I believe Bernie


UPI/Newscom news photo

Democratic Party presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders shook hands before last night’s debate but declined to do so afterward during an apparent little tiff. If it’s a fight that Warren wants, I say: Bring it!

I think it’s as likely that Bernie Sanders told Elizabeth Warren in private that a woman cannot be elected as president as that he let out a war whoop while giving her a tomahawk chop with his hand over her claim to possess significant Native American ancestry.

Warren stands by her conveniently timed account, whereas Bernie has said that he only told Warren in that private meeting “that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could.” That’s absolutely true.

Warren forces us to believe her or to believe Bernie.

I believe Bernie.

Thing is, Warren’s track record on truthfulness and embellishment is not great. No, falsely claiming Native American heritage is not the biggest political scandal in U.S. history, but it’s not nothing, either.

And when we’re forced to look at character and history, as Warren now has forced us to do, we are reminded that until 1996, Warren was a registered Repugnican. Bernie never has been a Repugnican and has been a progressive his entire time in elected office, which began in 1981. Bernie calls himself a democratic socialist; Warren is still quite in bed with capitalism, which she still somehow defends.

Warren’s probably false claim — false because she’s flat-out lying or false because her memory differs from what actually occurred — that Bernie told her during a private, one-on-one meeting in 2018 that a woman couldn’t win the presidency is just way too convenient of a springboard for her to have pointed out in last night’s Democratic Party presidential debate in Des Moines, Iowa, that none of the male candidates on the stage had defeated a Repugnican incumbent in the last 30 years. (She neglected to tell us during the debate that she herself was a registered Repugnican within the last 25 years…)

Indeed, at the debate last night, Warren, tag-teaming with the insufferable centrist Amy Klobuchar, was on a castrating roll.

To me, to be feminist means to promote the equality of the sexesnot to assert that one sex is better than the other, which women have stated, correctly, has been the problem for centuries: men (and plenty of women, too) believing that men are superior to women at least in some areas, such as to be the commander in chief.

Misandryman-hating, which we saw in Billary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and which an apparently desperate Warren has resurrected just in time for the Iowa caucuses — is not the antidote to misogyny. The equality of the sexes means the equality of the sexes.

That said, I do not believe that Elizabeth Warren could beat “President” Pussygrabber in November 2020. I mean, she might, but if I had to put money on it, I’d bet on her loss to Pussygrabber.

Yes, there are plenty of voters who don’t believe that a woman should be commander in chief — I do not at all share that view (and I could make the argument that a female commander in chief might be less trigger-happy and more mindful of human life and human well-being than a male commander in chief) — but what would sink Warren as the 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate, I believe, is not that she’s a woman, but that Pussygrabber would paint her, very probably successfully, as just another clueless egghead from Massachusetts, a la Michael Dukakis and John Kerry. (Warren was, after all, a professor at Harvard.) Anti-intellectualism is rampant within the U.S. electorate. It’s not fair or right, but it is what it is.

Don’t take just my word for it; the polls also indicate that Warren very well could lose to Pussygrabber in November. Real Clear Politics’ average of match-up polls between Warren and Pussygrabber right now shows Warren at only 0.4 percent ahead of Pussygrabber — while Bernie beats Pussygrabber by 3 percentage points and Joe Biden beats Pussygrabber by 4 percentage points. (In case you were wondering, Pussygrabber beats Pete Buttigieg by 0.7 percent.)

If you truly want to deny “President” Pussygrabber another term, Warren probably is not your best bet. The polling bears that out.

Everything else aside, is the American electorate too sexist to elect a female as president? Perhaps — and recall that many women (most of them right-wing Repugnicans, of course) wouldn’t vote for a female president.

But let’s not blame Bernie Sanders for lingering sexism in the United States — as convenient a whipping boy and punching bag that he is — and if Elizabeth Warren believes that it’s smart to follow the “Bernie bros” page of the Billary Clinton 2016 Playbook, she’s going to find that it’s going to backfire.

