What if Bernie had run in 2016?

I think he would have won. After all, he represents a state which is a historically red state. However, despite what Fox News tells you, The Democratic party is in no way "left wing". They preferred to lose with Clinton than win with Sanders.

After all, he is  a threat to the big donors for the duopoly.

Trump isn't.

Owen Jones on why Joe Biden Is a terrible choice.

I don't totally agree with him, but he has quite a few good points.



The only real choice if you don't like the duopoly candidates is Jill Stein. She is on enough ballots to get the 270 votes needed to win the electoral college.

And stop blaming the Russians, unless the DNC is run by Russians.

Congressman Makes HUGE Admission About Bernie's 2020 Primaries

OK, we now have it out in the open what we guessed happened all along: Sanders was going to win the nomination. So, the Democrats circle their wagons and run two of the worst possible candidates. Of course, they "won" the nomination if you really want to believe that. But doesn't it stink that the DNC that year was VIRTUAL??? I mean an unpopular candidate somehow manages to beat a popular one.

REALLY?

No, vote blue no matter who and get someone who belongs in a memory care unit, not the white house. It's time to look to another party that really represents the people.

As I said, I Demexited in 2016 because the Democrats became too obvious that they don't want to represent me.

And, elections are rigged in the US. The primaries being a really glarring example of it. The US needs to stop funding private elections with public money.

Let me repeat, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS NOT A PARTY OF THE LEFT!!!!!!

How Do You Do, Fellow Progressives?

That should be obvious by now, but they prefer to run candidates of questionable ability: even if that means losing to Trump.

It's been nearly two weeks and Dementia Joe is still the Democratic candidate for president: despite it being REALLY obvious that he isn't fit for the job.

He wasn't in 2020. In fact, both Biden and Harris were weak candidates who somehow managed to defeat a popular candidate from the "left".

Bernie Sanders.

The thing is that Bernie Sanders represents a solidly Red state, with the possible exception of Burlington. In fact, a Sanders candidacy would have shaken the US political landscape quite drastically. But he was suppressed for good reason if you want to keep the joke that is the US political system.

And despite what Fox News and their ilk will tell you, the Democrats are not a party of the left. Otherwise, they would have run Sanders. But the Democrats have a long history of making sure candidates like Sanders don't win (look up Henry Wallace).

There's a reason that "Hot button" issues are the ones being discussed rather than the real issues facing the United States country. This means that pretty much anyone who sides with the Democratic party doesn't have a lot of support from me.

And they are not what I consider to be true progressives.

Because voting "blue no matter who" is what led to this mess.

George Monbiot EXPOSES Keir Starmer’s Hollow Victory

OK, this is concerns British politics, but it relates to the rise of the "right". Especially since he talks about "Killer Clowns", which is embodied in the United States by someone like Donald Trump (ici par Marine LePen).

The problem was that the Dems could have run Bernie Sanders who is lefty, yet represents a solidly red state, who would have brought a kind of left wing politics. But Bernie is hardly left outside of the United States.


The real takeaway is that the same lesson can be learned in the United States.

And some Jonathan Pie, who I pretty much forgot about post-Brexit.

No Scandal for Joe Biden???

As someone who has been asking about Hunter's laptop for some time, I know that Joe is as slimey, if not more so than Trump (disclaimer: my cousin uses the same computer repair company for his business).

Trust me, we would have two candidates with felony charges if Biden didn't have dementia. That makes any comment about Trumps being a "man of his convictions" seem ridiculous.

"Trump is a convicted felon..."
"Yeah, well, Biden probably would be as well if he didn't have dementia..."

Jaysus, and you wonder why I am voting for the only third party candidate who stands a chance of winning?

How the media turned on Biden

Actually, it was obvious in 2020. I want to write about how rigged US politics happens to be, but Biden "beating" Sanders in the 2020 Democratic primary was a case in point. The "Hidin' Biden" thing came from the liberal media because Biden wasn't doing interviews with even friendly pundits.

Sorry, right wing media, but the Democrats are in no way a party of the "left". They went with Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020. They would rather lose with candidates like these than run someone like Bernie Sanders.

And Sanders is pretty moderate if one leaves the US.

The exact moment Biden lost the debate | About That

From the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Just remember, if you want a real opposing opinion, you need to leave the United States.

And I suggest you vote Green if you don't like Trump.

Kings and Queens

I was thinking that the current national anthem of Great Britain, and a few other places, is no longer "God Save the Queen" since the Queen died. It is now "God Save the King". But that thought has me thinking in truly republican terms: since the only real difference between a republic and democracy is that the republic doesn't have nobility.

That means a democratic monarchy can have a hereditary head of state who can be totally out of it, which in the case of Britain was King George III. Republics can have out of touch heads of state as well. Case in point: the United States for most of this century.

The truth of the matter is that the US Constitution was a waste of time and paper since the reality is that it is meaningless. Most people have no idea what it means. Toss in that there are dangerous sections which have been misinterpreted to the detriment of public safety. Yet, the Judges did not say this was a case of desuetude, but reinterpreted the constitution.

The reality is that there will not be a bloody civil war between parliamentarians and those who wish to keep the old system in the US as happened in the Commonwealth period under Cromwell. It may be more of a Glorious Revolution where the people make the changes from the bottom up.

Having idiots and  lunatics as leaders has shown that the executive is pretty much a ceremonial post, the way having a King, Queen, Duke, Duchess, or other ceremonial leader is in a monarchy. The real power is in the legislature. And, as Tip O'Neill said, "all politics is local".

The way to really get change is to elect local legislators who are committed to change.

And the documentation will follow.

The only way to break the duopoly is to vote for a viable third party

No, the "democratic" party is in no way a party of the left. It is no different than the republican party in not serving the voters. They don't want competition from anyone who might break their lock on the political establishment.

But remember the Republicans were once a third party. Third parties can bring the government back to the people.

.  

Why you should vote for Jill Stein even if you don't agree with her politics.

It's not about the politics--it's about the system. Unless you like that your choice is between Joe Biden and Donald Trump.

There needs to be a radical change in the US election process which is run by the duopoly parties. And it will not come from the duopoly. They are doing everything in their power to suppress alternative parties from raising the amount of signatures needed on petitions to get on the ballot to straight off making it hard to run. The duopoly doesn't need to jump through the hoops to get on the ballot.

Change does.

The only way to shake up US politics is for a non-duopoly party to hit them where it counts--in the results. Getting just 5% of the vote will assure that the Greens are on the ballot nationwide.

And the electoral college can screw up the popular vote, but the duopoly doesn't care as long as it runs the show. On the other hand, six states can rack up enough electoral college votes to throw a spanner in the system since it takes 270 electoral votes to win. I've written more than enough on how the Electoral college is bad, but no one is listening.

A Jill Stein win will be shouting in their ears. But we don't need a win--we just need to show that the system is broken.

The Silver lining to the problem of climate change...

Bye, Bye Red States. This is what you get for climate change denial!!!

This map is the climate resilience screening index map, which is a map of  the climate resilience screening index, which is designed to be sensitive to changes in the natural environment, built environment, governance, and social structure and vulnerability or risk to climate events. CRSI has been used to develop an index score for climate resilience at the county level (scalable both upward and downward spatially) the represents both the vulnerability of the entity to multiple climate events and the potential recoverability of these entities from climate events. The approach uses five domains (natural environment, built environment, governance, social structures and risk) and 20 indicators related to the domains. CRSI characterizes holistic climate resilience throughout the US at the county level (2000-2015); ascertains the relationships among those domains and indicators; and, provide information regarding how that resilience score is constructed and the actions a community/county can take to improve their climate resilience.

The short form: it's how badly you are screwed when the effects of climate change start becoming even more obvious. And hard to remediate: as in forget electric cars--you're gonna need a bike, or to walk.

It's too bad that most red states are pro-life as well since they can't claim Darwin Awards for ignoring science and the weather warnings. At least we won't have to listen to their stupid comments any more.

The fun thing about not only not using US media, but moving to another language

French media is talking about this in a disinterested manner.

And pointing out how much the Democrats have blown it with continuing their witch hunt on Trump while ignoring their own problems, which I'm not going to bother mentioning if you aren't aware of them by now.

This story is only "à la un" on the broadcast media. The print media are like the Private Eye "Heir of Sorrows" series where it listed off headlines from the British dailies. In this case, the French are concerning themselves with issues of French interest.

That is pretty much the strike relating to the change in retirement regulations making people have to wait longer to retire.

And you wonder why I prefer Europe to the US. Especially when the US has become a banana republic having to resort to political prosecutions instead of addressing the issues it needs to. The partisanism is totally disgusting to me.
 

Move on--Nothing to be seen here...

Nothing like watching Fox News and being told about some péché mortale done by the "Democratic" party. Or the reverse on MSNBC, that is the "Republican" party is bad. Problem is that BOTH parties are pretty much the same thing, which is why they need those "Hot button", "culture wars" issues to differentiate themselves the same way Pepsi does from Coke.

Bad news: it's the big donors who call the shots otherwise Bernie Sanders would be well into his Second Term by now (there's a post simmering on why Sanders would have been more popular than most people think, but the short form is that he represents what was historically a red state and was popular with a focus group of Fox News viewers!).

Big money needs to be removed from US politics as one of the top reforms. Although that gives Tucker Carlson something to act surprised about when a Google consultant works to install an FTC head.

Anyway, the elections are not free and fair on a secret ballot by any stretch of the imagination in the US.

The US needs to start practising what it spend a good portion of the 20th Century telling other countries to do while pretending they were pratising what they were preaching. Here's this from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

Article 21

1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

See also:

• David Sirota and Andrew Perez: Unchecked Corporate Power Is at the Root of America’s Democracy Crisis

This is pretty good too:

Not sure how to title this post about the presidential election results

I guess I should have known that the wrong conclusions would be made however the election turned out. I've already pointed out that the right/centre of the "Democratic" party is blaming the left for the poor results. No one is addressing that not having any real policy set out other than "orange man bad" might not be a good way to win votes.

While Fox News and Sky News Australia may try to paint Biden and Harris as extreme lefties: they are anything but. The Green New Deal, Fracking, Medicare for All and all those "lefty" ideas probably won't see the light of day, or will be transformed into something unrecognisable. FAIR's Counterspin pointed out:

After a historic election turnout, driven by mobilizations like Black Lives Matter, that signaled the longed-for end of the Trump presidency, it's sad to see corporate Democrats leap to blame the left, including activists, for denying the party a landslide—and call for immediate, compensatory overtures to the right. Sad, but not surprising, as that's been the practice of elite Democrats and their media abettors for decades.

    When Michael Dukakis chose Sen. Lloyd Bentsen as his running mate, he turned his back not just on Jesse Jackson, but on two decades of Democratic Party thinking. He sent an unmistakable message to the activist constituencies of the Democratic Party that the days of litmus-test liberalism are over.

That's the Washington Post's David Broder in 1988.

You could say everything old is new again, but corporate media's allegiance to an ever-drifting "center" gets more dangerous by the day.

Fair.org's Counterspin

In other words, AOC and Black Lives Matter can pretend all they want that there will be a leftward shift in the party. But the Dems will throw them under the bus as soon as they get their vote in favour of the big donors. "Creepy Joe" Biden and Hillary Clinton weren't chosen as front runners well in advance because they were popular or strong candidates. They were chosen because they brought the big money.

There were a whole lot of other black women out there who would have been a much better choice than Horrible Harris. Horrible Harris was the choice of the big donors in Silicon Valley. Black Lives Matter should have burned the country down the moment they knew Harris's record as a prosecutor if they had any real power. My guess is that Black Lives Matter will be forgotten until 2022, or maybe relegated to the dust bin because of the things that were said and unsaid in the Abigail Spanberger leaked phone call.

It was Groucho, not Karl, if the BLM person was a Marxist organiser. I was pretty certain that the "peaceful protests" were going to result in a Trump win, but the only thing those really generated was a run on "assault rifles" and "ammunition". Still, "Defund the Police" was enough to get some "Democrats" into squeaker situations. But was that actually the reason that people like Spanberger and Madeline Dean found themselves in tight races?

Nevermind, the "Democrats" have a long history of being anti-progressive and no matter of polling data that some of the ideas floated by the "socialists" were popular will change that opinion of the right/centre wing. The left needs to move on since the "Democrats" talk "big tent", but the reality is that one needs to follow the party line. Whatever the fuck that happens to be.

AOC, Black Lives Matter, and the rest of the vindictive branch of the "Democratic" party need to be careful. They go against the people with the power and they find they are the ones to be purged.

If they don't realise that they should exit the party to one more favourable to their ideals.

I can't believe the Dumbocrats are running Biden Part 2

Running Biden demonstrates that the Dumbocrats learned nothing in 2016. One of the reason they lost in 2016 was that Clinton didn't campaign in the "close" states (MI, PA, and WI). Running a candidate who is absent is sure to be a losing strategy.

Also, no word from Burisma Holdings with a job offer. it's no surprise that my Ukrainian connection doesn't carry as much weight as being the son of the US vice president. I did tell Rep. Madeline Dean repeatedly about this connection, but she voted party line rather than reality.

I also said that they were prosecuting the wrong person by going after Trump. Ukraine is a cess pit of corruption.

Anyway,Hidin' Biden is going to be a loser no matter how bad Trump is: Biden is much worse.

I can't believe the Dumbocrats are running Biden

I am so certain that Hunter Biden's job at Burisma Holdings was a bribe that I sent Burisma a job application.

I am far more qualified for the job than Hunter Biden is down to speaking Ukrainian.

And an even more unique qualification than Hunter has.

I thought about sending a copy of the letter to Trump and the White House, but the unique qualification is something I prefer to not talk about. it's something I'm not very proud of.

Which why I am not being explicit about it.

On the other hand, a good Ukrainian would see that qualification as being an asset. It is also about as slimy as Hunter Biden's (it's a family tie).

I may get the job anyway which is why I didn't want to pass it on to the White House. Maybe if there's a rejection because my reason isn't as politically useful as being the son of the Vice President of the United States.

Kayfabe Impeachment

Remember the time Trump tweeted "Covfefe"? and it created a stir because no one knew what "Covfefe" was? Trump tweeted again at 6:09 am: "Who can figure out the true meaning of "covfefe" ??? Enjoy!" and the original tweet was removed.

 People were confused. Lots of way out guesses.

But some people know about World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (WWE) and that Trump is a WWE Hall of Famer.. Let's add in that not only is Trump an actor, he's a reality show star.

Kayfabe is a term in WWE:

In professional wrestling, kayfabe (also called work or worked) is the portrayal of staged events within the industry as "real" or "true", specifically the portrayal of competition, rivalries, and relationships between participants as being genuine and not of a staged or predetermined nature of any kind. The term kayfabe has evolved to also become a code word of sorts for maintaining this "reality" within the direct or indirect presence of the general public.

"Covfefe" doesn't make sense, but the tweet makes a whole lot more sense if we change the word to what it should have been "kayfabe":

"Despite the constant negative press covfefe"
"Despite the constant negative press faked hatred"

We know that the Dems wanted a pied piper candidate (Wikileaked Podesta e-mail). Why not have Trump be the "jobber" or faked opposition in WWE Terms? The Candidate would be a great reality TV show as CBS CEO Leslie Moonves said about Trump, "It May Not Be Good for America, but It's Damn Good for CBS."

Trump received nearly 6 Billion in free coverage because he was good for ratings. Better yet, not only was he the "jobber", but he could be the "heel" (villain, baddie) to Hillary Clinton's "face" (the good one). Trump acts like a jerk and distracts from Clinton. Did Trump just say "pussy"?

Got it?

Except things didn't work to plan. Hillary Clinton was so bad, which was something mentioned in 2007. But you were a "misogynist" if you said in in the 2016. Clinton was so bad that the result of the 2008 Michigan had Clinton "win" with 51% of the vote, but the runner ups were "Uncommitted" 31% and "undecided" 9% (total 40% for nobody).

The way that translated in 2016 was that she couldn't get enough votes in what she thought were the close states: Michigan being one of those close states.

That meant that Trump would move reality shows from "The Candidate" to "the Presidency of the United States". He would keep the role of the heel and the public could boo him to their hearts content.

They would have "the impeachment" as a spin off where the Democrats could pretend to look into what went wrong in 2016 while really doing fuck all about the problem. But like "The candidate" the Dems didn't plan on public reaction. The Dems had to create a show for the public.

But the problem was that the Dems knew it was a bad idea and would be doomed to failure.

Worse, if the public twigged to what was actually going on in Ukraine they would be even more pissed at the Dems.

Pelosi's failure to pass on the articles of impeachment is an admission the impeachment was kayfabe. A show trial to try and make the public happy. Democrats can watch their people attack Trump. Republicans can watch their people defend Trump. Both Democrats and Republicans could feel good.

Sort of.

Some people got it and didn't feel so good. They couldn't understand why.

It's like covfefe. People were guessing. People were confused until they understand it was Trump breaking kayfabe.

You won't know what to feel until you understand the impeachment was just duopoly kayfabe.

Yes, Impeachment is a Show Trial

Let's start this with a couple of definitions:

show trial /SHō ˈtrī(ə)l/ noun show trial; plural noun: show trials

a judicial trial held in public with the intention of influencing or satisfying public opinion, rather than of ensuring justice.

Now, The impeachment seems to be playing to the base of partisan Democrats since, as the Republicans correctly pointed out, the Democrats made it clear from BEFORE Trump even took office that they would impeach him.

Next characteristic of a show trial:

A show trial is a public trial in which the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt of the defendant.

The fact that the vote pretty much went down party lines is indicative that the outcome was predetermined. My Rep., Madeline Dean, has members of Ukrainian Nationalist Stepan Bandera's family in it. I know at least one contacted her repeatedly to tell her that the impeachment was a bad idea. Not sure whether Rep. Dean's vote was due to willfull ignorance or just towing party line.

Ukraine is a cesspit of scandal and corruption and to have brought charges against Trump based on events happening there was a serious error of judgement.

It was already ordained that the House would impeach and this would die a death in the Senate. Mitch McConnell said as much. Now, Pelosi is holding off on sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

A public trial with the intent of satisfying public opinion with a predetermined outcome is the perfect description for what just happened. I dare anyone to argue that wasn't what happened.

But please don't blame the left. I know this lefty would have preferred that the Democrats have been productive with their time and work on election reform. But I know that it was easier to find blame in others and do the neo-McCartyite totalitarian thing.

Because any serious investigation into what went wrong in 2016 would find plenty of dirt on the Dems.

Impeachment WTF?

I don’t want impeachment “to be a way of life in our country.” 

The Democrats impeachment thing is totally pathetic. The impeachment is a prime example of Trump Derangement Syndrome. The Dems SHOULD have spent the past few years looking into what really went wrong in 2016. Instead, they have spent the time on total bullshit.

Worse, they announced they would impeach Trump early on. So, points for the Republicans who are pointing out that the impeachment is a joke.

The really pathetic thing about the Impeachment hearings is listening to the Democrats trying to justify giving military aid to Ukraine as being in the US national interest.

Um, Ukraine is rife with neo-Nazis and this money is going to them. I want to know how giving money that ends up in the hands of Right Sector and the Azov Brigade is in the US interests?

Worse, picking a scandal that takes place in Ukraine is a total recipe for disaster. The Republicans could be having a field day with this one if they did their research. Yet only one Republican mentioned this during the "debate" or whatever the dog and pony show I just witnessed was called.

After all, this all started under Obama and features Biden. This is a scandal worse than anything that Trump has done if they want to do their research.

And the Dems are handing it to them on a platter.

There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.
--Jerry Nadler, on why he opposed impeaching Bill Clinton

One writer said that:

the Democrats’ impeachment bid as a dead man’s hand, Aces & Eights. But the actual cards on the table are even worse—more like two-seven, unsuited.

But make the analogy even more accurate by saying the Republican are sitting there with a royal flush while the Dems are bluffing. I'm not sure how the Democrats could be so blinded by TDS to miss that they are running straight into the Grand Canyon without a parachute.

These people are so blinded by partisanism that they aren't listening to themselves let alone other people.

Seriously, watching the impeachment debates is like watching a really bad movie where you know how it's going to end. You watch it anyway to see how much worse it can get.

My Questions from watching this are:

Democrats: How does giving money that ends up in the hands of neo-Nazi Groups like Right Sector and the Azov brigade in the US national interests? Very important since those people train US right wing crazies.

Republicans: how can you say that Trump was "democratically elected" when Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a margin of 2.1%? It was the anti-Democratic electoral college that put Trump in Place. 

 Seriously, this mess could have been avoided if there had been a serious examination of what went wrong in 2016. But that would look bad for both parties. Although I think the Dems would come out of it looking much worse than the Republicans.

I have to wonder what more could go wrong here. The ending is obvious, this is a partisan exercise where Trump will be acquitted in the Senate.

You have to wonder why the Democrats are bothering with all this. Since the real time to remove Trump is coming in less than a year. Is it because the Democrats have nothing to offer?