gifted the money by the DNC to buy a home, after he sucked it up for Hillary. They have several homes. You're thinking of another home. His wife has been taking the 15% advertising agency cut for his ad spend - check it out. Publicly available. They set up the ad buy business specifically to skim the commission. Was it his wife that screwed over that college? I'm sure they have the highest of ideals, Mona, but they have come out on the winning side.
I'll bite. Evidence?
Old Towne Media
What? The Blaze was too busy?
Not sure I get your drift, Pete. I'm not a fan of Cary Katz nor of that lachrymose guy he bailed out.
You make some interesting points until your final paragraph when you go off the rails talking about Bernie's house, wealth and 2024 presidential run.
Very kind of you, Chris. I suspect that you missed the point, but that's OK.
It's hard to coherently sum up your point. I see it often in the comments.
Sanders once attacked “millionaires and billionaires.” Sometime around 2017, he dropped the millionaire part from his criticisms. That’s when he was bought and paid for. He was once an important, anti-establishment voice. Now he’s nothing but a weak sellout traitor to his own cause.
Bernie is a cuck.
Short and to the point. I like it.
Bernie Sanders has been around Burlington, Vermont for decades. I’m just surprised so many people took him seriously as time has shown that he’s a talker and not into doing any heavy-lifting. Bernie and his grifter wife have become millionaires with substantial properties, cash assets, and retirement systems, I will give them that, though. His form of traveling evangelism has served him well.
"Bernie Sanders has been around Burlington, Vermont for decades. "
Well, yes, and was elected mayor three times and cited by TIME magazine as one of the ten best mayors in the nation.
"Bernie and his grifter wife have become millionaires"
About 2 million, only recently, and only because of his book sales for the tome he wrote after the 2016 election, setting forth his policy positions.
No evidence exists that he and his wife have ever been motivated by money.
I could write for an entire week about why you're wrong. Instead I'll spend a minute. Bernie's own staff told him to go fuck himself and quit, some in tears, because he tried to take corporate donations and siphon off a percentage through a secret firm bying TV ads, which would land him tens of millions. I bet you don't know about that, I bet you don't know how furious his staff still is because of that. I also don't think you are aware he tried to sell 30 min VHS audio tapes about socialism for 700 dollars for each cassette (adjusted for 2020 dollars). He didn't sell any because he's a greedy moron and he was a nobody trying to hustle a buck out of socialism at the time, he hadn't realized what kind of money he'd earn becoming a mayor of Burlington yet, which was within his reach because Vermont is uniquely progressives compared to the rest of the US. "I'm the one who had to tell him, you can't do that [take corporate donations], people will see through you, man". - Biden, the one time he said something true. The one time Hillary said something true, was when she said nobody in Congress likes Bernie [because] he's a fraud and a career politician intentionally scamming his supporters. I got tons examples of Bernie trying to hustle money out of his political engagement, doing that and getting powerful friends in the party is the only motivation he's EVER HAD. If this is hard to wrap your head around, which I bet it is, try to understand that you're a human being, you're a small degree from an ape and a small degree from a Hillary supporter: Common for apes, you and Hillary supporters, is that you live in a world where there is no functioning media. You either have to spend an ocean of time finding things out for yourself, or you don't know anything. That was a quote by Chomsky, by the way.
How much of those millions did he donate to the cause, Comrade? And, how much did he devote to buying up houses like a real-life monopoly game? Which, is basically what Donald Trump did, just far more successfully, and not while being a public servant. It’s funny how the Trump people basically accept his numerous flaws, mainly don’t deny them, and say “he’s good for the country, and therefore we like him anyway!”. While the typical Bernie sycophant must stop at nothing to preserve his untarnished image, as though he were Big Brother himself.
Oh, please.
aren't you describing Killery and Bill here? They are the true grifters and multi multi millionaires. the only heavy lifting Bill did was give the repugs everything they couldn't get on their own? Are they two of the best repugs in the dim party? And they have real bulldogs/trolls like Tanden to stand up for them, withthe support of the deep state who does love wars very very much - as do Bill and Killery.
I appreciate that the Clintons are in a league of their own, the Sanders are small town compared to them.
I concede you may be correct about Jane as small town grifter but I don't think Sanders is/was ever smart enough to be that. His fatal flaw in DC.
"Killery". Jeeeezzzzz.
Unfortunately Bernie has always been a spineless Democratic party sycophant who spouted some good rhetoric while supporting all the worst machination of the DC establishment - the original AOC.
One of the worst examples of this behavior by Bernie was 10 years ago, when he struck an agreement with Ron Paul to introduce into the Senate a real audit of the FED, which would, for the first time, give the people a look behind the financial curtain. At the 13th hour, Bernie broke his pledge and capitulated to Obama, Chris Dodd and the banks by modifying the bill to allow them to maintain their cloak of secrecy.
Any doubts that remained about Bernie should have been snuffed out in 2016 after his own party rigged the primary against him and shit all over him, but he still went out to campaign for Hillary Clinton.
How can anyone expect a guy who won't stand up for himself to stand up for you?
I could easily write for a few weeks pausing only to sleep and eat, about the reasons Bernie is and has always been, his whole life, a raging fraud, a sinister, lying, creepy, greedy, neurotic little scumbag weasel. Part of the reason I haven't done so yet is because I've been constantly postponing the job of sorting approx. 10 000 bookmarks about US politics. I spent somewhere between a 1000 and 2000 hours defending him during the 2016 primaries. I finally saw through him when his own staff did, when they (except a few who couldn't afford to quit their day job) told him to go fuck himself and quit, some in tears, the fall of 2016. I started an unbelievable tumble down a rabbit hole into a world I was almost alone in until Jimmy Dore showed up there after I (and a few others) had bombarded him for a long time with probably less than a percent of what there is to know about Bernie to realize he's not weak or afraid or playing 4D chess, he's a hustler and a fraud and he's completely aware of it and so is in large part the Democratic Party, especially Hillary, Biden and Obama. Though Bernie has achieved what he wanted to achieve and probably won't run for president in 2024, it's vital people find out the things there are to know about him in order to be equipped to identify the Bernie Cult 2.0 (and future versions), which is headed by AOC and the squad, which will have the same amount of impact on the Democratic party as the first one, which was at best none, but in reality, it pushed it to the right by helping cover up how far to the right they really are and instilling a fear into them what would happen if they in any way showed any kind of of willingness to compromise with rationality and decency. According to a study referred to by the WSJ, 70% of Americans are furious with both parties. They're fine with that,but they're not fine with giving those voters an option to do something about it, a candidate to vote for they don't control. So far, based on how AOC votes in Congress, she's 5.2% a progressive and 94.8% Nancy Pelosi. Based on what she says, she's a wonderful new Bernie Sanders and a victory for women. I'm gonna stop writing now, for now. I'm gonna start sorting my bookmarks instead.
Big accusations. Sounds like you should write a book, or maybe start your own substack?
Idk, "his whole life, a raging fraud, a sinister, lying, creepy, greedy, neurotic little scumbag weasel," is a pretty charged statement. You mention nothing in your post to back it up. You don't really mention anything about the guy other than you worked on his campaign. Maybe if you had focused on a single example that displayed fraud or any of the other descriptors you use, I'd be enlightened a bit more about the guy. Otherwise, it's easy to discount everything you say.
Sorry it took a while before I got back to you about this, I've been too busy for my own good.
Democracy Now interview with the head staffer, Claire Sandberg, and the corporate fire extinguisher Bernie and (his best friend) Jeff Weaver sent off to smile and lie about what happened:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgLyFrQYu0s
A lengthy interview about what happened with another staff member, Nick Brana, by Jimmy Dore:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUm8VRa1IhQ
“I’m the guy that told [Bernie], you shouldn’t accept any money from a super-PAC, because people can’t possibly trust you" - Biden
"Nobody [in Congress] likes him [Bernie], it's amazing he's managed to fool all his supporters into thinking he's not a career politician" - Hillary the one time she told the truth
Bernie's official reply to that, as head of the progressive movement and a presidential candidate with the largest morale responsibility bestowed on a single human being to do his best in the history of politics on Earth: "Not even my wife likes me, but gee I gotta go now, I'm in a hurry, bye!".
I wrote more about my own trauma than Bernie, that's true, I didn't try to back up what I said outside a single reference to when his own staff told him to go fuck himself and quit, some in tears. They were disgusted by him to the extent they considered immediately ending their political careers and income an acceptable way to avoid having to be anywhere near him because they considered him a fraud and a grifter, which is not a small accusation when it comes to the future of 320 million Americans, and in many ways, the future of the world. That's that one example you're asking for. I assume you haven't heard about it, or consider money in politics an important issue, since you don't consider it something that backs up what I said.
What was the fraud and grift? What did he do that caused an emotional reaction from his staff. Did any of that get documented by people that were there? Did anybody write about their experiences? You still aren't saying much of anything. Were you there? Surely there's more to the story than you're letting on.
Sorry it took a while before I got back to you about this, I've been too busy for my own good.
Democracy Now interview with the head staffer, Claire Sandberg, and the corporate fire extinguisher Bernie and (his best friend) Jeff Weaver sent off to smile and lie about what happened:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgLyFrQYu0s
A lengthy interview about what happened with another staff member, Nick Brana, by Jimmy Dore:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUm8VRa1IhQ
“I’m the guy that told [Bernie], you shouldn’t accept any money from a super-PAC, because people can’t possibly trust you" - Biden
"Nobody [in Congress] likes him [Bernie], it's amazing he's managed to fool all his supporters into thinking he's not a career politician" - Hillary the one time she told the truth
Bernie's official reply to that, as head of the progressive movement and a presidential candidate with the largest morale responsibility bestowed on a single human being to do his best in the history of politics on Earth: "Not even my wife likes me, but gee I gotta go now, I'm in a hurry, bye!".
I wonder though how much the Russia smears really contributed to his loss. I’m sure it factored a little bit and I think Sanders handled it poorly by dignifying it instead of attacking it as farce. But despite the 24/7 media frenzy on Russia for many years, I think I recall seeing primary polling showing it as a low priority among most voters. I could be wrong though so if anyone disagrees please chime in.