And by forcing the Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters to choose between the real, time-tested progressive candidate and the “progressive”-come-lately candidate, Warren will lose.

P.S. In his defense during the debate last night, Bernie said this, in part:

Anybody who knows me knows that it’s incomprehensible that I would think that a woman cannot be president of the United States. Go to YouTube today. There’s a video of me 30 years ago talking about how a woman could become president of the United States.

In 2015, I deferred, in fact, to Senator Warren — [there] was a movement to draft Senator Warren to run for president. And you know what, I stayed back. Senator Warren decided not to run, and I then did run [for president] afterward.

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. How could anybody in a million years not believe that a woman could become president of the United States?

And let me be very clear: If any of the women on this stage or any of the men on this stage win the nomination — I hope that’s not the case, I hope it’s me — but if they do, I will do everything in my power to make sure that they are elected in order to defeat the most dangerous president in the history of our country.

Bernie had stepped aside for Warren — who is too much of a spineless, self-serving party hack to have dared to challenge Queen Billary’s coronation in 2016 — only to have her repay the favor by biting him like the snake in the grass that she is.

Last night’s pre-planned and coordinated-with-CNN “feminist” spectacle during the debate not only damaged Warren’s campaign and reputation, but damaged true feminism by having tried to weaponize it for personal and political gain.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

23 days to Iowa, Bernie leads (oh, and he leads in New Hampshire, too)

Bernie Sanders stands on the Oval Office desk while partying with other potential Cabinet members

A whimsical illustration from a recent Politico piece imagines Bernie Sanders’ first day in the Oval Office. (I don’t know that Elizabeth Warren would be there to celebrate, but hell, she might be.)

With just a bit more than three weeks to go to the Iowa caucuses on February 3, Bernie Sanders is at least slightly leading there in the polls. Real Clear Politics’ average of Iowa polling right now has Bernie at No. 1, with 21.3 percent, Pete Buttigieg at No. 2 with 21 percent, Joe Biden at No. 3 with 17.7 percent, and Elizabeth Warren just behind Biden at No. 4, with 17 percent.

Buttigieg is at No. 2 in RCP’s polling average of Iowa, but he will not be the presidential nominee; nationally, he’s polling at only 7.5 percent, in fourth place. No way could he get the delegates that he’d need to win the nomination.

But if Buttigieg keeps his numbers in Iowa up, he might keep Biden at an embarrassingly weak No. 3 — and if the current polling holds, it’s quite possible for Biden to come in at fourth place in Iowa, behind Bernie, Buttigieg and Warren, which in my belief very well could be the (beginning of the) end of Biden’s campaign, no matter what Biden’s deluded apologists might claim otherwise.

The most recent Iowa poll, and the gold standard of Iowa polls, the Des Moines Register’s, puts Bernie’s lead significantly higher than does RCP’s average of recent Iowa polls. It puts Bernie at No. 1 with 20 percent, Warren at No. 2 with 17 percent, Buttigieg at No. 3 with 16 percent, and Biden at No. 4 with 15 percent.

The Des Moines Register notes of its latest poll, which was conducted from January 2 to January 8:

This poll also brings [Sanders’] highest favorability rating since June — 66 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers have favorable feelings toward him, versus 29 percent with unfavorable feelings. That’s an 11-point increase in net favorability since the November Iowa Poll.

He keeps his locked-in, enthusiastic base of support — a clear advantage over the other leading candidates: 49 percent of his supporters say they’re extremely enthusiastic to caucus for him — 17 percentage points higher than the share for his closest rival, Warren.

And, in what pollster J. Ann Selzer calls his best number of the poll, 59 percent of his supporters say their mind is made up. Warren is once again next, at 48 percent.

“For real, he could win the caucuses,” Selzer said. “His supporters are more committed and more entrenched.”

Bernie also is leading in New Hampshire, which holds its presidential primary election on February 11. Real Clear Politics’ average of recent New Hampshire polling right now has Bernie at No. 1, with 21.5 percent, Biden at No. 2 with 18.8 percent, Buttigieg at No. 3 with 18.3 percent, and Warren at No. 4 with 14.8 percent.

Should Bernie win Iowa, I can’t see him then not winning New Hampshire, and if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, then Bernie will be the nominee; no, the center-right-voting “Democratic” voters of the states of the South and other red states will not save Biden’s ass if Bernie wins Iowa and New Hampshire.

But let’s continue:

The third state to vote is Nevada, which caucuses on February 22. Nevada isn’t polled much, and the last poll conducted there was by Fox “News” from January 5 through January 8. (The Los Angeles Times reports that Fox “News'” polling outfit actually is reputable and reliable, by the way. [I know!]) That poll puts Biden at No. 1, with 23 percent, Bernie at No. 2, with 17 percent, and Warren at No. 3, with 12 percent.

Should Bernie win Iowa and New Hampshire, I can’t see him then not also winning Nevada; Biden’s lead there is not insurmountable should Bernie win Iowa and New Hampshire.

Winning the first three states definitely would seal the deal for Bernie. People ignore what I think of as The Sheeple Effect: voters in subsequent caucusing and primary-voting states are quite susceptible to being influenced by who won (and lost) the preceding states. No one wants to back a loser; everyone (most everyone, anyway) wants to back a winner.

Yes, nationally, Biden is doing better than is Bernie; Real Clear Politics’ average of nationwide polls right now has Biden at No. 1 with 29.3 percent and Sanders at No. 2 with 20.3 percent (poor Liz is at a fairly distant third, with 14.8 percent). If all 50 states voted on the same day and voted soon, yes, Bernie most likely would come in at second place.

But that’s now how it works; the states vote and caucus in staggered chronological fashion, giving the winners upward momentum and the losers downward momentum, which is why the first states to vote and caucus do matter (again: The Sheeple Effect).

All of that said, now that Bernie is leading in Iowa and in New Hampshire, will he be the target of attacks from the “Democratic” establishment hacks who only continue to sell out the masses to our corporate overlords?

Oh, maybe.

But — setting aside the question of whether it’s too late to try to take Bernie down now — political attacks always can backfire, especially attacks on a candidate with high favorability ratings.

And there’s no way that alienated committed Bernie voters would vote for Joe Biden in November 2020.

No, Joe Biden as the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate would be Billary 2.0 — a centrist, milquetoast, wholly unexciting “Democratic” presidential candidate — and “President” Pussygrabber would be guaranteed a second term.

P.S. The prediction market PredictIt.org right now has Bernie winning Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. Yup.

Also, I neglected to mention Tuesday’s Democratic Party presidential primary debate, which will be held in Des Moines, Iowa, and is being co-hosted by CNN and the Des Moines Register. Six candidates have made it to the debate: Biden, Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Sanders, Tom Steyer and Warren.

In my book neither the nonviable Klobuchar nor the nonviable Steyer belongs on the debate stage, but the rules are the rules.

This is the first debate in which Andrew Yang won’t be included (he was included in last month’s debate with the same six who will be in this month’s debate), but while I like him as a person, I don’t see that he belongs on the debate stage, either. Nationally he’s polling only around 3.5 percent (which is ahead of both Klobuchar and Steyer).

With Iowa only about three weeks away, I don’t want to see any more nonviable candidates on a debate stage. (Again, that includes Klobuchar and Steyer as well as Yang, but it is what it is.)

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The treasonous chickenhawks must be made to actually suffer this time

Reuters news photo

“President” Bone Spurs cavalierly will start a war (without the constitutionally required approval of Congress) in which he will lose nothing — but possibly will gain “re”-election. Not that that is treason or anything.

The Washington Post reports today:

Baghdad — Iraq’s prime minister urged parliament [today] to take “urgent measures” to force the withdrawal of foreign forces following a U.S. drone strike that killed a senior Iranian commander and key Iraqi militia leader in Baghdad last week.

In an address to the legislature, Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi recommended that the government establish a timetable for the departure of foreign troops, including the members of the U.S.-led coalition to fight the Islamic State, “for the sake of our national sovereignty.”

“What happened was a political assassination,” Abdul Mahdi said of the U.S. strike that targeted Iran’s elite Quds Force commander, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, as he traveled in a convoy near the Baghdad airport.

Lawmakers responded by passing a nonbinding resolution calling on the government to end the foreign troop presence in Iraq. The United States and Iraq cooperate under a strategic framework agreement whose cancellation requires binding legislation. Iraq’s caretaker government is not legally authorized to sign such a law, Iraqi legal experts said.

The vote [today] did not immediately imperil the U.S. presence in Iraq, but highlighted the headwinds the Trump administration faces after the strikes, which were seen in Iraq as a violation of sovereignty and as a dangerous escalation by governments across the Middle East. …

Indeed, were it not for its oil resources, the elites of the U.S. would ignore Iraq just as they ignore all other nations from which they want nothing. And just as Americans would not be OK with two other foreign nations fighting their proxy wars on American soil, Iraq should be left the fuck alone; troops from any foreign nation don’t fucking belong there unless they are invited there and asked to remain by a true majority of the nation’s people.

And of course “President” Pussygrabber and his band of fellow treasonous mobsters only have politically calculated that a skirmish or even a full-blown war with Iran would bolster Pussygrabber’s chances of “re”-election in November 2020, just as “President” George W. Bush — who, just like Pussygrabber, also lost the popular vote and thus never legitimately was democratically elected as president — launched the Vietraq War in March 2003 in order to bolster his own chances of being “re”-elected in November 2004.

Apparently the road to an unelected “president” being “elected” again runs right through Iraq.

The anti-Vietraq-War protests (in which I participated) were not enough; they were way too peaceful. They did not strike fear into the cold, dead hearts of the chickenhawk traitors in D.C. who so glibly take us to war, always based upon their treasonous lies, knowing that their precious children won’t be the ones to fight the war that they have started — and that they very most likely won’t suffer the fate that a traitor should face, which is execution.*

I mean, you won’t see Ivanka or Eric or Pussygrabber Jr. going to fight in Iraq, that’s for fucking sure. (I leave out Barron not because he isn’t fair game, but because he’s too young to ship off to Iraq, and I feel a bit sorry for the perpetually ignored Tiffany, so I won’t drag her into this. [But you won’t see her going off to Iraq, either, of course…])

What Pussygrabber did — unilaterally take out one Iranian military official for one dead American contractor, thus risking another world war (a world war started for less) — warrants his removal from office.

Of course, he should have been removed from office already, and would have been were it not for his treasonous enablers within the Repugnican Party, which stands for nothing honorable or even just plain fucking decent.

*Yes, if in your official capacity you tell lies that result in the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops for nothing — and cause tens of thousands of civilian deaths — you should be executed just as you would have been executed at Nuremberg for your war crimes.

I generally am against the death penalty, but for war crimes and other crimes against humanity? You deserve to die. Maybe, then, the next despot will fucking think twice before abysmally abusing his or her power.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Don't support our stormtroopers

Members of the Sturmabteilung (German for “Storm Detachment”) — Adolf Hitler’s stormtroopers (a.k.a. “Brownshirts”) who were key to his rise to power — march through German streets in the mid-1930s. Yes, this can happen here.

So this happened recently (via The Associated Press):

A police chief in the south Alabama city of Mobile is apologizing for an officer’s social media post appearing to ridicule homeless people that was shared widely over the holidays.

The Facebook post showed two Mobile Police officers, holding what the post called a “homeless quilt” made of cardboard signs that apparently had been confiscated from panhandlers around the city, according to media outlet al.com.

“Wanna wish everybody in the 4th precinct a Merry Christmas, especially our captain. Hope you enjoy our homeless quilt! Sincerely, Panhandler patrol,” the post read.

Mobile police chief Lawrence Battiste apologized for the post, calling it an “insensitive gesture.”

“Although we do not condone panhandling and must enforce the city ordinances that limit panhandling, it is never our intent or desire as a police department to make light of those who find themselves in a homeless state,” Battiste said. …

“It is never our intent or desire as a police department to make light of those who find themselves in a homeless state.” Really? Because that is exactly what they did. Here is the aforementioned Facebook post:

They took the time to tape all of those beggars’ signs together and then post a photo of it on Facebook! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Homelessness is funny!

Note the oddly tattered “thin blue line”/”blue lives matter” flag in the background. To me, this symbol is a white-supremacist message hiding behind a supposedly innocent, genuine concern for our cops. The wingnuts would fly the Nazi flag and/or the Confederate flag if they could, but they can’t, so the “thin blue line” flag will have to do as a thinly veiled white-supremacist message.

Is the photo above (literally) the picture of right-wing white-male privilege or what?

Why the “concern” for our cops? It is because their No. 1 function is not to protect and to serve — not us serfs, anyway — but is to uphold the insanely unjust socioeconomic status quo — which is why the right wing dutifully and instinctively gets on its hands and knees for the cops. After all, they would need someone to protect them should there ever be a true revolution of the downtrodden in the United States.

As far as the homeless go, in full disclosure, I hate seeing homeless people, and there are plenty of them in the California city where I live; if I leave my abode for any length of time, I’m going to see a homeless person (several of them, usually, actually).

But what enrages me is not the homeless themselves, but the fact that my working-class tax dollars should go toward helping these people, not toward helping those who don’t need my help, such as businesses and the already rich and/or powerful, including, of course, those of the military-corporate complex (in which I’ll include our wonderful cops, since the line between the cops and the military over time only becomes more and more blurred, as fascism more and more takes root in the United States).

Also, aside from the human suffering that I see pretty much daily, I am bothered by homelessness because I repeatedly am struck by the fact that we call ourselves a “Christian” nation when Jesus Christ, as described in the New Testament and in his own quoted words, clearly was a socialistnot a social-Darwinian capitalist, as are the vast majority of Americans who call themselves “Christians.”

And some things never change — just as the Roman soldiers who reportedly crucified Jesus were just following marching orders from the elites above them, today’s cops just follow marching orders from our elitist overlords (such as to persecute the homeless, especially when they infringe upon business).

Today’s cops are authoritarian thugs who don’t think much (if at all), but who just blindly follow orders in order to receive their rewards like Pavlov’s dog; don’t expect much sociopolitical analysis from them.

And while the right has a problem with left-wingers working within the taxpayer-funded government, we’re supposed to wholly ignore the fact that our tax dollars routinely support abject wingnuts in law enforcement and in the military, including the Navy-SEAL murderer whom Der Fuhrer Pussygrabber recently pardoned for his war crimes.

Der Fuhrer Pussygrabber clearly meant to send a message to his white-supremacist supporters (redundant) that whatever the right-wing white men do in the military — or on our increasingly militarized streets here at home — is A-OKas long as they support him and his unelected regime. (They protect him and he’ll protect them — but no quid pro quo, bro!)

We forget at our own peril that Adolf Hitler rose to power only because from early on he had the blind, steadfast support of jackbooted thugs who were perfectly willing to do his bidding because of the rewards they envisioned for themselves.

This “thin blue line” bullshit is just a dipping of the fascist toe into the public waters.

Yes, it can happen here — if we just let it.

P.S. How could I forget our “friends” in the “correctional” field? They’re cut from the same authoritarian, fascist cloth from which those in law enforcement and the military are cut.

Here’s the lovely image of the “correctional” cadets in West Virginia who apparently thought it funny to perform the Nazi salute in a group photo in November:

And we are to entrust the rights and the dignity of the downtrodden (prisoners are among the downtrodden whom Jesus told us to take care of) to these incredibly insensitive individuals who clearly are going to go with whatever the group is doing. (Hey, it’s what Jesus would have wanted!)

Perhaps worse, the “correctional” instructional “leader” for whom the “joke” photo was created said that she saw nothing wrong with it. What possibly could be wrong with a group of would-be public servants giving the Nazi salute?

When I talk about fascism taking root here, this is exactly the kind of shit that I’m talking about: the routine expression of far-right-wing ideology on the public’s dime.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Uncle Joe would give away the store

Getty Images news photo

When he isn’t putting his mouth on his wife’s fingers like an Alzheimer’s patient on the “presidential” campaign trail, Joe Biden is saying shit such as that he’d gladly have a Repugnican running mate. And this addle-brained dinosaur is No. 1 nationally in the polls.

Ongoing shit like this is among the reasons that I left the Democratic Party and became an independent after the Democratic Party establishment fucked over Bernie Sanders in 2016:

The New York Times reported this the other day:

Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is accustomed to fielding questions from voters about picking a running mate. But on Monday, he was asked a particularly provocative one: Would he consider choosing a Republican as his vice president?

“The answer is I would, but I can’t think of one now,” Biden said at a town hall-style event in Exeter, New Hampshire, drawing laughter from the crowd.

Biden then elaborated on what he meant. “There’s some really decent Republicans that are out there still, but here’s the problem right now of the well-known ones: They’ve got to step up,” he said.

Biden has emphasized the need for a future Democratic president to work with Republicans, stressing the importance of consensus in order to get things done.

That viewpoint has been criticized by some liberals who see it as an unacceptable embrace of the status quo and think Biden is naïve about trying to work with Republicans.

But choosing a Republican to be his running mate would be a far more grievous act in the eyes of many Democrats, something many party officials and both liberal and moderate activists would oppose. …

Indeed, that Biden has claimed that he even would consider the idea of a Repugnican running mate shows that he should not be the 2020 Democratic candidate for president.

Where to begin?

First and foremost, should Biden die while in the Oval Office — a real possibility, given that he is 77 years old now and would be 78 if he became president — we’d then have a new Repugnican president. A Repugnican president when the voters had elected a Democratic president.

Secondly, this is a risk that the Repugnicans never would take — allowing a Democratic vice president to become president should the Repugnican president die or otherwise have to leave office.

We’re supposed to blindly root for the Democrats even after they have demonstrated, time and time again, that they’ll sell us out to the Repugnicans at the drop of a hat. They’ll vigorously wave that white flag of surrender before the battle has even begun.

Thirdly, Biden was there for Barack Obama’s presidency. Presumably Biden was paying some attention. Did he truly not get how the vastly overconfident Obama’s “Kumbaya” bullshit with the Repugnicans failed miserably? Does Biden truly not understand by now that you don’t negotiate with terrorists, because they do nothing in good faith?

What the fucking fuck?

Biden claiming that he’d be open to the “right” Repugnican as his running mate does not make Biden look magnanimous and wise. It makes him look incredibly politically retarded.

As an apparent function of his apparent cognitive decline, Biden is not living in the political world of today; he’s living in some bipartisan fantasy world of the past, if such a bipartisan fantasy world ever really ever existed at all.

And don’t even get me started on how very apparently Biden is just another comfortable “Democrat” who sees no problem in continuing to sell out the masses to the right wing because hey, his life is comfortable!

The world is changing too rapidly and the multiple dangers to all human beings and to the planet itself are too grave for us to have Mr. Magoo as president. Hell, it’s even worse than Mr. Magoo: Mr. Magoo is literally blind, whereas Uncle Joe just refuses to see.

Come January 2021, I want to see President Sanders in the White House — with a Democratic vice president just in case, thank you very much, and fuck you very much, Joe Biden.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized


The “president” is a yuuuge tumor not only on the Repugnican Party, and not only on the nation as a whole, but even on the entire planet.

What a great early Christmas present: the impeachment of “President” Pussygrabber.

I’ll keep this short and simple and (as always) sweet, since this doesn’t need much elaboration:

The “president” is a mob boss. Always has been, always will be. We knew this before he was “elected” — I use quotation marks because he lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes. (He never was legitimate — we don’t have a democracy if every vote does not count — and the Electoral College must be abolished and we must elect our presidents by the popular vote only.)

When Robert Mueller pussed out and gave the “president” only a slap on the wrist in his final report on Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election to help Pussygrabber, Pussygrabber was so emboldened that he immediately set out to steal the 2020 presidential election as well.

The vast majority of those in the U.S. House of Representatives coming to Pussygrabber’s defense have been bat-shit-crazy right-wing white males, of course. (The usual suspects, indeed.) Watching these weak, pathetic, treasonous suck-ups fall over each other to defend Der Fuhrer the most for the past several weeks has been instructive, and I didn’t think that I needed any more instruction. (I didn’t, but I sure got it.)

Of course, it will be mostly the same demographic in the U.S. Senate who will save Pussygrabber’s ass — bat-shit-crazy right-wing white males drunk on their stupid-white-male privilege.

“President” Pussygrabber is a stage-IX malignant tumor that should have been removed long, long ago, but thanks to the tyrant-loving traitors in the U.S. Senate, he will remain in place until we, the people, finally excise him in November 2020.

And the history books (except perhaps those used in Texas and the other red states) will say of “President” Pussygrabber that he did not win the popular vote but was saved by the backasswards Electoral College, that the House of Representatives impeached him but that the Repugnican-controlled Senate refused to remove him from office, and that he was another sad-sack one-term “president” after having been beaten soundly in the presidential election of 2020.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The inevitable impeachment is great news — and no, Bernie isn't Jeremy

No, Bernie Sanders does not equal Jeremy Corbyn. For starters, while Corbyn is much more unpopular in the United Kingdom than is Boris Johnson, Bernie Sanders is much more popular in the United States than is “President” Pussygrabber.

I’ve long supported the impeachment of “President” Pussygrabber. He’s not our president; not only was he not elected by the most voters, but he is a mob boss. He simply has continued his life-long criminality into the White House, and to his long list of crimes we can add treason. Plenty of treason.*

That said, I’ve also always known that the Repugnican traitors (redundant) in the U.S. Senate never would remove a member of their own wingnutty party, pretty much no matter what he’d done.

Still, impeachment is necessary if we give a flying fuck about such trifles as the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law.

I’ve only sporadically listened to the live coverage of the House impeachment hearings via NPR. I never felt that I needed to attend to every detail, as Pussygrabber is, of course, as guilty as sinthe transcript of his infamous, treasonous, quid-pro-quo July phone call with the Ukrainian president that the White House itself publicly released amply shows that, and that’s only one of his many crimes — and as the Repugnican-controlled Senate won’t remove him, no matter what.

Listening to Pussygrabber’s Repugnican buttboys (perhaps most prominently Sens. Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell and Reps. Devin Nunes, Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz) lie for him like pathological liars on crack, however, has been interesting. It’s been a veritable gaslighting marathon: What you have seen with your own eyes and what you have heard with your own ears? You’re wrong! Let us tell you what you have seen and heard!

The Repugnicans will get their short-term “victory” — Pussygrabber won’t be removed from the Oval Office before January 2021, when, very hopefully, the American voters will have done the job — but one does have to wonder what the Repugnican Party’s pathological lying in pursuit of defending a treasonous, uber-corrupt “president” will do for it in the long term.

And of course when Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party did not win the UK election this past week, U.S. “pundits” were quick to say that of course this means that no progressive (that is, Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren) possibly could win the U.S. presidency in November 2020.

Except that this isn’t the UK.

There are philosophical and political parallels between the Labour Party and the Democratic Party and the Conservative Party and the Repugnican Party, of course, but we’re talking about two separate nations with different histories that are separated by a wide fucking ocean.

The United States is not in the midst of anything like a “Brexit,” and while Jeremy Corbyn is pretty fucking unpopular — Boris Johnson has a negative favorability rating in most polls, but Corbyn’s negative favorability rating in most polls is much higher** — comparing him to Bernie (or to Warren) is incredibly sloppy at best.

There has been socialism in Europe, but never has there been socialism in the United States (with the exception, perhaps, of some Native American societies). The historical contexts of the two nations are quite different; Americans cannot point to socialism ever actually having failed in the United States because we’ve never actually even had socialism.

And Bernie Sanders — and all of the top-tier candidates for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination — are significantly more popular than is Pussygrabber. Here is a graph from a fivethirtyeight.com piece from just yesterday:

“Trump remains really unpopular — far more than any of the leading Democratic presidential candidates,” notes fivethirtyeight.com, adding:

But Democrats’ net favorability ratings have taken a hit. As you can see in the chart above, even though Biden, Sanders, Warren and Buttigieg are nowhere near as unpopular as Trump, their net favorability ratings have trended downward recently.

This isn’t totally surprising, though, as my colleague Geoffrey Skelley noted a few weeks ago: Many presidential candidates’ net favorability ratings have been negative or close to zero since at least 2008, a sign, perhaps, of the polarized times we live in.

Of course, there is still time for public perception to change (in either direction) between now and November. But if the polls are any indication, opinions of the Democratic candidates seem much more likely to shift than opinions of Trump. That might be because people’s opinions of the Democratic candidates aren’t nearly as entrenched. …

Again, Corbyn is much more unpopular than is Johnson. As elections still so often amount to popularity contests rather than contests of ideas, that is no tiny detail. (Thankfully, Corbyn is stepping down as the leader of the Labour Party.***)

In the U.S., it is the opposite: the top four Democratic presidential candidates all have significantly higher favorability ratings than does Pussygrabber.

And, again, not only has the post-colonial U.S. never been socialist, but a President Sanders (I love the sound of that!) of course very probably could not usher in a socialist utopia.

If he had both houses of Congress in his party’s control, President Sanders could make some significant improvements in the average American’s life — our Americans’ biggest enemies, after all, are not each other or other nations, but are the treasonous corporations that attack us from within — but within the next few decades we are likely to see, at best and at most, a hybrid of capitalism and socialism, in which basic human needs (medical care, food, water, shelter, education, etc.) are covered by a socialist system while capitalism continues its dominance over pretty much everything else.

But, of course, those who protect the status quo — because they personally benefit from the pro-corporate, anti-individual socioeconomic status quo or because they’re just sheeple who think the way that Faux “News” tells them to think (even if that makes them just like chickens that support Colonel Sanders [no relation to Bernie!]) — want us progressives to give up before the game has even begun.

And one of their “arguments” is that Jeremy Corbyn = Bernie Sanders. Except that that’s complete and utter bullshit.

Where Corbyn failed in the UK, we progressives can prevail here in the United States. We just can’t lie down and allow our enemies to keep walking all over us in perpetuity, as they want us to do.

*My definition of “treason” is broad, such as dictionary.com’s No. 2 and No. 3 definitions: “a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state” and “the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.”

**This fact does remind me of the November 2016 U.S. presidential election, in which both Billary Clinton and Pussygrabber were underwater in their favorability ratings. Our “choice” of president was bad (Billary) or even worse (Pussygrabber).

***I haven’t studied Corbyn nearly enough to have a super-informed opinion of him, but clearly, it’s indisputable that he is poison at the ballot box.

And at least we can’t call the ethnically Jewish Bernie Sanders anti-Semitic, as Corbyn has been called, whether he is or not. (Again, I haven’t studied Corbyn much, but the charge of anti-Semitism, whether it is accurate or not, often is bandied about in order to damage one’s political opponent.)

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized