Trending Topics:

Why Trump’s revolution succeeded, and Bernie’s fizzled

Middle East
on 82 Comments

The scenes from the Cleveland arena last night as the Republican convention nominated Donald Trump for president were truly staggering. Here were a lot of ordinary people, mere outsiders, who had wrested the party leadership away from the establishment. They looked hokey and they acted hokey, and the media made fun of their repeated demonstrations that they were unprepared for a national stage. But they had won. You can call them white nationalist, or isolationist, or populist, or racist, or plagiarist, and many of Trump’s followers surely fit the bill; but again, they won.

They overturned the party leadership by using democratic mechanisms. Shunned by the establishment and often shamed by the media, they did not care, but plowed forward to a partial victory. These people actually created a revolution in the Republican Party, and whether or not they lose in November, Trump’s revolution may well have historic political consequences.

The obvious contrast is to the Democratic Party candidate who ran on a revolutionary message, Bernie Sanders. Next week in Philadelphia he will be an afterthought. A lot of his faithful will be in the streets, but how much of a role will they have in any of the pageantry? Very little. It is Hillary Clinton’s convention; and the media are sure to comply in the parade.

The question that arises is, Why Trump’s revolution succeeded in dislodging an establishment and Sanders’s did not?

The two outsider candidacies mirrored one another. Both men gained crucial financial independence of their party, Trump by using free media and his own money, Sanders by using an internet army of fundraisers at the famous average of $27 a pop. Both men sought support among middle class and working-class white voters with anti-free-trade positions. Both men staked out an antiwar position.

There the similarities end. Trump exploited anti-immigrant and pro-law-and-order resentment to build his movement. Sanders did the opposite; he made bridges to Muslims and the Black Lives Matter activists to build his movement. And while the causes of Trump’s revolution will be debated for years (or decades, in the unlikely event that he wins in November), he plainly tapped into more resentment than Sanders did. It would seem to be obvious that Trump’s Make America Great Again message was a message to a white American nation in its dying throes. Our country’s changing, and Trump’s forces don’t like that. When/if they lose in November, the change will be more formally memorialized than ever.

Bernie didn’t have that 30 percent base of an alienated population to draw upon. Or did he?

That brings me to my concern, foreign policy. Both candidates ran as antiwar candidates, and Trump’s victory must be seen as a rebuke to the Iraq war. The Republican Party gave us the Iraq disaster; and many of the Americans who suffered the most from that historic blunder are in Trump’s following. However freakish the candidate’s statements about American power and militarism, it seems highly unlikely that he will go to war. Trump was against Iraq, as was Bernie.

Today the Republican establishment that supported war is in smithereens. While the Democratic establishment that supported war is stronger than ever. Hillary Clinton is building neoconservative support. Her new big television ad questioning Trump’s foreign policy smarts features her with rightwing strongman Benjamin Netanyahu.

Bernie Sanders never really took on that wing of the establishment. Yes, he made gestures, most importantly in the April 14 debate in New York in which he dared to say that Israel committed human rights atrocities in Gaza in 2014 and said:

There comes a time when if we pursue justice and peace we are going to have to say that Netanyahu is not right all of the time.

But that was about it. Sanders never did run hard against the neoconservatives who were flocking to Clinton, never really took on Netanyahu, didn’t make an issue of Israel’s influence over American foreign policy-making, didn’t push the Palestinian human rights question. In the party platform debates, Sanders folded on these issues while hanging on to domestic social-justice questions. His prime surrogate Cornel West was left out in the cold. West tells our man in Cleveland, Wilson Dizard, that he’s voting for the Green Party, and the party establishment is surely saying good riddance.

The party is against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement aimed at Israel, BDS; while West is for it.

Sanders did not want to drive the neocon/BDS wedge. He was against BDS himself, an inexcusable position for a progressive who supports nonviolent change in Israel and Palestine; and he surely has some generational attachment to Israel as a Jew in his 70s whose parents and he saw the Jewish state as the answer to the Holocaust and who had worked on a kibbutz in Israel as a young man in the 1960s before moving to Vermont. Sanders was more comfortable calling out Henry Kissinger than Netanyahu. Even though Netanyahu is one root of the American problem: he helped sell the Iraq war to Congress and tried to sell an Iran one too.

And lo and behold, with the Sanders coup vanquished, Hillary Clinton is using her relationship with Netanyahu to run for president.

This hawkish foreign-policy political material is still available to a leftwing renegade Democrat, to try and upend the establishment. But meantime that establishment is stronger than ever. In the fiftieth year of the Israeli occupation, the Democratic Party has refused to acknowledge its existence in its platform. Cornel West fought the leaders bravely, and told them that the Israel/Palestine question is the Vietnam war for young people. But the leaders stuck by Israel’s guns.

And though both party platforms suck when it comes to Israel and Palestine, as matters stand, the Republican party platform on Israel may be more useful to critics of US foreign policy than the Democratic one. For while the Democratic platform suppressed reference to the settlements and the occupation, Trump’s revolution was evidently so dislocating that the party adopted a platform that gives Israel all the West Bank and gives up on the late lamented holy grail of the two state solution.

Israeli settler Marc Zell is over the moon. While mainstream Zionist Rick Jacobs warns in the New York Daily News that the Republicans are serving the BDS movement:

The extreme right supporters of one state sadly mirror the extreme left supporters of BDS (boycott, divestment and sanction), who are also one state supporters who aim to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.

For anyone who believes as Cornel West does that this issue is the defining issue of our time, a big public battle over the causes and solutions of the conflict is just what America needs. The revolutionary Donald Trump may have done more to advance this hope than the revolutionary Bernie Sanders.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

82 Responses

  1. annie
    annie
    July 20, 2016, 4:16 pm

    i think the primary reason trump won the nomination was because, unlike the dnc clinton juggernaut, the anti trump segment of gop couldn’t consolidate behind one candidate. the dems had the full force of the party behind clinton. and while that juggernaut did not represent the diversity of the party it won the day for her as a nominee. but i don’t think she’s anymore popular w/dem and dem leaning independent voters than trump is with gop voters (and gop leaning independent voters).

    • JWalters
      JWalters
      July 20, 2016, 6:07 pm

      An excellent point. Had Hillary’s primary votes been split several ways, Bernie might very well have won.

      It seems to me Trump had an additional factor in his favor. He was willing to play overtly to the GOP’s main voter base, whereas other candidates were only willing to wink and nod to them. Even after most other candidates had dropped out he kept winning primaries. He thus revealed that most of that base didn’t care about Wall Street’s agenda of more Wall Street plundering and profitable wars. He even outed the Iraq lies of Bush II without losing that base, despite an uproar of scolding denunciations from the GOP puppetmasters.

      But since Wall Street depends heavily on that duped base for votes, they couldn’t repudiate them outright. So they had to find a way to accept Trump’s articulation of their duped base’s actual feelings, while maintaining a civilized facade.

      Many of them are wary of Trump because his decision-making gut has been changeable. Hillary may look more dependable on their big-ticket money items, despite differing on the social issues they don’t actually care about (e.g. abortion). But staunch Israeli-Neocons (e.g. Adelson) may be willing to gamble on Trump’s recent extreme Israeli positions. Trump has defied the odds so far.

