Bernie Sanders wins New Hampshire / people waking up?

Heather

Heather

Dagobah Resident
I don't know whether Sanders has been much talked about here, but certainly nine months ago when he started campaigning it seemed unlikely that he'd get this far. What is interesting to me about Sanders is that in waging a war against the top one percent and focusing on concrete ways to do that, including taxing Wall Street transactions.. (now that's gotta' hurt).. it's in a sense non-ideological, which to me is a good thing. And he's been mounting such an offense for years, so this isn't new stuff he's dreamed up to catch up with the spirit of the times. Instead, the spirit of the times has caught up with his approach.

Anyway, I'm posting this Keiser Report show.. (brought to us by RT, of course).. since I think these two (Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert) are very helpful in demystifying the "smoke and mirrors" utilized by the financial sector and its pundits. Sanders is mentioned, but more importantly there's a nice critique of Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs' CEO.. (who, by the way, calls Bernie Sanders the most dangerous person in America right now).. (you might say Mr. Blankfein is "feelin' the Bern," as the campaign slogan goes). This report also covers how threatened these financial entities such as Goldman are concerning Podemos Spain. As Keiser points out as well, by simply calling these kleptocrats out on "law and order" terms (Keiser characterizes Goldman as a "serial law breaker") there are serious gains to be made for the 99%.

.. one reason I'm bringing all this up is that there is much here to suggest that people are waking up all across this beleaguered planet. The success of the Podemos party in Spain (as here discussed) echo the attempt at such initiatives in Greece. And the unprecedented popularity of Sanders suggest that people are finally understanding just how the commonwealth is being stolen and by whom. Interesting too how Hillary Clinton has had to revise her agenda to try to "seem" to address issues that Sanders is tackling, but as is pointed out in this program, in actuality she's promised to stop this banker bashing in her inordinately well paid for speech (by Goldman, I believe it is) when speaking to the financial sector.

.. so.. if "waking up" is part of the grand scheme of things at this point, I suggest these are definite signs:

 
Bernie Sanders has some good ideas on what to change from a domestic standpoint. But he's just as hawkish as Clinton and others.

http://www.sott.net/article/302404-Bernie-Sanders-A-radical-on-economic-policy-but-a-pussycat-for-Israel
http://www.sott.net/article/302535-What-liberals-probably-dont-know-about-war-monger-Bernie-Sanders
http://www.sott.net/article/299117-Chris-Hedges-on-Bernie-Sanders-role-within-the-corporate-Democrats
http://www.sott.net/article/306068-Viva-Viggo-Mortensen-Bernie-Sanders-just-as-hawkish-as-Hillary-Clinton
http://www.sott.net/article/299774-Bernie-Sanders-Dr-King-and-Bernies-support-of-US-military-imperialism

He toes the line when it comes to remarks about countries the Empire wants to control:

"Please don't suggest that I think we normalize relations with Tehran tomorrow. We don't," Sanders retorted. "They are a sponsor of terrorism around the world and we have to address that.
Click to expand...

What the president is trying to do is to thread a very difficult needle. He's trying to defeat ISIS. He's trying to get rid of this horrendous dictator, Assad.
Click to expand...

As is pointed out in a few articles linked above, Sanders calls for expensive social programs, which are desperately needed, without discussing the elephant in the room, that is how the United States' gargantuan war budget devours more than half of the nation's federal discretionary spending. Bernie can't do all of what he says he wants to do without cutting military spending, something he has not mentioned as far as I'm aware.

To me it's not that different than what people thought in '08 with Obama and his 'Change' campaign. People feel completely left behind and dismissed by the elites in power, so the elites occasionally drop in people like Obama and Sanders to quell the unrest, while nothing really changes when it comes to American imperial designs and actions. Sanders is merely the controlled opposition, a way to get people to feel like there's finally someone who'll be in power that will do something different. Have any of them learned the lessons of the past? If someone becomes president, they are going to do what they are told. Bernie might be doing a good campaign job by focusing on domestic issues, but I don't see his rise within the Democratic Party as any sign of progress or people waking up. Just another politician who says a lot of nice things to get in to power. I really hope to be wrong about that, but I do feel like people are just setting themselves up to be let down by being excited about this guy. If he's not going to stop US wars against innocent people around the world, what's the difference what else he's going to do? Everything else flows from that, IMO.
 
Palinurus, I'll do a search next time before I post. If I didn't this time, well, I sometimes get sidetracked with trying to catch up on things.. so much so, that I never post anything!

Beau, I've not researched Sanders foreign policy yet, although I've heard about the hawkishness. I'll check out your links. Domestically, I wouldn't compare him to Obama, though, who was hired to bail out Wall Street, not have Wall Street bail out the middle class!

Anyway, if the 99% are at least waking up to the maneuvering of the kleptocracy that's a start. But, I agree, Sanders has made no move to equate the war machine with the squeeze on everything else the government is supposed to be providing -- an overall scheme in play for decades now. So, in a larger sense, the PTB are allowing this voice to be heard to assuage the hurting (if not disappearing) middle class. Still, to go after entities such as Goldman Sachs is not small potatoes either.