    • amigo
      amigo
      July 20, 2016, 6:15 pm

      Yesterday I watched the GOP , should I say , the RNC and what stood out was the massive effort (Giuliani led from the front ) to denigrate Hillary C, (no skin off my nose) by accusing her of sending 4 American soldiers to their death in Libya.Not a peep about the “4” thousand + sent to their death in Iraq ,by Dumbya .No sireee , not a mention.

      They demanded that Clinton should be put in jail for endangering American “security” by sending e,mails but Bush and co get a free pass for causing the death of 4000 +of America,s sons and daughters many of whom must have been the children of those demanding Clinton,s head.She cannot respond with the Iraq issue as she voted for it.

      US elections are becoming more and more entertaining for their very insanity. It,s getting more like Israel every day and we all know how that fiasco is going to end.

      • Kay24
        Kay24
        July 20, 2016, 6:59 pm

        You are absolutely right. The hypocrisy is unbelievable. Chris Christie sounded like the leader of a lynching mob when he declared Clinton guilty of many wrongs, including Libya and he even mentioned Iran…..it seems these Rethuglicans have poor memories, the Iraq invasion cost us many American lives, hit our economy, and ended in thousands and thousands of poor Iraqi lives lost by our unnecessary war, but you don’t hear a word about THAT at the RNC convention.
        I do not care of Clinton, and I am disappointed we have a poor choice, but the Drumpfets are clearly vicious, insulting, and easily lies (and plagiarizes).

      • jd65
        jd65
        July 20, 2016, 7:42 pm

        @ amigo:

        Yesterday I watched the GOP , should I say , the RNC and what stood out was the massive effort (Giuliani led from the front ) to denigrate Hillary C, (no skin off my nose) by accusing her of sending 4 American soldiers to their death in Libya.Not a peep about the “4” thousand + sent to their death in Iraq ,by Dumbya .No sireee , not a mention.

        They demanded that Clinton should be put in jail for endangering American “security” by sending e,mails but Bush and co get a free pass for causing the death of 4000 +of America,s sons and daughters…

        I wasn’t aware that Trump was running against Bush.

        As much as I dislike Trump and G.W. Bush, I’m afraid your post reminds me of the most transparent political hedging we’ve all grown accustomed to. Sad to say. And as much as you may want to tell me, “Well, Hilary’s not perfect, but…,” I’d tell you that sounds about the same to me as folks who say, “I know Israel isn’t perfect, but…”

        Anyone who takes a serious, honest look at the list of screw-ups/lies-deceptions/scandals Clinton has been involved or implicated in (longer than the list Christie provided the other night) and simply comes back w/, “What about GW Bush?,” is someone who is either incapable of looking things in the eye, or someone who is consciously (or possibly subconsciously, I guess) evading the truth.

        I have no respect for Clinton. I have no respect for Trump. Vote Stein. Damn the torpedoes…

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        July 21, 2016, 1:00 am

        Many here rejoice because Ailes got taken down by his lechery, not his Julius-Streichery of a lifetime, and the law-abiding [or low?] citizens of the US of A rejoiced when Al Capone got pinched for tax evasion. Getting the Harpy Empress jailed for 4 US soldiers or for some incompetent glitch in managing US aggression, instead of for the aggression itself, is already a first step and should be strongly encouraged.
        The more they manage to damage each other, the better.

      • amigo
        amigo
        July 21, 2016, 1:00 pm

        “I wasn’t aware that Trump was running against Bush.” jd65

        jd 65 , I stopped reading your post at that point.Didn,t appear to be any point.

      • amigo
        amigo
        July 21, 2016, 1:28 pm

        “Getting the Harpy Empress jailed for 4 US soldiers or for some incompetent glitch in managing US aggression, instead of for the aggression itself, is already a first step and should be strongly encouraged. – “echinococcus

        Couldn,t agree more. Taking money from war criminals like Saban should be sufficient reason to get her locked away for a lengthy stretch. How about letting her have Dubya as a cell mate.

      • jd65
        jd65
        July 21, 2016, 1:59 pm

        @ amigo: “I wasn’t aware that Trump was running against Bush.” jd65 jd 65 , I stopped reading your post at that point.Didn,t appear to be any point.

        Oh…. Ok. Maybe if you’d continued reading beyond one sentence you’d have given yourself a chance to see the point? I certainly have no interest in spoon feeding you…

      • Frankie P
        Frankie P
        July 21, 2016, 7:17 pm

        I’m not sure if amigo’s comment here is disingenuous or just merely ignorant. Let me explain, and truthfully I don’t care if amigo stops reading after my first sentence. It’s clear that one major goal for Trump in the Republican National Convention is to create unity in the party, and I was going to say “his party”, but that would be a bit inaccurate. If it is his party, it is, as Phil pointed out, a result of his wresting control of the party from an establishment that has harrassed and attacked him every step of the way through the primaries. So, with a goal of creating unity, what do you think of attacking Bush in the convention as a tactic? I thought so. Somewhat similar to borrowing a gun from an NRA member and letting loose on his own right foot. Now, let’s hearken back to the primary season. Besides Bernie Sanders, who voted against the Iraq War initially but later voted to fund it generously, what other candidate had the gall, the chutzpah, the balls, to say, during a debate no less, and in North Carolina, “Bush lied, and people (US soldiers) died.” Not sure how deep your memory hole is, amigo, but that candidate would be Trump. Now, I’m not sure which Donald we’ll get if he wins the election. Will it be the Donald who said “Bush lied and people died”, the same Donald who said “I can work with Putin.”, or will it be the Donald who said “I’ll undo the Iran nuclear deal and renegotiate it (to Israel’s benefit).”, the same Donald who said the Palestinians caused all the problems in the Israel / Palestine eternal cauldron of injustice. Here’s to hoping that the latter Donald is only shilling for Jewish dollars in the run-up to November, and the former Donald reappears when he takes office, to the chagrin and anger of neocons everywhere.

        Frankie P

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 22, 2016, 10:47 am

        “It’s clear that one major goal for Trump in the Republican National Convention is to create unity in the party…”

        I made it to the third sentence.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      July 20, 2016, 7:21 pm

      Bernie rode on coattails of his $27 donor fans, Trump cashed in on his own hard earned celebrity ego. Bernie took a sheep doggy dive at the end, Trump did too, just less obviously, when he picked his VP against his own gut, as, similarly, when he decided to parrot a script at AIPAC.

    • Mary T
      Mary T
      July 21, 2016, 9:33 am

      Exactly right, Annie.

    • Emory Riddle
      Emory Riddle
      July 21, 2016, 12:26 pm

      “Sanders did the opposite; he made bridges to Muslims and the Black Lives Matter activists to build his movement.”

      Actually, he totally ignored BLM and Muslims/Palestine until he was pushed into it by the true liberals who supported him. I believe that’s the case and I believe it is important to take note of this.

      And now he is throwing his support behind Hillary and so exposes himself as merely an agent of the Corporate Democratic party, used (either knowingly or not) by the Dems to prevent defections to a third party that would actually represent the people. As predicted months ago by folks such as Ralph Nader and Chris Hedges.

      • jd65
        jd65
        July 21, 2016, 1:43 pm

        @ Emory: I, unfortunately, am in complete agreement with your post.

      • Frankie P
        Frankie P
        July 21, 2016, 7:25 pm

        Emory, Right on! Phil is well into dreamland on that statement. Bernie, clearly aware that he was scoring in the low single digits with black voters, and I mean 2% and 3% low, needed to massage that demographic, so he used a few token black celebrities in photo ops and editorials and had a few meetings with BLM members as an afterthought. Perhaps he believed that it would be enough to shift his share of the black vote into double digits, perhaps even 20 to 30%, but of course it didn’t pan out that way. The left loves to point out how poor white voters consistently vote against their own interests when they pull the Republican lever, but nobody mentions how black voters elect representatives from Goldman Sachs and big finance (Hillary) and fail to notice how their community were huge victims from the subprime debacle of just a few years ago.

      • annie
        annie
        July 21, 2016, 8:33 pm

        hi frankie, i think here in california bernie did quite well w/black voters in urban areas. i know he won most of the northern counties. it was a scam the way it was reported. but this just in: http://www.scpr.org/news/2016/07/18/62624/five-weeks-later-california-s-primary-results-offi/

        5 weeks later, California’s primary results officially official

        In the end, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton defeated Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders with a much smaller margin than seen in early results. She won by 7 percentage points, or 53 to 46 percent, respectively. Republican Donald Trump received 75 percent of the vote in his primary race.

        there was a lot of stuff fishy about calif. like why she was up by over 13 pts the night of the primary when she announced her win and the results kept narrowing consistently as the votes came in during the weeks after the election. doesn’t make sense that the mail in ballots shifted the vote that much.

        numerous counties ended up flipping for sanders, like sonoma county: http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/5820873-181/bernie-sanders-carries-sonoma-county?artslide=0

        The results — with 52 percent of the local vote for Sanders compared to 47 percent for Clinton — handed Sanders a late and largely symbolic local win, erasing the 54 percent to 45 percent advantage Clinton had on election night, when she claimed a historic victory

        3 weeks after the election her lead shrunk to 9 and it just kept dropping every week. so why is that? http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Sanders-edging-closer-to-Clinton-in-slow-8322387.php

      • Frankie P
        Frankie P
        July 22, 2016, 9:02 pm

        @Annie,

        I recommend a visit to the california-demographics webite to check the ethnic makeup of California cities. What cities are in the northern counties? San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose? Sorry, I’m not so familiar with California’s geography, but I’ll tell you one thing, black make up a pretty small percentage of the populations of San Francisco (white + hispanic + asian = 90%), San Jose (white + hispanic + asian = 93.5%), Fresno (white + hispanic + asian = 89%). In fact, it seems that in the northern counties, only Oakland (black = 26%) shows black representation above the national average. This is extremely rare for urban centers, which usually show much higher representation of blacks as a demographic. LA and San Diego in the south ALSO show a lower demographic of blacks, with both LA and San Diego, the two biggest cities in California, both coming in at under 11%.

  2. jimby
    jimby
    July 20, 2016, 11:09 pm

    I read this yesterday at counterpunch…

    If Trump is the price we have to pay to
    defeat Clintonian neoliberalism – so be it.

    — Mumia Abu-Jamal

    • joemowrey
      joemowrey
      July 21, 2016, 11:19 am

      Excellent remark. Indeed, a Trump presidency may well be in the offing. The Dems have over reached. The reactionary nature of the American steeple will put Trump at the helm. It won’t be pretty, but it may be the only way out of this catastrophic slide into oblivion the Dems and their lesser-of-two-evils base has us engaged in. Perhaps under a Trump regime some form of true opposition will arise. I’m not optimistic, but there is no chance of any opposition to a Clinton presidency, just as there was no opposition to Obama’s bloodthirsty rule.

    • Walker
      Walker
      July 26, 2016, 5:36 pm

      Everybody will pay if Trump is elected. And depths to which he’d drag the country will make HRC’s ilk a more appealing alternative.

      I don’t trust Clinton to carry out much of the Sanders platform. I don’t think she’ll be a good President. However, we do have to think of the alternative. We can’t let the worst be the enemy of the pretty bad.

  3. RoHa
    RoHa
    July 21, 2016, 1:22 am

    “Trump exploited anti-immigrant and pro-law-and-order resentment to build his movement. Sanders did the opposite; he made bridges to Muslims and the Black Lives Matter activists to build his movement. ”

    Sorry, I can’t quite see the opposition. Making bridges to American Muslims is compatible with an anti-immigrant stance. (Even one that says “No more Muslim immigrants until we have sorted things out a bit.”) And unless Black Lives Matter is even worse than I have been told, it isn’t directly opposed to law and order.

    “It would seem to be obvious that Trump’s Make America Great Again message was a message to a white American nation in its dying throes. Our country’s changing, and Trump’s forces don’t like that. ”

    Perhaps if I were there I would see that, but it is not obvious to me over here. The message seems to be to those who don’t like the bad changes of jobs going overseas and illegal immigrants coming in. And I’m not convinced that it is only whites who don’t like that.

    • David Doppler
      David Doppler
      July 21, 2016, 6:15 pm

      “It would seem to be obvious that Trump’s Make America Great Again message was a message to a white American nation in its dying throes. Our country’s changing, and Trump’s forces don’t like that. ”

      It only seems obvious from the perspective of elite, multi-cultural urban centers, to whom Obama explained Republicans as rural people who were “clinging to guns and religion.” The children and grandchildren of the Greatest Generation are still here, though they’re having two children per couple, not three to five like their post-war moms and dads, or new emigrant families, or the poor. They learned not to act entitled, just because they were white, and accepted diversity as a good thing (many of them anyway).

      But when parts of that elite start talking about them as a white America that is “dying,” or backward, or not entitled to the same opportunity that attracts all that immigration, well, it’s bound to piss them off. It’s not fair for other ethnic groups to start acting entitled in a country that recognizes its strength in equality and diversity.

      What both Trump and Sanders showed is that the most passionate wings of both parties are fed up with the self-annointed elite establishment that acts as if it is entitled to power without accountability, and which is dismissive of those not part of their group as lesser people, in various shades and stripes of “non-seriousness, uncoolness, clinging to primitive ideas, etc.”

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 21, 2016, 6:32 pm

        I think I’m a Chihuahua! I’m having a senor moment.

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        July 22, 2016, 12:25 am

        But when parts of that elite start talking about them as a white America that is “dying,” or backward, or not entitled to the same opportunity that attracts all that immigration, well, it’s bound to piss them off. It’s not fair for other ethnic groups to start acting entitled in a country that recognizes its strength in equality and diversity.

        White America is entitled to put in the effort in improving the circumstances it is in, just as much any other group. White America however has no right to demand other groups to cede their right to immigrate, or impact the immigration into the country so that it can feel better.

        White America need to get a grip for real, it is not special nor it is entitled to any privileges rooted in the oppression of black America, Hispanic America, Asian America, Indian America or any other groups living and surviving in this country.

      • annie
        annie
        July 22, 2016, 1:10 am

        no right to demand other groups to cede their right to immigrate

        i had not heard of this “right to immigrate”. does the US bestow rights on foreigners before they enter the US? can you explain please. or do you mean americans born outside our borders? because there are so many refugees who i am sure would love to know about this right — if it indeed exists.

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        July 22, 2016, 2:06 am

        does the US bestow rights on foreigners before they enter the US?

        Foreigners? Most immigrants, especially those from Mexico have native American ancestry stretching back thousands of years. They are hardly foreigners, compared to white Americans whose roots are firmly in Europe, not North America.

        Anyways, the US doesn’t have to grant the right for it to be legitimate and lawful. Israeli law states that Palestinians are not the lawful owners of the land, and if we settled for the same logic you are suggesting now, then we have no business in supporting Palestinians who technically are subverting the rule of law and order of a nation.

        No nation has the right to utilize direct and indirect violence in order to stop immigration (or emigration) from occurring. If immigration is a problem, we should seek to diagnose and treat the root causes, not target the immigrants themselves who as fellow humans, are entitled to live and survive wherever they feel necessary. Freedom of movement is a fundamental human right, freedom to seek greener pastures for you and your loved ones is a fundamental human right, despite what the clueless, hateful lawmakers may claim.

      • annie
        annie
        July 22, 2016, 3:05 am

        iow, you’re not aware of a “right to immigrate”, would that be correct?

        and by all means, please do not construe i ever said or implied people from this continent were immigrants in america. thanks. but interesting that was your first thought. half my immediate family is hispanic (via mexico/latin america) so spare me the lecture.

        the US doesn’t have to grant the right for it to be legitimate and lawful. Israeli law states that Palestinians are not the lawful owners of the land, and if we settled for the same logic you are suggesting now, then we have no business in supporting Palestinians who technically are subverting the rule of law and order of a nation.

        nnnnot really. we’re not under israeli law here, which, happens to be in contradiction to international law. and there is no correlation between a sudanese or a russion or someone from china or north korea or whomever to immigrate here vs a native american. and palestinian have a right of return, and returning to a place you legally own and your parents have the deed to is not considered immigration — as far as i know. Palestinians are not foreigners in Palestine, that’s absurd.

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        July 22, 2016, 3:14 am

        Annie,

        The right to immigrate is a fundamental human right that cannot be delegitimized or revoked through man-made legal systems. What do you mean I am not aware of it? I’m very much aware of it, hence my support for decriminalisation and legalisation of all undocumented migrants in the US. As far as I’m concerned, if you’re here, you’re here, so let’s just get on with life.

      • annie
        annie
        July 22, 2016, 3:21 am

        are you sure you do not mean emigrate? to leave? if there is a fundamental human right to immigrate that cannot be revoked by the US or any other country then there must be some documentation online verification upheld by laws or something somewhere. no? please — link. i am very curious because i’ve never even heard of this before vs a right to free speech or a right to bear arms or a right of return.

      • annie
        annie
        July 22, 2016, 3:47 am

        another thing, i am confused with this part:

        As far as I’m concerned, if you’re here, you’re here, so let’s just get on with life.

        and earlier you wrote White America has “no right to demand other groups to cede their right to immigrate, or impact the immigration into the country so that it can feel better.”

        (not quite sure how ‘so it can feel better’ fits in here because generally most legislation or actions people take, one assumes, they do it to [eventually at least] feel better about the world or something) — so lets cut to the chase…. if white people are here they are here so let’s just get on with life but white people should not impact immigration. so what do you propose, having some committee devoid of white people to determine immigration? what about people like richard falk or naomi klien or joe sacco or chris hedges or whatever. no white people in on impacting immigration. interesting. do you think they should be able to vote?

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        July 22, 2016, 3:56 am

        Are you sure you’re not thinking of displacement when I said immigration? Why are you so perplexed at the idea that human beings are free to roam the globe in order to live and survive, and that such freedom naturally extends to moving away from one’s country as well as moving into another’s.

        As for the laws on immigration, well every nation has its own set of laws that were designed according to the will of the political elite. Just as every nation has its own set of laws regarding pretty much every single thing that takes place in a person’s life. Most laws adhere to the philosophical idea of inalienable human rights, but many are also against it.

        Man-made laws are full of flaws and contradictions, and do not override the natural law which we are all subject to unconditionally. Only a few decades ago, black people were legally lower-tiered human beings relative to whites and in hindsight, we know how terribly wrong it was for such laws to exist and be enforced. Likewise the current immigration laws are actually quite terrible and in need of urgent revision to increase freedom of movement and decriminalize human beings who exercised such rights when moving into the country.

      • annie
        annie
        July 22, 2016, 4:13 am

        iow, this is your theory but as far as you know there’s no supporting online documentation of this alleged right. my mistake for assuming when you spoke of seceding rights you meant some recognizable right not a personal theory of natural rights. why not just preface w/ “imho” or something of that nature? instead of flipping some “right of immigration” lingo on us. not even one friggin link. pff

        i’m not perplexed. you’re the one making unsupported allegations and unable or unwilling to back it up on anything but your word.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        July 22, 2016, 7:09 am

        S is claiming a moral right, rather than a legal right. I would like to see it backed up by argument, but, as one who has been an immigrant several times, and as an admirer of Thomas Paine’s ringing assertion “It is wrong to say God made rich and poor; he made only male and female; and he gave them the Earth for their inheritance”*, I have to admit that I find the idea attractive.

        If we take it simplistically, at face value, we find that the Aborigines had no right to resist the English settlers, and the Palestinians were wrong to resist the Zionists.

        But, as Paine also pointed out in Agrarian Justice** , humans need society to survive and prosper. And (putting on my Confucian hat – and very fetching it is, too ) a society can only function if most of the members have pretty much the same ideas about what their social duties and responsibilities are. If a lot of people with very different ideas arrive to live in the same area, and do not change their ideas, the society in the area will not function so well, and all the people will suffer as a result.

        This is just one of the considerations that lead me to suspect that, if the alleged right exists at all, it must be heavily conditional.

        *Phraseology clearly influenced by those splendid chaps who translated the Bible from barbarian babble into honest English. Deut. 32:8
        **Should be compulsory reading for everyone. But s will not like the fact that it was written by a white man who was, at first, English, but who later invented the USA and became an American.

        http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Paine1795.pdf

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 22, 2016, 11:48 am
      • annie
        annie
        July 22, 2016, 12:22 pm

        RoHa, i can relate to the idea as being attractive (very). but i think if one is going to insert an idea into a conversation as a matter of fact to build an argument on one should be prepared to argue the (pre)establishment of that idea — not just assume it is taken for granted. and i think there is a difference between a right to pursue something vs a claim of already having it by virtue of being human. either way it is clear our (US) laws don’t recognize immigration as a natural law — as far as i know. albeit, the constitution does recognize natural laws by it’s own definitions.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 22, 2016, 12:29 pm

        “White America need to get a grip for real, it is not special nor it is entitled to any privileges…”

        Ah, but what about the “efficiency” and “effectiveness” (your words) of giving them a “good old-fashioned slap” if they get out of line? “Violence is a God-given right” as you say, “Simalcuz”.

        Plus, well, genes and “your mother’s uterus”. That’s why things are the way they are, and will never change. Right, “Simalcuz”?

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 22, 2016, 3:01 pm

        “Simalcuz” says “natural law” is the way to go!
        Of course, people have a hard time determining just what “natural law” is in relation to this.

      • gamal
        gamal
        July 22, 2016, 7:05 pm

        “Plus, well, genes and “your mother’s uterus”. That’s why things are the way they are, and will never change”

        recent research indicates that the whitest of white people do in fact have rhythm, i now accept i was wrong and have evolved, let it go

        https://youtu.be/WxXFs8EL35o

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        July 22, 2016, 10:38 pm

        Gamal, Murphy’s and Jameson’s certainly helps.

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5SmWUMJRIDo

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        July 22, 2016, 10:47 pm

        If we take it simplistically, at face value, we find that the Aborigines had no right to resist the English settlers, and the Palestinians were wrong to resist the Zionists.

        Thats taking in wrong, not simplistically. Aborigines had all the reasons to resist the English settlers, because these people deliberately presented a threat to their lives, and life style. You make it sound like the settlers arrived to Australia with the intent and will to acknowledge the natives and live respectfully alongside them. Instead, they viewed them as no more than upright animals.

        Please tell me how using simplistic thought, people who are viewed as animals by a hostile foreign force should not resist that force from encroaching their territory and destroying their peace and happiness?

        Likewise for Palestinians. The Zionists could’ve diplomatically arranged a migration scheme for Jews while being respectful of the will of the natives if they had the honest desire to move to Zion. But their desires were to dominate and conquer using the return to Zion as a convenient cover for their plans. Taking in simplistically, people don’t have to put up shit from anyone, more so from foreign idiots coming into your place uninvited and acting like they own the entire town. Thats taking in “simplistically”.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 22, 2016, 11:31 pm

        “whitest of white people do in fact have rhythm”

        Just as there are many degrees of harmonic sensitivity there are many degrees of rhythmic perception. Most people have enough of both to participate in music on some level. And both harmonic and rhythmic facilities benefit from training and practice.

        Anyway, I keep telling myself that.

      • gamal
        gamal
        July 22, 2016, 11:32 pm

        “Murphy’s and Jameson’s certainly helps.”

        god damn it Roha thats just spooky, i have consumed an immoderate quantity of Murphy’s in the last few hours, its ok its made in Cork its not that perfidious London Porter Guinness, and the Jameson is flowing, its been backed up for 12 years,

        genuinely awed spot on, the Murphy’s is particularly worrying, do you have a drone, no really i have a bottle in my hand right now you getting a live feed.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 22, 2016, 11:36 pm

        “Aborigines had all the reasons to resist the English settlers”

        Doesn’t matter, the English could deliver more “good old-fashioned slaps”, ‘efficiently and effectively’ to the Aborigines, to remedy the injustice of the resistance.

      • gamal
        gamal
        July 22, 2016, 11:48 pm

        “Murphy’s and Jameson’s certainly helps.”

        Roha you getting a live feed I am drinking Murphy’s and Jameson, just the ordinary I am a man of the people, as we speak, i can’t help the commas but will refine myself with a white Bordeaux “les hauts de la gafeliere” when there’s no more Jameson, we salute Australia the nation of criminals unable to avoid arrest.

        edit: i am so drunk i forgot i had already made a fool of myself and have done so again, Murphy’s and Jameson, let us not concern ourselves with what i am smoking

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        July 23, 2016, 1:32 am

        if white people are here they are here so let’s just get on with life but white people should not impact immigration. so what do you propose, having some committee devoid of white people to determine immigration? what about people like richard falk or naomi klien or joe sacco or chris hedges or whatever. no white people in on impacting immigration. interesting. do you think they should be able to vote?

        White people should stop acting like they hold the ultimate authority on the border control of the country, regardless to what end their goals are. Any national issue that affects all people in the country must be addressed by taking into account the political will of all groups, not just white people who themselves are settler-colonialists anyhow.

        Plus, immigration is an issue that drastically affect mostly non-white American communities, so why should white people be given the space over non-whites on addressing the issue? Don’t you have your own agenda to pursue for the good of your people, instead of constantly interfering with the intimate affairs of non-white American communities?

        Every American community has the right to pursue happiness for its own without infringing on the rights of others. White People however have consistently and earnestly made it the central pillar of their collective political agenda to ruin the lives of as much non-white people as possible since the inception of the country. All Lives Matter to silence the cries of black folks reclaiming their humanity, Build the Wall to mark their territory over the entire country from immigrants and undocumented folks are just a few examples of white political movements.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        July 23, 2016, 6:56 am

        Annie, there are quite a few arguments about the putative right to immigrate. A quick Google will reveal this. Nonetheless, it would have been helpful for s to point towards one or two.

        https://www.google.com.au/search?q=natural+law+immigration&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-au&client=safari

        https://www.google.com.au/search?client=safari&hl=en-au&ei=bCuTV5V-yJ3SBIaqnogP&q=is+there+a+right+of+immigration&oq=is+there+a+right+of+immigration&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3..0i8i30.39493.47283.0.70968.12.12.0.0.0.0.1123.4140.2-8j1j0j1j0j1.11.0….0…1c.1.64.mobile-gws-serp..3.9.3602…0i13j0i8i7i30j30i10.eutoDXboHeg

        Here is a rather good piece.

        http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/32280-debating-the-ethics-of-immigration-is-there-a-right-to-exclude/

        If we accept the “Earth as common property of all human beings” line, it certainly seems that a case can be made for open borders. But I think there are at least two aspects to the question. One is the right to free movement, but the other is the right to become a member of a society. For immigration involves not merely movement, but entry into a society. And I think that the members of a society have some right to decide whether a new member is wanted. Aside from Wellman’s argument, there is a consequentialist case. Immigrants can have deleterious effects on a society, as the Palestinian case shows. (And those blasted immigrants from NSW and Vic are pushing up house prices here in Brisbane.,) If we acknowledge that the interests of the locals have moral significance, it looks as though the putative right of immigration will have to be restricted or qualified to take those interests into account.

        But then we will have immigration laws of some sort

      • David Doppler
        David Doppler
        July 23, 2016, 12:32 pm

        Very funny, Senor Mooser. Well-stated, Annie.

        “White America” is a term freighted with racist overtones. But there IS an American culture, the foundation of which was Anglo & European colonist/settlers, whose original sins were displacement (including ethnic cleansing and genocide) of Native Americans, and slavery compounded to ant-African racism. In declaring independence from a tyrannical monarchy in England, as Adams complemented Jefferson, it took a list of settler grievances and turned them into a statement of the universal rights of humankind. In forming its Constitution, one of the first written constitutions (neither Great Britain nor Rome, despite thinking and debating a lot about their “constitutions,” had or have a written one), an extraordinarily talented group distilled out the chief evils of government from history, and strove to fashion a template that would limit the evil that those in power could inflict on their populace, and recognized they were engaged in an effort to continuously make a “more perfect union.” The great evil of slavery was expunged in the Civil War, but not the anti-African racism that had been married to it. The Americans who emerged from the Civil War a stronger, more unified, “more perfect” union progressively extended the right to vote to women and, in the Civil Rights movement, to the victims of race-based discrimination. In WWII, the Americans went to war to save Europe from Nazism and Asia from Imperial Japan.

        That culture has gained strength from incorporation of more diversity, and from immigration of the best and brightest from around the world pursuing the American Dream, while continuing to struggle with rectifying the evil done by the racial component of its slave history.

        But I would argue that, ever since the rise of the CIA and the unaccountable deep state it enables, and which is influenceable by various hidden interests, and which, I believe recent scholarship (like Douglass’s JFK and the Unthinkable, and Talbot’s Devil’s Chessboard) establishes to my satisfaction included involvement in the assassination of JFK, and this blog’s documentation of the so-far unaccountable influence of the Neocons and the Israel Lobby that has led the country astray in pointless or counterproductive Asian wars, American power has been turned to unaccountable and secret purpose contrary to the ideals of limited government embodied in the constitution and contrary to the best interests of the American people.

        The passion for Trump and Sanders is, in my view, directly related to the dissatisfaction and disgust with the elite establishment, its abuse of power, and its claim to non-accountability, its claim to be “an Empire now, we act and create a new reality.”

        I share in that passion; unfortunately, it is boiling down to a choice between Trump and Clinton, a choice, as always, between the “lesser of two weevils” (a joke out of British naval history). My hope is that the dissatisfaction will continue to grow, and, whoever wins will only be able to do so much harm, before four more years will provide another opportunity to sluff off the corrupt and incompetent, and elect a new champion for the best of American culture.

        Rather than proclaim “white America is dying,” an inherently racist view, I see a more diverse America continuing to strive to perfect itself.

        Human beings like most social species are territorial by evolved nature, and Annie’s comments are all well taken: “If we acknowledge that the interests of the locals have moral significance, it looks as though the putative right of immigration will have to be restricted or qualified to take those interests into account.

        But then we will have immigration laws of some sort.”

        Yes, we do. Reasonable immigration laws are an essential part of a successful society, and the alternative of completely free movement is being tested in the EU, and the results are not yet in. Our own porous borders are in need of repair. Social biology/evolutionary psychology suggest that societies compete in their own evolutionary “survival of the fittest” process. I would say history has shown that monarchies and theocracies have not thrived as states, while constitutional democratic republics appear to be emerging as a stronger structure. States based on ancient religious texts have never thrived for long, since they are inflexible, and confuse political power with religious establishment, corrupting both.

        The so-called “right to emigrate,” is a lot like the very common phenomenon of inter-group exchange found in all social species, where some of those making the effort find a better future for their gene-pool, while some get killed.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 23, 2016, 1:15 pm

        “Very funny, Senor Mooser.”

        Thank you. Could you sum up the rest for me? TL/DR.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        July 23, 2016, 9:43 pm

        “In WWII, the Americans went to war to save Europe from Nazism”

        Eventually.

        “and Asia from Imperial Japan.”

        After the USA was attacked.

        “That culture has gained strength from incorporation of more diversity,”

        Can you say how?

        “I would say history has shown that monarchies and theocracies have not thrived as states,”

        I would say that European and Asian history gives plenty of examples of monarchies that thrived pretty well, and lasted longer than most modern democracies have managed so far. (Some have lasted by sneakily allowing a modicum of democratic input.) And the ancient Egyptian theocratic monarchy didn’t do too badly, either.

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        July 24, 2016, 9:07 am

        Doesn’t matter, the English could deliver more “good old-fashioned slaps”, ‘efficiently and effectively’ to the Aborigines, to remedy the injustice of the resistance.

        They could, and they certainly did, with the zealotry of a maniac on the verge of world domination. Have ever looked into the state of the aborigines today, and compare it to the days before the good ol Englishmen came and delivered the light of (Western) civilization?

        If what the Zionists did to the Palestinian was armed robbery, what the English did to the Aborigines was kidnapping, physical and psychological torture of diabolical scale, and destruction of their very soul, before shipping them off to desert wastelands to live the rest of their lives as, well, feral animals they had always saw them as.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_frontier_wars

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        July 24, 2016, 9:46 am

        If what the Zionists did to the Palestinian was armed robbery, what the English did to the Aborigines was kidnapping, physical and psychological torture of diabolical scale, and destruction of their very soul, before shipping them off to desert wastelands to live the rest of their lives as, well, feral animals they had always saw them as.

        Oh and I forgot to add that the English managed to do all of that, in addition to robbing them clean of every valuable material resources they depended on for their survival as a sovereign people. So yeah, the Aborigines got it way worse than what even the most deranged Zionist could dream about doing to the Palestinians.

      • annie
        annie
        July 24, 2016, 12:19 pm

        thank you roha. yes i am aware there are a lot of available links i was wondering what theory that was out there he was aligning himself with because there’s a history of bigots being natural law advocates ie:
        http://ashbrook.org/publications/oped-adams-09-bigotry/

        david, thanks for an excellent comment. i noticed you wrote “right to emigrate” . that would be to leave a place — not quite the same as immigrate although they tend to go hand in hand.

        Rather than proclaim “white America is dying,” an inherently racist view, I see a more diverse America continuing to strive to perfect itself.

        me too. because diversity includes everybody as society becomes increasingly assimilated (a good thing) the focus should be on inclusion not killing off all remnants of a particular ethnicity. the idea human characteristics are inherent to particular ethnicities is in itself a racist concept.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 24, 2016, 2:45 pm

        If what the Zionists did to the Palestinian…/…what the English did to the Aborigines…”

        What really happened was this: The Zionists wanted the Palestinians to stay, begged them to stay, but as more Jews moved in, real-estate prices went up, (due to the improvements by the Zionists) and Palestinians could no longer afford to live there, so they left.
        The Zionists wept, begged them to stay and gave them generous parting gifts, but their pride did not permit them to remain.
        Since that time, a national day of regret in celebrated in Israel.

      • annie
        annie
        July 24, 2016, 5:01 pm

        If what the Zionists did to the Palestinian…… English did to the Aborigines…”

        more whataboutery

  4. JLewisDickerson
    JLewisDickerson
    July 21, 2016, 1:29 am

    RE: “Hillary Clinton publicizes her closeness to Benjamin Netanyahu in her latest anti-Trump ad” ~ photo caption

    YES, VIRGINIA, THERE IS A gOD:
    “What goes around, comes around!”* (The immutable law of the universe.)

    * “Netanyahu and Son Investigated for Using False Passport, Money Laundering Via Panama Account”
    July 16, 2016 By Richard Silverstein
    LINK – http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2016/07/16/netanyahu-and-son-investigated-for-using-false-passport-money-laundering-via-panama-account/

    * “Israeli Knesset Probes Netanyahu on Corruption Scandal”
    July 19, 2016 By Richard Silverstein
    LINK – http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2016/07/19/israeli-knesset-probes-netanyahu-on-corruption-scandal/

    • JLewisDickerson
      JLewisDickerson
      July 21, 2016, 1:33 am

      P.S. MEDIOCRE, AT BEST:
      Justin Timberlake – What Goes Around…Comes Around

      • JLewisDickerson
        JLewisDickerson
        July 21, 2016, 2:54 am

        MUCH BETTER:
        Lenny Kravitz – What Goes Around Comes Around

    • JLewisDickerson
      JLewisDickerson
      July 21, 2016, 1:40 am

      P.P.S.
      ■ What goes around comes around
      Posted by Anonymous on August 24, 2007

      To the best of my knowledge the phrase “What goes around comes around” was coined in the summer of 1970, in San Diego California. It was the result of a pure vocalization formed by a former Green Beret with the initials GEG, who was experiencing an epiphany of sorts, after returning from almost three years in a combat environment and going through a physical purification after several months of self induced drug experimentation. during a peek high he was looking for something other then the phrase “karma” to express the enlightenment, this original abstract thought came to mind naturally. In the room at the time were several fellow associates from New York, Los Angeles and San Diego, all of whom immediately grasped upon the expression and it spread rapidly, to be used many times again. If anyone can show this expression in print prior to that date, it would disprove this origin, but none has been produced.

      SOURCE – http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/55/messages/449.html

    • JLewisDickerson
      JLewisDickerson
      July 21, 2016, 2:39 am

      P.P.P.S.
      SOMEWHAT RELEVANT:
      Von Caligari zu Hitler: Das deutsche Kino im Zeitalter der Massen (2014)
      En inglés: From Caligari to Hitler: German Cinema in the Age of the Masses

      Focuses on the Weimar Republic (1918-1933) and its ‘collective spirit’ in cinema. The purpose of film as a cultural tool is examined. Based on celebrated sociologist Siegfried Kracauer’s seminal book ‘From Caligari to Hitler’ (1947).

      Internet Movie Database – http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3908344/
      NETFLIX STREAMING – https://www.netflix.com/title/80017036

      Weimar culture – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_culture

      • JLewisDickerson
        JLewisDickerson
        July 21, 2016, 2:43 am

        P.P.P.P.S. HIGHLY RELEVANT:
        M—A—B—U—S—E ! ! ! (He’s back!)

  5. wondering jew
    wondering jew
    July 21, 2016, 5:23 am

    The analysis of the net effect of the Trump versus Sanders foreign policy rebellion, might be accurate. But the post here includes no analysis of who voted for Clinton versus who voted for Sanders. The fact is that Sanders probably won the white vote and he definitely lost the black vote by a large margin. Blacks were loyal to the Clinton brand name and they never heard of Sanders before 2016 and never really warmed to him. The idea that what was missing in the Sanders message was a larger rebellion against Clinton’s foreign policy is malarkey, if we are trying to figure out why he lost the black vote.

    The potential for a candidate as left as Sanders to take the presidential nomination is definitely there, but now that 52 years have passed since any democrat won the white vote, any candidate for the democratic nomination better have the solid backing of the black community if he/she wishes to overthrow the clinton branch of the party. (or at least avoid a situation where the clinton branch candidate wins the black vote in such overwhelming numbers.) this does not exclude foreign policy, but in fact foreign policy is not a key issue for the black democratic primary voters.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      July 21, 2016, 6:12 pm

      “the white vote… the black vote… Blacks were…the black vote…the white vote…of the black community…the black vote…black.”

      You need good Poddy training to understand politics. It’s seminal.

  6. silamcuz
    silamcuz
    July 21, 2016, 5:30 am

    Trump is succeeding because he is tapping into the primal instincts of white people filled with desperate fear of losing their place in the world, and be left to introspect on their dark and bloody history that got them to this point. Bernie tried to tap into reason and rationality, something that doesn’t come easily to a vast majority of folks.

    It’s expected, I don’t really mind his racist provocations and mobilisations. I don’t fear Trump at all, nor do I fear his supporters. They’re weak and cowardly, let them put into motion their own destruction as a political force. I will continue to work for continuous betterment of my people and other POC, while trying my best to insulate myself and my loved one from the shitstorm that is brewing within the white right-wing sector of American society. They’re on their way out and sooner or later, they will have to be accountable for the actions perpetrated on their name to the detriment of POC worldwide and domestically.

  7. Stephen Shenfield
    Stephen Shenfield
    July 21, 2016, 5:56 am

    I think the symmetry that Phil creates between Sanders and Trump as ‘anti-establishment revolutionaries’ is false. It is true that they were both initially unwelcome to their respective party establishments, though even here there is an important difference: the Democratic establishment remained solid behind Hillary, while the Republican establishment has largely come to accept Trump. however reluctantly. But the real difference emerges when we shift focus to the broader establishment of big business and especially the corporate media, which Bernie challenged in a way that Trump does not. Compare the ‘balanced’ media coverage of Clinton and Trump with the huge bias they would be showing were Sanders the Democratic candidate. This is Trump’s big advantage. Wherever Bernie was able to get his message across directly to working people the response was positive; if he didn’t achieve the breakthrough that was mainly because he was unable to get past the media blockade and make direct contact with a sufficiently large proportion of the electorate.

    • silamcuz
      silamcuz
      July 21, 2016, 7:54 am

      I find it hilarious we would consider people that participates within the political system of the country in the most agreeable manner possible to be anti-establishment. In my opinion, anti-establishment would mean to not even recognise the legitimacy of the establishment infrastructure and actively call for its dismantlement. For example, Hamas is an anti-establishment entity with regards to Israel, while the left wing Labour Party is pro-establishment despite rallying against many of the policies of the right wing government. The moment you willingly recognise and yield to the laws of the establishment, which you have to in order to do anything more so run for president, you are pro-establishment.

  8. eljay
    eljay
    July 21, 2016, 7:53 am

    … The question that arises is, Why Trump’s revolution succeeded in dislodging an establishment and Sanders’s did not? …

    Sanders appealed to reasonable people; Trump appealed to idiots and bigots. And it would seem that more Americans are idiots and bigots than reasonable people.

    … mainstream Zionist Rick Jacobs … :

    … Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.

    Israel has no right to exist as a religion-supremacist “Jewish State”. No state has a right to exist as a supremacist state of any kind.

    • Naftush
      Naftush
      July 21, 2016, 9:46 am

      “Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.” – Ayn Rand. Your wrong premises are two: that I/P is everyone’s hottest-button issue and that there’s a non-supremacism test that states must pass to justify their existence. As for Sanders and Trump, the former doomed himself by hurling the “s”-word (socialism) at the Democratic electorate, and the latter did so, although the count isn’t in yet, by virtually promising to eviscerate the presidency.

      • eljay
        eljay
        July 21, 2016, 12:22 pm

        || Naftush: … Your wrong premises are two: …

        Your failures are two:

        || … that I/P is everyone’s hottest-button issue … ||

        I never claimed it was “everyone’s hottest-button issue”. Failure #1.

        || … and that there’s a non-supremacism test that states must pass to justify their existence. ||

        I never claimed there was any such test. Failure #2.

        Thanks for the amusement. :-)

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 21, 2016, 5:02 pm

        ” You will find that one of them is wrong.” – Ayn Rand.”

        What do you know, it’s that ‘Aynailty of evil’ that Hannah Arendt talked about.

        But that’s how you do it, “Naftush”. You will always make friends and influence people by quoting Ayn Rand at them.

  9. Vera Gottlieb
    Vera Gottlieb
    July 21, 2016, 9:36 am

    As an Independent, Sanders never stood a chance…but don’t discount him yet: it ain’t over until the fat lady has sung. And don’t discount the power of all those young folks Sanders motivated to come out and participate in this process. I am glad he didn’t lower himself to kiss Netanyahu’s touches.

    • echinococcus
      echinococcus
      July 21, 2016, 11:18 am

      Gottlieb,
      Are you hallucinating? Sanders is not an independent, in fact he was running to the the boss of and president for the largest imperialist organization in the world called the Democrat party. He is already dead and buried, because candidateship in the programless mafias called 2 parties in the US is winner-take-all , so no amount of singing by fat or lean banshees is getting him back to life.
      As for the power and participation of those young folks, it’s mostly going to voting Democrat yet again.

      Now the central point: Sanders didn’t kiss the Yahoo’s you-know-what because he belongs to the Labor faction of the genocidal Zionists. He is a genocidal “liberal”-Zionist and only has objection to openly declare the racist, genocidal Zionist dictatorship because it causes international difficulties. He has opposed the AIPACistas and created some welcome infighting among Zionists, true, but he remains one of the boys who brought you invasion, partition, the Nakba and the first 3 big wars of aggression.

  10. joemowrey
    joemowrey
    July 21, 2016, 11:13 am

    “Sanders never did run hard against the neoconservatives who were flocking to Clinton,…”

    Sanders didn’t run hard against the neoconservatives because he is from that same mold. To say “Both candidates ran as antiwar candidates” is a little much. Sanders may have talked softly about being opposed to war, and he tried to make hay out of his faux opposition to the Iraq war (he voted with the Dems to fund that same war repeatedly) but his record indicates otherwise. There would have been very little change in American foreign policy, at its core, under a Sanders administration. Imperialism would still have been the order of the day.

    In the end, what many of us said at the outset turned out to be true. Sanders was a sheepdog for the corporate Dems. He said on day one he would endorse Clinton. That’s just what he did. Progressives were duped again.

  11. klm90046
    klm90046
    July 21, 2016, 1:49 pm

    I think Bernie Sanders made two other mistakes you don’t appear to touch upon.

    One, he joined the fray very late. In the United States, the presidential campaign begins soon after Inauguration Day, i.e. it lasts four years. Because of this, he lacked name recognition, while Hillary was a household word.

    Two, he labeled himself a Democratic Socialist. In our country, that’s worse than calling yourself the son of OBL. I recall many pundits referring to him as a communist. Most Americans don’t know the difference.

    Despite this and other shortcomings, he put up a remarkable performance. He won a far higher percentage of the Democratic vote than Trump won of the GOP. The awakening he created may endure. So hats off to Bernie Sanders and his team.

  12. JoeSmack
    JoeSmack
    July 21, 2016, 3:52 pm

    “Today the Republican establishment that supported war is in smithereens. While the Democratic establishment that supported war is stronger than ever.”

    I disagree with this, a lot. Trump did not end the pro-war sentiment in the Republican Party. He simply replaced it with a much more aggressive and less diplomatic message. He has promoted everything from torture to air strikes, and one of his arguments against the Iraq War was that we should have been MORE aggressive in confiscating the Iraqi people’s resources. He also railed against the Iran Deal and cites Netanyahu as his compatriot. And although he has said that we should avoid regime change, one should recall that that is exactly the same message that George W. Bush gave us before coming into office. So long as Trump and his party remain invested in Islamophobia and unlimited executive power while continuing to court Christian Evangelicals and Zionist lobbyists like Sheldon Adelson, there is nothing to suggest that Trump won’t shoot for the same kinds of foreign aggression as his predecessors.

    As for Clinton, it is true that she is a war-hawk, but her Party has grown tired of it. She has turned on the Netanyahu switch to sway Trump voters, the same way Cruz did during the GOP primary. She is purposely pandering to people who are likely to vote for Trump. As for her own policies, she is also a warhawk, but given the pressure from within her own Party that nearly cost her the nomination, I doubt one can argue that the pro-war sentiment in the Democratic Camp is GREATER than in the Republican Party. To the extent that the Republican Party’s pro-war camp is in “smithereens” it is only because they keep aggressively promoting terrible policies and discrediting themselves. That does not mean, however, that those pro-war influences are not still there and not dominant.

    So it would be more accurate to say that the Republican Party and the head of the Democratic Party are both still aggressively pro-war, but the Republican Party is simply put, quite bad at it.

    • REALITY CHECK 101
      REALITY CHECK 101
      July 21, 2016, 7:16 pm

      As for Trump and the GOP you nailed it.

      As for Clinton and the DNC…the salient issue isn’t necessarily “war”, but the carte blanche she’ll award to Bibi and his war party.

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      July 21, 2016, 9:08 pm

      Will either T or C follow the wishes of their parties?

      I don’t vote in the US. (I should, given the influence the US has over Australia.) So, for me, the smoking rubble question is the big issue.
      I expect politicians to take bribes and murder people who make trouble for them. I don’t think it is nice to say rude things about Muslims, but I regard it as preferable to bombing them. Misogyny is bad, but to my way of thinking it is marginally less bad than total nuclear war with Russia and China.

      And, so far, it seems to me that Trump would be the one less likely to ramp up American aggression, regardless of what the Republican Party wants.

  13. dx
    dx
    July 22, 2016, 3:50 am

    Sorry–I don’t have time to read every comment, so maybe someone already said this, but I’ll say it:

    Trump is famous. He’s well known. Everybody knew his name before he ran for president. He was the star of a TV show for years. That went a long way to helping him win. (Hillary Clinton is also famous. So the two most well-known people won.)

    I knew who Sanders was because of his appearances on the Colbert Report. But none of my friends and family that are primary voters knew him. They were suspicious of him–is he for real? How long has held these views? etc. But for me yakking about him, I doubt they’d have voted for him or at all, really, because it seemed like Hillary was a shoe-in.

    Also, Super Tuesday came early and there were a lot of people voting in states where people just didn’t get to hear enough about Sanders to know if they liked him. I’m not so sure Hillary would have done so well in my big state (high minority population) if Sanders had time to cover all the Super Tuesday states well. Super Tuesday put Clinton way ahead early and made her look like a winner.

    (Side note: I find it fascinating how casually folks discuss the American public by racial labels during presidential election seasons, when that sort of generalizing would be considered impolite at best or down right racist if you sliced and diced the public up by color or ethnicity in any other circumstance. We are all equal individuals until voting season when we are just part of our demographic group/herd.)

    Anyway, I do think the “Party” people were in the tank for Clinton all along. All those coin tosses in Iowa went her way–mathematically, that’s very unlikely. Voice votes went her way. Voter rolls adjustments seemed specious. She had a little bit of help here and there to make her look like a bigger winner than perhaps she was–maybe she didn’t really need it or maybe she did. Sure helped her overall “narrative” unless you really followed it closely and knew about the “irregularities”.

  14. Boomer
    Boomer
    July 22, 2016, 10:34 pm

    Sanders did pretty well, considering what he was up against. Better than I expected, better than most expected. Among the things he was up against:

    “Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, called the attempt by the Bernie Sanders campaign to moderate the party’s stance on Israel “disturbing.”

    “A top DNC official also noted that the Hillary Clinton campaign used Israel “to marginalize Bernie.”

    “This is according to an email released by Wikileaks. The whistleblowing journalism organization released approximately 20,000 DNC emails on Friday.”

    More at: http://www.salon.com/2016/07/22/leaked_dnc_email_sanders_attempt_to_moderate_israel_stance_disturbing_clinton_campaign_used_it_to_marginalize_bernie/

  15. John G
    John G
    July 23, 2016, 1:53 am

    It didn’t help Bernie that the DNC machine engaged in massive electoral fraud and that the Mass media helped them both do it and cover it up.

  16. Edward Q
    Edward Q
    July 23, 2016, 7:46 am

    I think Bernie Sanders in principle did win the Primary. Hillary Clinton used fraud and scams to steal the election from him. Electronic voting results are easy to alter and voters were disenfranchised in various ways. Sanders was consistently ahead of his rivals in the polls

  17. calm
    calm
    July 23, 2016, 8:59 am

    The Left is much too polite, and thus appear in TV Land and Mouse Land as a bunch of whimps.

    The Left needs to scream just as loud, just as angrily, as the Tea Party did as they turned up at townhall meetings with guns strapped to their waist.

    The Left is seen whimpering “Duh …. Can’t we all just get along?”

    When the Left watch media stories, they want to see the same tone of anger from their leadership as they feel within their own hearts.

    Anger denotes “commitment”.

    Calm

Leave a Reply