.. I suppose, in the realm of what's possible in this country right now, to have someone attempting to right things domestically is not the worst thing that could happen.

.. and, yeah, to dismantle the war machine.. well.. it would be quite something for someone to come along with that on their agenda--and be given a platform, that is.

.. I wrote something a while back about "the Man" and his wars.. (speaking of Vietnam in that instance).. how that is what's paramount. Period.
 
Heather said:
Beau, I've not researched Sanders foreign policy yet, although I've heard about the hawkishness. I'll check out your links.
Click to expand...

Essentially, Sanders' progressiveness stops at the border. If you're going to believe in a politician, really the first thing you should research is his foreign policy. Sanders is all about continuing to enable American imperial ambitions.
 
Beau, to me it's about what lens one is using.

It's not that I don't agree with what you are saying. But my more pragmatic side would like to see Sanders take on the large corporations, banks, etc. -- and Washington's complicity in their egregious actions.. as well as the other domestic initiatives he's proposed.

The problem with going after the war machine takes us back to 9/11 at the very least. That was the test as to whether we had anything left of a real left in this country, or whether it truly was infiltrated and largely decapitated. Alas, the latter was the case. But if those speaking for the left -- Noam Chomsky, among many others -- had joined forces to take on 9/11 AT THE TIME.. (and I don't mean synthetic, divisive talking pieces like Alex Jones).. then we might be in a far different position today. But because they didn't it demonstrates the degree to which the left was co-opted.

Bleh.

Well, Sanders at least wants countries like Saudi Arabia to share the burden economically and "soldiers on the ground" wise -- which of course isn't the same as stopping the whole mess.

.. stopping the whole mess would likely lead to assassination for the one proposing it, if the 60's is any kind of barometer.

So, what do you propose? Realistically speaking?

.. thematically, there could arise an anti-war movement. As I recall a key reason why Martin Luther King (for example) was killed was his equating the war in Vietnam with poverty at home. A similar conversation could take place, but the stakes are the same. And infiltration of such a movement by sophisticated, mind altering means is highly refined at this point.

.. but, is that what you think should happen?
 
On the other hand, regarding foreign policy

- It's possible that he realizes that with so many in the public are so paranoid about "terrorists coming to get them", it would be fruitless to address that issue more specifically at this time. Perhaps, if economic change can be addressed, and people begin to feel more secure in being able to afford to live, they can calm down enough to think more rationally about foreign policy.

- He has sometimes voted for war and sometimes not. He seems to try to assess the validity of the need and perhaps sometimes gets it wrong. Perhaps he falls for some of the propaganda at times and really believes the storyline at those times. I don't know, but everything I've seen, he seems genuine. He does not seem to have a personal agenda beyond wanting a better world for his grandchildren...and everyone else's, too. I do not see him seeking fame or riches for himself.

Perhaps, I am delusional, but I will be voting for him. I had given up voting in 2012 - it was the first presidential election I had not voted in since I reached voting age. If he does not get the nomination, I will either write him in or stay home. I have not yet decided.
 
.. also, he DID vote against going to Iraq.

.. I mean.. how many others did that?? It was a frightening time, they all felt to have a gun pointed to their heads, and in many respects they did. And yet Sanders voted against it.
 
Heather, you're not going to hear us endorse anyone in the US elections, nor suggest solutions for solving the country's problems, however I would say that Sanders' relative success thus far is a 'sign of the times' insofar as it's symptomatic of just how bad things have gotten in the US and how unhappy (most?) ordinary Americans are.

I hope you're not considering voting for Sanders in the hope that he will actually live up to his promises, are you?

Obama in '08 was every bit as anti-establishment!
 
Well, for one thing, Sanders has been around for a very long time, and his approach to domestic/economic matters is consistent. Obama was plucked from the stratosphere (as far as I can tell) and placed here to serve corporate America.

.. on the other hand.. (as far as Obama is concerned).. I remember hearing some fairly obscure black leaders on the left -- very intelligent, I might add -- who felt that having Obama in office, in part because of his being black, but for other reasons as well -- but, they felt it would give them a mandate to continue with their work. I don't know what they would say now, but my point is that there are nuanced reasons sometimes to vote as one does.

When I say it depends what lens one is using that should tell you a lot. I can fold my arms and say forget it, it's useless, I'm not voting. And maybe that's what it will come down to. But if one is looking to make even small gains that could make a difference to a lot of Americans then that might be a reason for voting for Sanders. Like FireShadow, I don't think he's all "smoke and mirrors," in other words.
 
Niall said:
Heather, you're not going to hear us endorse anyone in the US elections, nor suggest solutions for solving the country's problems, however I would say that Sanders' relative success thus far is a 'sign of the times' insofar as it's symptomatic of just how bad things have gotten in the US and how unhappy (most?) ordinary Americans are.
Click to expand...

I think that is a good policy. And I agree, it is a sign of how bad things have gotten and how unhappy most Americans have become.

Niall said:
I hope you're not considering voting for Sanders in the hope that he will actually live up to his promises, are you?

Obama in '08 was every bit as anti-establishment!
Click to expand...

Bernie does not seem to be making promises. He is saying that we the people must come together to make changes happen. By becoming more active in the political process. I have not yet heard Bernie say that HE would be the one to get all this done himself. He talks about inspiring a political revolution, not winning the presidency. All the commentary from his supporters that I read tells me that they understand this. They are not expecting to elect him and sit back and wait for him to make it happen for them. To me, this does seem different from "politics as usual".

Also as Heather pointed out, Obama came from out of nowhere. I had never heard of him before. As it turns out, he only seemed to be anti-establishment. Oh, I wanted to believe in Obama (early on), but when I saw that one of his advisers was Zbigniew Brzezinski, I realized that Obama was hooked into the machine. As far as I know, Bernie is not. And, I have (loosely) followed Bernie's work in the Senate for several years. He seems to have been consistently fighting for the common folk as opposed to the elites.

There are of course several things I disagree with him on, but I gave up finding a "perfect" human a long time ago. The bottom line for me is that he seems rational, compassionate, and honest. Even his opponents agree that Bernie is honest. Frankly, I find that refreshing in politics. So, like I mentioned. I will vote for him. But, I do not expect him to be the answer to all my prayers.

Either he will win and his supporters will continue to push for the changes we want,
Or, he will win and his supporters will lose steam,
Or, he will lose and it will all return to business as usual.

However, if he loses and his supporters suspect foul play, there could be riots. I also realize that if he wins, there could indeed be "foul play"...JFK, MLK, RFK, etc...

Interesting times indeed! While I will be voting for him, I am also quite curious to see how it all plays out. I am finding the whole process to be quite interesting. Perhaps in the end, it will just be one big lesson for everyone.
 
Heather said:
I don't think he's all "smoke and mirrors," in other words.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the US Presidential Election IS smoke and mirrors. The one who "wins" will be the one chosen by the elite to best serve their needs and desires. I think voting in local elections can make very, very small differences on that scale, but personally, from what I've seen and read, the presidential race is a dog and pony show to convince the public they still have a voice on that larger scale.

Personally I think Hillary will be chosen, and she'll be hailed as the first female president and a bastion of women's rights, while at the same time increasing the evil actions of empire around the globe. People will love it though - "First a black man and now a woman!? The U.S. is so progressive now!" And all the time they will ignore the ever increasing number of innocent deaths caused by the U.S. overseas.

My 2 cents...
 
.. I was just about to edit my post to: I don't think he's ALL smoke and mirrors!

.. but, yeah, I do understand your points, and I made mine above.
 
Jonathan said:
Heather said:
I don't think he's all "smoke and mirrors," in other words.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the US Presidential Election IS smoke and mirrors. The one who "wins" will be the one chosen by the elite to best serve their needs and desires. I think voting in local elections can make very, very small differences on that scale, but personally, from what I've seen and read, the presidential race is a dog and pony show to convince the public they still have a voice on that larger scale.

Personally I think Hillary will be chosen, and she'll be hailed as the first female president and a bastion of women's rights, while at the same time increasing the evil actions of empire around the globe. People will love it though - "First a black man and now a woman!? The U.S. is so progressive now!" And all the time they will ignore the ever increasing number of innocent deaths caused by the U.S. overseas.

My 2 cents...
Click to expand...

LOL! That is what is making this all so interesting! Pretty much most of Bernie's supporters know the system is rigged. That is why so many have said that if Bernie does not get the nomination, they will NOT vote for Hillary in spite of the constant admonitions by establishment democrats that we MUST beat the Republicans at any cost and that if she gets the nomination we should all support her. For a long time, I was wondering why the elites let Bernie go as far as he has. One of my concerns was that they were hoping to build up the Democratic base with his supporters and then somehow turn them into Hillary supporters. But, the Bernie supporters (many of them independents) are not falling for that one.

Hillary is looking "panicked" because it is supposed to be "her turn" and I have seen her do some serious "backpedaling" and make some attempts to "smear" him as Bernie has overtaken her. I am just waiting to see what kind of really dirty tricks she will pull next or will have pulled on her behalf.
 
I think it’s probably true that Bernie Sanders is not smoke and mirrors at this point, but, unfortunately, the process of election is. I think the PTB sit back and watch the show, see which candidates gain favor, and they make their choice from there, keeping up the façade for those of us who still believe we choose our president. Even if a candidate doesn’t know the real score beforehand, they will get that memo soon enough after taking office. And if by chance they still choose to disregard the reality that the president is merely a figurehead, a mascot, and has no real say in what goes down......well, history has shown that is not an option with a favorable outcome. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom